Archive for the ‘Atheism’ Category

Evidence in Creation

May 23, 2017

(This is my reaction to fellow libertarian Gloria Alvarez’s video on why she is an atheist, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpB_aQL6g5w )

El verdadero metodo scientifico requiere una serie de pasos que se pueden repetir para legar a los mismos resultados.
La “teoria” de la gravedad es un ejemplo de algo que se presta para pruebas en el mundo fisico que se pueden repetir.
Por lo tanto, y a la par de tantas evidencias forensicas de naturaleza fisica, scientifica, historica, requiere mucha “fe ciega” concluir que no hay en dise~no intentional en la Creacion.

Erase un tiempo en que yo tambien volvi ateo, pero los hechos, la sciencia, hechos historicos, y la logica me volvieron a creer en Dios y es mas en la Biblia.

(I used to be atheist myself, but then followed facts, science, history and logic back to belief in God and then the Bible.

(Note that the true and honest scientific method requires being able to repeat an experiment that corroborates the theory. Rinse and repeat as we say. But origins of the universe, or the solar system, are not repeatable to test theories about their origins. Scientists have no clue how to go about testing the origins of life. (The first test was by Louis Pasteur who proved “life only comes from life”)

And the only experiment in many-generations evolution produces changes within the original kind, the E. Coli experiment.

Gloria, you are a fantastic spokeswoman for liberty in Latin America, but your atheism falls short of the same logical rationality that supports Austrian economics and personal liberty. May I suggest you take another honest look at the evidence that convinced Antony Flew to believe in God, after a lifetime of being the foremost spokesman for atheism? I think he said DNA was the clincher but there was more than just that too.

PLEASE DO, JUST CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT TEACH YOU IN SCHOOLS.

EVIDENCE? YOU WANT EVIDENCE? OKAY!

#1. BIG BANG. Most scientists believe in the origins theory of the Big Bang, but the Big Bang requires something they call “Inflation”. The Big Bang is a retro-fit they deduce logically from the present state of the universe and its apparent expansion. But the same principles also leads back logically to the beginning from the singularity. The logic then requires “Inflation”. But that Inflation requires a suspension of the same rules of physics that requires the Big Bang to explain origins. But they MUST believe in Inflation because they have no alternative if they are to avoid saying the word “Creation”. FAIL.

#2. ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE. The weak atheist explanation for the anthropic principle is to restate the principle as a circularity. “The universe has a set of independent physics constants that make it look like it is made to support life, because we exist”. I doubt even Descartes would stop there. That’s lazy thinking.
==> Why do a dozen or more independent(!), and fine-tuned(!) different physics constants line up perfectly to make life even possible, even if spontaneous biogenesis is even more statistically improbable than Luis Pasteur could know?
Just an example: Change the gravitational constant by a fraction of 10 to the minus 38th power, and then planets, stars, life would be impossible. (The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the perfectly exact polar-opposite equality of charge of an electron vs. proton, the Plank length, speed of light, electromagnetic force, peculiar attributes of carbon, peculiar attributes of water, , etc.)

And there is Isaac Newton, who said that just the fact that physical universal constants exist in the first place are proof that God made it.

 

#3. PRIVILEGED PLANET. Earth has the optimal combination of two very important environmental factors: (1) life-supporting factors, and (2) observability out into the universe, and (3) equilibrium-balancing factors.

(1) Life-supporting and protecting:
–a– Gravity,
–b– magnetic core supporting the Van Allen protective belts preventing harm from solar and cosmic radiation,
–c– the exact composition of the atmosphere,
–d– right amount of water,
–e– in the “Goldilocks zone” distance from the sun (supporting liquid water),
–f– unique properties of water that uniquely freeze top-down instead of bottom-up, allowing life to survive in the polar zones, and temperate zones, and provide a perfect medium for biochemical activity,
–f– protection from cosmic bombardment by placement so far from the center of the galaxy, and by the planet Jupiter and even Saturn and Uranus sucking in many of the objects from space that would end life on Earth at least human life,

(2) Observability
–a– Observations of the universe have supported scientific observations in physics and other disciplines, meaning no opaque cloud cover like with Venus, Jupiter, outer giants (this also allows the sun to power life on the surface),
–b– in the outer reaches of the galaxy in one of the spiral arms, meaning the sky is not so cluttered as to hide the universe,
–c– positioned where we can see the universe, providing navigational aids for humans traveling.

(3) Equilibrium
–a– Oxygen and carbon dioxide are balanced by the life on the surface, below the surface, and in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide compressors are on the market if you want to give your plants a growth boost, and CO2 is starting to stabilize the southward march of the Sahara desert. The ice caps and glaciers are stabilizing mechanisms, not just measures of global temperature trends…
—b— The Earth’s magnetic field balances out solar and cosmic radiation in our favor.
—c— The moon not only provides a light for the night, it also interacts to give us our tides in the ocean and in water, and supports movement in the ground that replenishes fertility in the ground and in the water.

#4. ORIGINS OF LIFE

DNA, RNA, Cells, Statistical Improbability: things that have to line up at the same time for life’s origins.

Darwinian evolutionists (by which I mean molecules-to-man ancestry) claim that Darwinian evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life itself, although they did before creation scientists forced them to admit they have no clue as to even imagine how it could have started, enough to form a convincing argument.

(a) DNA is a huge testimony to design. It requires a completely digital computing environment and a specific interpreter language comparable to Basic or Python or Ruby, and even “natural language”. The amino acids known as A, T, C, and G that make up the genetic alphabet and their specific properties per se have nothing to do with the actual functions that they are associated with. They have to be interpreted, expressed, by messenger RNA, into the many compounds that go to work in the cell.

(b)mRNA: DNA means nothing without corresponding mRNA to interpret it, and neither of them are able to do anything without a supporting cellular environment. Even a virus has to piggy-back on an organism’s cellular machinery to do anything.

(c) And then, after you have DNA, mRNA, the cellular environment (skipping steps of protein manufacture, energy providers, etc), you have to make sure you have an autonomous biological unit to begin with (a cell at least, for origins), that has the attributes of self-nourishing, self-reproducing, self-protecting. ====> Even the apparently most primitive cell in nature has “only” 525 genes. Laboratory work seems to indicate that between 250 and 300 genes are the absolute minimum for a cell to function and reproduce.

(d) With all that you still have to have those amino acids in EVERY gene ALL line up in what biologists call “left-handed” versions, because none of them are “right-handed” in our world. Try calculated 2×2 for each amino acid in the sequence and see if you get less than the atoms in the universe. Mathematicians told biologists in one joint conference that they needed something other than “natural selection” to explain life because of this.

Crystals do not match up to cell machinery. Crystals form when like molecules “fall into place” based on the same microscopic forces that result in molecules. Water cannot spontaneously form snowflakes, they form based on the electrochemical properties of its components. How can you get DNA, mRNA, and cellular machinery from that?

#5. ORIGINS OF SPECIES

(1) E COLI EXPERIMENT. There is a lab experiment underway that has a closed environment where E. Coli has been reproducing itself since 24 February 1988. As of 66,000 generations of reproduction, they have had some mutations happen. This is the kind of “evolution” that Creation scientists also forcefully emphasize happens. But they still have E. Coli, they don’t even have a different kind of bacteria.

(2) IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. Charles Darwin admitted for one item of evidence that would disprove his “Origins” theory. That would be an organic structure that did not admit for discrete steps of changes to create it from primitive precursors.

Biologist Michael Behe gave several examples of such irreducible complexity in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Not just the complex macro-machinery of the eye of a human requires some imaginary acrobatics, but the conversion of ONE PHOTON hitting a retina cell, to the nerve message to the brain, and the restoration to prepare for the next photon, requires at least 12 different complex steps, all in place, all the time, simultaneously.

Try coming up with that from a small light-sensitive spot on the skin, by steps that work for some useful “selected” purpose and don’t kill the organism along the way.

(3) ** Forward planning –
Scientists in Spain found that roundworms can transmit environmental information, in this case temperature information, to future offspring, through as many as at least 12 generations, using “transgenes” and tags to keep the data on the shelf as if “until needed”. This corroborates an earlier theory of creation biologists that species actually “experiment” (trial and error, apparently) with this “unused” (unexpressed) genes in times of environmental stress.

(4) FOSSIL RECORD. Stephen Gould, evolutionary biologist, declared that the fossil record only shows STASIS, not the expected evolutionary changes. There is variation within what creationists call “kinds” as described in Genesis, meaning all canine species descended from one original “wolf-kind”.

This is the ONLY true forensic science that an origins theory can be tested against. Changes from a photo-mammal to apes and rats are NOWHERE to be found in fossils. The historical humanoid finds are fraught with frauds, hoaxes, including a Lucy skeleton put together by pounding away at his bones with a chisel so it would fit, and a Chinese peasant making fools of biologists everywhere with a bit of plaster.

(5) DINO FLESH

A scientist working at one of the biggest fossil digs in the world in Montana discovered FLESH in the fossils, actually BLOOD VESSELS. (Crichton didn’t have to use amber after all in Jurassic Park, maybe?) The scientist that made the discovery says that her first impression on arriving at the dig was that it had a very strong STINK. Despite the stink, despite the flesh, she still affirmed that this fleshly membrane is the requisite 60 million years old.

+++++++++++++++++++++
——I’ll abbreviate the rest, there is way way too much evidence that the politically enforce theories of origins now taught in politically controlled academia is wrong. (Yes, scientists are also humans, too) +++++++++++++++++++++

#6. GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY.

(a) Inverted strata, where textbook geological layers are “inverted”, the “older” one above the “younger” one.

(b) “POLYSTRATE FOSSILS”? Fossils that span geological layers supposedly millions of years apart. They abound in the Grand Canyon, and they are visible. Fossilization cannot happen that way. One professor was quoted as saying he hopes creationists don’t find out about this.

(c) WATER FLOWS DOWN NOT UP. The river that supposedly cut open the Grand Canyon has its source at an altitude that is significantly lower than the topmost points in the Canyon.

(d) RADIOISOTOPE DATING requires about 20 assumptions involving a long-ages historical constant rate of decay and many other premises that are taken as given. Scientists have now discovered that changes in both cosmic and solar radiation cause the rates of decay of such isotopes to change. Geologists have said this is the “most reliable” dating indicator.

(e) “POLONIUM HALOS” were called “natures’ tiny little mysteries” under oath by an anti-creation scientist, but they have no explanation for them. By their own dating methods they are evidence of same-as-instantaneous creation.

Whose baby is it?

November 27, 2016

Whose body is it? DNA says the baby in the womb is not the mother. Using semantics references and dictionary definitions do not provide escape from the reality.

I make no claim over the mother’s body or property. The baby postpartum is just as helplessly dependent.

An illustration of the logical  problem of semantics. An expectant mother calls her baby as “baby”, the Planned Barrenhood saleswoman calls it “the mother’s body”.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I am totally against any neighborhood  abortion watch doing forced pregnancy tests to prevent abortions.

But the right of pro-lifers to share the facts that Planned Barrenhood and other beneficiaries of the prenatal infanticide industry hide, and to share their perspective to expecting mothers. Like how many parents are on the waiting lists to adapt.

And to promote works like Crisis Pregnancy Centers that help mothers through to birth and early motherhood.

It’s easier for Christians to see through the language manipulation, but there are a great many atheists too who are horrified by induced abortions, especially the brutal procedures of late-term prenatal infanticide.

Questions and comments from rapturenotes.com with explanations

May 16, 2015

The below questions and comments are from a comments page at www.rapturenotes.com and possibly other places…

Below, see my responses for those who seek truth…

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

I just want to ask about the new heaven and new earth.

1. Will the people who have been saved go to a new heaven or new earth?

–Yes. The new heaven descends at the end of what we call “The Millenium” and rests upon the earth. This is seen in Revelation 21 and 22.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

2. Will the 144,000 live on earth or in heaven during the millennium?

–The 144,000 refers to God’s generals and leaders during the Tribulation time. In chapter 7 of Revelation is the voice of the angel that orders that the plagues wait in abeyance “until we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.”

That’s apparently a spiritual anointing for some such that they escape the plagues, or get special protection of some kind against the harm of the seven judgments of the trumpets.

Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

3. Are paradise and the new heaven the same?

There is a “paradise” that does not wait for the end of “The Millenium”. Luke 23:43 ( And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.). And 2 Cor 12:4 (How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.)

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

4. What can you say about the passages in Matthew 27:52-53? Was it the first rapture? Was it a partial rapture?

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose–Matt 27:52

That was the first Resurrection. The power unleashed in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ arrived to many saints who arose when he did. There is no more mention of them later; they likely were simply taken up as Elijah was taken up, and Enoch, at that time..

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

(quoting…) I am a Seventh Day Adventist. I would like to point out that Ellen White is not infallible and above scripture. Today’s SDA church is as mainstream as any other denomination. If we were to go looking for cult like churches I think more concern could be directed at the numerous Pentecostal movements.

You are wrong, just like everyone of the prophesy morons who follow CI Schofields’ false teaching of a 7 year tribulation.
…(Should I stay the moron you say I am, or change to become like your good self? Now that’s a tough one…)

Scofield’s teaching about the Tribulation was wrong on many counts. For one thing, noting the division of those seven years at the end of Daniel 9, one can see that the placing of the “abomination of desolation” by the Antichrist in the “temple” at the middle of the seven years begins the time of trouble “spoken of by Daniel the prophet” and referenced by Jesus.

In other words and with corroboration of the time period in days, months and years, we see that repeated several places in Daniel and Revelation.

I don’t call anybody a moron. The “cult” word is thrown about by gossips and backbiters as a euphemism for more personal insults like “moron”.

I was raised in a Pentecostal church, my Dad was a loving pastor, and they know they have something to get really excited about. The ones who do more unorthodox things like the fads of laughing fits are few and passing, but others like to concentrate on them. In other ways, some Baptist spokesmouths tend to disdain for the gift of tongues. The Holy Spirit is very obviously and clearly regarded by scripture as distinct from salvation, but God gives it for the asking as promised. (No purchase necessary, no tongues necessary any more than tongues of fire)

Anyway there are only two important doctrine types of Christians among the thousands of “denominations”. Those who believe their continued works earn their place in Heaven (after a bow to grace in rebirth), and two, those who believe that salvation is by grace for those who believe in Him, and that works are only fruits of salvation. “That none should boast”.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

I have been praying but have been having real problems sleeping after. Why is this?

I have no idea why you cannot sleep, so that is something you can ask the Lord to show you in those prayers. It reminds me of a counsel from a wise Christian writer, who said if you can’t sleep it’s a sign that the Lord wants you to pray for someone. You can pray as you lay down as well. “Pray without ceasing”, anyway. It’s a beautiful way to sleep.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

Is having a relationship with God only through prayer? Your site says church membership is not needed but don’t you have to worship with other people? What about being a lukewarm Christian?

A relationship with God is in everything you do. Jesus never said to build church buildings, the “church” in the epistles were the groups of Christians in each area that mostly lived together (Acts 2, Acts 4). But Jesus did say to “Make disciples of all nations”.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

The Seventh Day Adventist church is the ONLY true mainline church in existence.

Being a “mainline” church is nothing to brag about. Their salvation doctrine is one of works. But I will give them credit that they seem to be clear in their belief of the Bible in Genesis, the Creation week, the Flood, and so on. They have not compromised that.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

I have long suffered under the misconception that all men were missing a rib, and just had an argument with my daughter about it, which I lost. Men and women have the same number of ribs. Your explanation is an eye opener as to why men and women both need and complement each other.

Adam could have one more rib than we do now. Or he simply had one less after God’s operation. There is no detail on this there in Genesis. It’s irrelevant. I lot of people believed that though.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

I appreciate this site very much. I wanted to know your opinion concerning Darwinism.

…(It seems the evolutionists are slowly losing the battle to prove their theory. It’s interesting that the Vatican and others are preparing to welcome extraterrestrials, and most people now believe in UFO’s etc. I think the coming great deception spoken of in the bible may well be, that we humans were ‘planted’ here by an alien form of life from somewhere else in the galaxy)

Darwinism is the Big Lie of the Devil. During the 20th century it was one of the biggest reasons youth left their faith. It was one of the biggest objections to the Bible. It was a “gateway drug” to atheism for youth during the Christian-dominated culture of the 19th century. Some big Darwinian name said once that Darwin’s theory gave them intellectual permission (his words i believe) to embrace atheism. Another one said people embraced Darwinism because faith “interfered with their sexual mores” (or something like that).

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

I’m confused about Antichrist’s and the False Prophet’s origins.

…(You’re in good company. The leading eschatologists of today are still in debate as to where the Antichrist will come from. The predominant view seems to be that he will emerge from a revived Roman Empire (the European Union). I lean to that view myself, but I’ve read good arguments about his coming from Syria, a future Assyria, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Germany and of course, the good old U.S.A. There is also the theory that the antichrist may actually be purely demonic in origin. As to the false prophet, many believe that he will be a future Pope. Time will tell. I still think much of this could be tied to some sort of deceptive revealing of a so called benevolent intervention into human affairs from an extra terrestrial (actually demonic) source. Fortunately, no-one seems to think the antichrist or the false prophet will come from Australia, which is comforting, as we have enough crooks here already. As with much bible prophecy, the BIG picture is clear, but many minor details are still fuzzy, yet to come into focus)

Most Christians are sorely mistaken on Bible prophecy. The best interpretation of the prophecies indicate that both the Antichrist and False Prophet are humans; the Antichrist appears to be Satan-possessed. There is some indication of the origins of Antichrist in Daniel 8. One of the four divisions of the Greek Empire after Alexander is what it says there.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

The Mayans and all their similar ilk seem to have a good amount of egg on their collective faces, but lo and behold….the Word of the Lord still stands true.

Lots of witches and psychics are proven wrong over and over again throughout history, no more prophetic than a Chinese fortune cookie. BUT NOTE that many students of the Mayan calendar said the doomsday interpretations were wrong.

The fall of the Mayan culture, and the fall of many others, shows that the increase in science and knowledge is not inevitable. Secular sources say drought or this or that blah blah and they don’t know. The fact of human sacrifice by Mayans toward the end to false gods was put front and center by Mel Gibson’s movie Apocalypto.

<<<<<<<<———————–>>>>>>>>>>

Godspeed.

The universe created itself and us in it? Now, that’s faith!

May 15, 2015

Okay, so the rebuttal is done to the defense of the circular presumption of Big Bang theories is rebutted. The defense was that no knowledge is “required” to reject supernaturalism.

Again, note that no knowledge whatsoever is “required” to reject the spontaneous self-made universe, either.

BLIND FAITH is necessary to believe the universe exploded into existence from a null, a nothing that was nowhere and in a literal sense was never, because there was no time until the beginning of time, “when” it happened.  That’s according to the millenia-old superstition that some Greeks described.  most materialistic cosmologists

THAT is supernaturalism. That is mysticism. That is faith in something so mysterious you avoid talking about what it might be because you’re afraid it is.. that it is… (well, you know)…

Questioner says, “certainly as gravitational effects increase, time can slow down, so we can plausibly posit that “before the big bang” might be a non-sequitor.” But this is precisely one of the elements of a Creationist astrophysicist’s theory for the Creation week. He’s only the one that predicted on the button the strength of the magnetic field of the outer gas giants before the probe arrived, while NASA’s billionaire team of smart guys were exponentially off.

So some physicists like Russ Humphreys do have “some pretty good ideas”, like don’t think the way you’re told, but think according to facts and science and what has always proven true.

Nobody needs a “special pleading” about God being outside time and space. It’s the answer to the stupid question anti-Creationists always ask, where did God come from. He’s the Creator. He’s the God of the Bible. The Bible matches measurable, provable repeatable science more than any “philosophical framework” and its believers cultivated the good science of recent centuries, the incubator for great inventions and advancements of today. And the culture of individualism and liberty.

And so having an answer, you still pose the same irrelevant questions about God’s origins, when you already have the answer. His “origin” is an oxymoron, he’s the Creator of the universe, and Einstein’s and Stephen Hawking’s theories should make clear that “time” itself should be considered part of this universe, and co-existent with it. Without four dimensions nothing exists here.

Scientists have no trouble imagining multiple universes in their materialistic fantasies, so this is willful ignorance, again. They even have no trouble, as with quantum physics, imagining something as existing in multiple states except inasmuch as it manifests through our observation of it. Fascinating how much we find parallels in the physical world to the spiritual truths.

Antony Flew, unfortunately for him, came to faith in a Creator God late in life. The obviously designed universe, more so the obvious intelligent design manifest in life, is just too much in one’s face. It takes faith to reject the design in biology.

Never mind “supernatural”, call it natural. I think God is natural, He is simply part of what surrounds us. Like Jesus said about “spiritual things”, it’s like the wind. You can’t see it but you can sure see its effects, if you allow perception to congeal.

More than any time in history, today, popularity of an idea has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. Real, true Bible-believing faith, in spite of being faith in the truth, and being the best fit of descriptions of the world and its history, is not popular.

That’s the same as always. The most religious and sanctimonious in Jesus’ day obligated the Roman authorities to put him to death. Not long after he had cleansed their temple at the painful end of a long lashing for that “den of vipers and thieves”. The same he would do today to the satanic stealth thieves of the central banks’ worldwide cartel.

Michael Crichton made the same point also in his essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming’. neither consensus in science, nor the popularity of an idea, nor the argument from (secular) authority, none of these is sufficient.

One last note. Jesus Christ and his true followers do NOT “get to see” the godless burn in hell, rather, quite the opposite.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.–2 Peter 3:9

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.–John 3:17

Better to sing with the repentant former slave trader who anointed William Wilberforce on his mission to extinguish slavery from the British empire:

AMAZING GRACE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G72NucLEGM

A very beautiful song, that.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. -Isaiah 1:18

Atheism is irrational

January 29, 2015

The insanitybytes blog at: https://insanitybytes2.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/on-being-crazy/ inspired this response…

Many an anti-creationist posting on Christian blogs is just a troll.
He’s just ranting and accusing others of ranting.
He’s condescending and sneers that you’re condescending. He ridicules, and just makes a caricature of himself.
His whole rant is ad hominem, and he thinks it makes him smart to accuse somebody else of ad hominem.
He uses an Egyptian-sounding moniker, thinking this makes him some kind of spiritually superior, but it only labels himself as a snob.

His ravings turn his accusations of lunacy upon himself and corroborate this blog.
The most loudmouth anti-creationist scientists go into panic mode when they contemplate debating a real live Creationist scientist. Even with an audience full of people who have been indoctrinated in the materialist (null) explanation of Origins through twelve and even sixteen years, while subjected to the same indoctrination in “news” reports, movies, anti-Christian lawsuits, they still go into panic mode and warn their colleagues against trying it. I saw the memo in the book “Science and Creationism”, in which the editor and compiler of these anti-creationist essays admits having been resoundingly humiliated in such a debate. In order to bolster his darwinian fantasies, he asked a bunch of people for their essays.

In those essays, a biochemist in the book fantasized how a few linkups among a few amino acid molecules “proved” abiogenesis. Harvard recently got a million-dollar grant to study how abiogenesis could have happened.

Meantime, anti-creationists run with panic from the issue, saying it’s not part of evolution. Read on ahead when you can stop laughing.

Asimov made his points against a creationist argument that creationists would never use with an unbeliever, and avoided the science.

Stephen Jay Gould came right out and said explicitly that science has to believe some things that are not provable using the scientific method.

One guy from UC Berkeley couldn’t refrain from proudly using the label “pagan”. A haughty spirit goeth before a fall.

Just shows: The mouth of a fool poureth out foolishness.

Atheism, agnosticism: My “absence of belief” in “materialist sufficiency”

October 12, 2014

Is there any meaningful difference between “official atheism” and “atheism as an officially enforced ideology”?

Plus, from the reports I have seen out of North Korea by escapees, and even a few mainstream reports, clearly demonstrate an attitude of worship. One video clip taken by the only Western team I know of allowed some access, showed one poor lady thanking the now late Kim Jung-Il for everything she had, in soulful worshipful tone.

In my opinion, honest agnosticism can make a claim for “an absence of belief”. However, atheism is the negation of a belief (“said belief is not true”). Therefore atheism is a positive belief.

I have an “absence of a belief” that something comes from nothing. Carl Sagan said “The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, all there ever will be”. That is quite a statement.

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”.

 

 

 

//

 

 

 

Answers to the same old tired anti-theist arguments against the Bible

June 4, 2013
Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad

Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad (Photo credit: Templestream)

[Editor’s note: My replies to a comment on another blog post was much too long to handle piecemeal with quotes or to leave as a comment, so I have copied the visitor’s comment to here and placed my replies  in-line within brackets.

It is something I would usually post on my sister blog http://www.truebook.wordpress.com where I address Biblical, doctrinal and related issues such as atheism, but since the original discussion grew from a previous posting in this blog, it therefore goes here…

NOTE: Quotes from Commenter “Cluttered Mind” are in normal text and left-margin aligned, while my comments are indented and bracketed and in red bolded font]

(Mr. “Cluttered Mind” says:)

It is interesting that out of the entire library of information on evolution you picked out the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis–which is not supported by the majority of evolutionary biologist–in an attempt to prove your point. If you wish to claim that evolution is not supported by science (which it is no matter where your beliefs lay, they don’t change the facts) then we only need to look as far as a few examples.

ME: [Punctuated Equilibrium
has always been the answer that darwinians use. in forums where I’ve been. to retort the fact that the “fossil records” testify against darwinism. It is the only hard physical evidence of the history of life on earth, the only hard forensics evidence, and the evidence Stephen Gould offers for it is that the only thing paleontologists find in the fossils is STASIS. There is no darwinism in the record. There is only evidence of change within what paleontologists call “forms”, and what many Creationists call “kinds”.

Yeah, Dawkins rejects it, so what is
Dawkins left with? The only physical evidence there os
contradicts his claim (and Cluttered’s claimed “majority”
vote biologists’ claim) gradual change from kind to kind,
there are no bones showing change from “form” to form

Below next Mr. Confused does what I’ve warned about before
and passed right over my comment that farmers have been
doing the same degrees of changes with their animals for
6,000 years! No Creationist in the world makes claims that
animal kinds like finches never vary in the wild in beak
length. This is like arguing that high-jumpers can reach the
moon just because one of them jumps higher than the other
one.]

The Lizards of Pod Mrcaru. A species of lizard named Podarcis sicula, which enjoys an insect based diet, occupies an islet in the Mediterranean called Pod Kopiste. In 1971 a group of experimenters transported five pairs of these lizards to the neighboring islet Pod Mrcaru where none of these lizards were found. In 2008 another group of scientist visited the islet of Pod Mrcaru. The scientist found a flourishing population of lizards which DNA analysis confirmed to be Podarcis sicula. Not only did these lizards flourish, but they showed a variety of changes in their biological figures. Due to the lack of insects on Pod Mrcaru, these groups of Podarcis sicula were forced to live off a vegetarian diet. This new diet caused their bodies to adjust in different ways. Their heads increased in size: longer, wider, and taller. This change accompanies a vegetarian diet due to the increase in strength needed to grind plant cells which are stiffened with cellulose. Another intriguing change in the Pod Mrcaru Podarcis sicula is the development of a valve called a Caecal valve. In many carnivores this valve is connected to the Caecum; a gut that houses bacteria, acting like a fermentation chamber allowing the vegetarian food to be more easily digested. These changes were only represented around nineteen generations.

[And there is a “theistic
evolutionist” who once claimed in another forum that he had
bred fruit flies to acquire a test for blood. He said he gave
it up when they started wanting his
blood. So what? Mountain lions eat wild grass as some 5
percent of their diet. Animals of all kinds were originally
vegetarian in the Garden anyway.


Adaptability was part of the original Creation. Creation
scientists pointed this out long before Darwin was a gleam in
his father’s eye.


In fact, “natural selection” was a term
invented by a Creationist for they way created kinds adapt
to their natural environment
.]

I have a feeling that this will not be a good enough example for you, as your beliefs seem to be set in stone.

[If my beliefs were “set in
stone”, I would not have become a darwinist atheist in the
first place after years in government-controlled high school
and college, or might have been stuck in la-la land of
Darwinism thereafter. Einstein said ““The important thing is not to stop questioning” and I didn’t]

….If you would like another interesting example (I hope that you are at least open minded enough to research this and learn a little bit about it) search for Lenski’s E-Coli evolutionary experiment. That is an experiment that involves forty-five thousand generations of evolution in the lab (where you stated it never happened before). If you wish to look for any type of blind faith to ridicule, you only need to look as far as your own bible. There is not one shred of evidence for any supernatural myth proclaimed in the bible…

[I once believed this
generality myself, but there is absolutely not one shred of
evidence to disprove anything in the Bible, Darwinian and
pagan origins myths included, but Bible-deniers have been
embarrassed time after time by discoveries, especially by
archaeology, with evidence for much of what was attacked
specifically. There is a long list of counter-evidence to the
should superstitious myths of Darwinians and anti-theists that
fooled so many of us so long, where their theories say
“somehow..” but should read “And then a miracle happens”,
like: #1.spontaneous bio-generation (life from non-life),
#2.the statistically impossible confluence of physical
constants that constitute the “anthropic principle”,
#3.”inflation”, #4.quasar-galaxy red shift “anomalies”,
#5.upside-down geology strata, #6.polonium halos, #7.the
fossil record. Just to name a few of the many more.]

…If you wish to deny evolution then I sure hope you do not go to the doctors to receive vaccines. Evolution is a proven theory, you can close your eyes and cover your ears all you want, it does not make you correct.

[Are you willing to match your
own research with your words? Creation scientists have been
yelling at the anti-theist scientists for decades that
organisms are designed to modify themselves, down to
the genome. It’s finally begun to sink in, but don’t expect
the overlords of entrenched Establishment Academia to admit
who got there first, but recent discoveries in epigenetics has
given the bio-geneticists fits, one of them anguished because
now they have to rewrite everything. (Besides, it’s still
E-Coli. No proto-jellyfish, no proto-coral, no-proto anything
but E-Coli.)

Okay, so uncover your eyes now. I repeated the research on
this:

#1. Bacterial ‘Evolution’ Is Actually Design in Action. (Read
the whole thing for better understanding of the actual
experiment where the real science is):
http://www.icr.org/article/7083/

In 2010, biochemist Michael Behe
reviewed 12 new phenotypes, which are outward expressions
of genetic coding, that Lenski’s E. coli
displayed from 1994 to 2008.2 Behe categorized
the known genetics producing each new bacterial phenotype
as either losing, shuffling, or gaining what he called
“functional coded elements,” which include genes and gene
promoters. All the known changes in the bacteria were
either a loss or reorganization of pre-existing functional
coded elements. None of the new phenotypes came from a
gain of functional coded elements, and yet this is what
molecules-to-man evolution requires.

….

Therefore, not only did the Cit+
bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but
they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement
mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as
evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3

So, all they did was breed E coli like a
dog breeder wins competitions. Yada yada. It’s like using the
human immune system as evidence that rats evolve into humans.
The human body creates thousands, maybe millions, of white
cells with different genetic expressions to look for cellular
invaders to attack. When an infection occurs, it does this a
whole lot more, an automatic genetic experiment to try to find
the key that will unlock the door to kill the invaders.

#2. “No fruit fly evolution even after 600 generations”:
http://www.icr.org/article/5779/….]

I want to now address some of your other claims in your original post:

“We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.”

Yes, when your religion preaches hate any morally decent person would speak out against it….

[…Opinions about morality are
just that…. Telling me I hate somebody because I warn him
about behavior I see as harmful is love, not hate. But I
wasn’t even talking specifically there about LBGT. You said
this without knowing square one of what I think. Stereotypes
and using the word “hate” are covers for Pavloved unthinking
reactions…]

Spewing that LBGT individuals don’t deserve rights (or as the Westboro Baptist church members like to proclaim—and one can argue that they are more faithful then you to their holy book—that they should be slaughtered).

[You using the Westboro group
against ME is an example of an unthinking hateful reaction. And
you don’t know anything about interpreting the holy book, You
like to say there’s a bunch of different interpretation in one
day, and then claim to tell me what it means another day!]

…I guarantee if a Muslim individual stood up above a crowd of others he/she would be would be treated with abhorrence. Just because you think that your religion is the one that is true does not abstain you from criticism.

[Just because you think my
religion is wrong you are not immune either, but it’s an
irrelevant point to what we’re talking about. The blog started
as information about who is doing the bullying in the United
States of America today.

There are about a dozen Muslims who would also disagree with
your guarantee as relates to me. At one place I worked with a
very “fundamentalist” Muslim and we agreed that we had
more in common than most of the people around us. We shared
our faith with each other in great politeness, and it was a
much more respectful discussion than either of us has usually
gotten from atheists, we both agreed.

That young boy was quoted as saying he felt bullied just
because somebody prayed. I felt bullied in government school
when a teacher taught that the my faith was wrong]

“We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).”

Can you provide a source? I can’t seem to find any evidence of this happening anywhere.

[It was a long time ago and I
haven’t found it but there are lots of similar incidents.

The incident I
referred to was in St. Louis, and reported on radio by one
who works with such attacks on religious freedom across
the country. It’s easy to find ongoing examples of the
same thing in a search, though:

12 Students Suspended for Praying at School:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school-26130/
Of course it is still a far ways to go compared to the
brutal treatment of Christians and others at the hand of
atheists and radical Islamic regimes in the 20th century
and 21st.

But there are ominous precursors…

Nevertheless, in cases of suppression of religion
in schools, universities, and the public square so-called,
there are so many cases that even the ACLU has a big and
growing list where they have defended Christians:
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Where Christians rightfully should object
to the ACLU perspective is when they take the religious establishment
clause and use it to support an official anti-religious
establishment
.


Duh. There is a Reader’s Digest story from 1954 that I
remember reading that I now cannot find anywhere without
paying them a charge for a reprint, –if– it’s even
available. The article is real, and referred to a then-recent
experiment with prayer and plants growing. But I can’t find it
on the Internet.

Anti-theists once said that there was no Assyrian Empire, it
was just a Biblical myth. No evidence for it anywhere. (Until
they found it).

Today’s new generation of reporters do not think a five-year
old getting suspension for praying silently in one school is
much of a story.

Two months ago, many people thought Christian and conservative
groups were “paranoid” for claiming that the government was
treating them unequally under the law.

The mainstream “trusted name in news” trotted out a parade of
voices that said there was no “evidence” of this.]

“We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.”

I highly doubt teachers are going from class to class in schools hunting for children with religious parents (to call a child a Christian child is wrong, not child abuse, but wrong; let the child decide for themselves what they wish to believe) only to preach to them that their religion is wrong. If they are doing this then they should face consequences for it. The separation of church and state clearly states why religious institutions should not live within government programs.

“We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.”

Only true ignorance can explain why an individual would believe it is not these things.

[You are steeped in true
ignorance.

The fact is, racism, mistreatment of women, genocide are
prohibited in the Bible. The “stranger” from other lands was
to be treated with great respect.

For example, you cannot use the example of Abraham apparently
offering Isaac up, for example, to say the Bible promotes
child sacrifice. The story itself, and especially in context,
shows that God is VERY MUCH AGAINST child sacrifice.

Mr. Confused then lists a bunch of verses that he probably
found an a militantly anti-theist web site. Of course, just
like Muslim-haters pulling certain verses out of the Koran and
feeding them to people that know little about it, to tilt the
apparent “evidence”. Too many Christians blindly follow this
tilt, and “Christian Zionists” are th worst.

I haven’t read the Koran in its entirety so cannot say that
the Koran more supports this or that. Many Muslims contradict
the Western propaganda that it supports total war against the
whole world at all times. What I concern myself with is their
action.]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

[If you ignore context, especially the
context of the whole Bible, distorts understanding.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Verse 21, for example, provides context for verse 22 in Ephesians
5, and for 1 Timothy 2 as well:

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one
to another in the fear of God.

22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord.

Women in the Bible have led the nation of Israel,

Judges
4:4
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife
of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
–She also led them in battle.

In a visit by Paul who wrote the letter to Timothy, he was
confronted also by four daughters who prophesied and joined
their father in warning him against going to Jerusalem:

Acts 21:9 And the same man had four
daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Paul elsewhere praises godly women leaders in the churches.


Do you hate your body? You are to love your wife as you do
your own body.
Epthesians 5:28 So
ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

So we see that in the Bible…

#1.women have led the Israelites,

#2.kings at times sent for counsel to a prophetess,

#3. in the latter days daughters shall prophesy,

#4.men are to love their wives like Jesus loves the church and gave his life for
it, that

#5.four daughters that prophesied were there warning Paul against a trip,

#6. Women were the ones who first discovered that Christ had risen, a little girl was the first to announce that Peter had been released from prison, a misogynist scripture in those days would never have given them such credit.

#7…AND, to the same young man Timothy, Paul himself praised
his mother and his grandmother for teaching him so well in the
faith:

2 Timothy 1:5 I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also” (2 Timothy 1:5).

And after Bible days…

#8.Christians had respect to women, in contrast to patriarchal Roman culture in which men almost literally owned their wives and families, and to the Greek culture that held that women had a worth in the middle between men and slaves.

#9.St. Patrick’s followers established monasteries where often a woman was the leader, because he was all Jesus and all scripture all the time, and loved the Irish as himself. This was in contrast to the Roman hierarchical clergy that locked out women of the most important spiritual leadership roles.

#10.It should be remembered in fairness that it was a Queen Elizabeth in the protestant England who led the country during the time that the Spanish Armada met its disastrous defeat, and even the King of Spain had to say that God himself had fought against them that day…]

“This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

[One of my favorite verses for the point about context. To read the Bible leading up to this verse, it shows how backwards you can get a meaning or the
significance of a verse when you take it out of context, like Peter said about Paul’s writing, “to their own destruction”.

The Amalekites had attacked Israel on at least two previous
occasions, something mentioned even in the same chapter if you
had actually read the chapter to find out.

The Hebrews were commanded to leave all the women and children
alive whenever they took a town or an area of the country at
that time. That’s something left out of those atheist web
sites that condemn Christianity (based on what morality, it’s
hard to tell, since their philosophy says there is no
morality-law-giver).

On at least two occasions in the Bible before the time of
Elijah, the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites, even after
the Israelites had left their women and children alive,
as commanded when told to take over these lands. However, they
were so wicked that the women raised those children to again
attack them.

They may have even been planning another war against Israel
when Samuel got this message. It would be consistent with
other times Israel fought. Later on, the Syrian king is
frustrated because the king in Jerusalem got prophetic warning
whenever he was planning on attacking.

BUT since Saul did NOT obey and wipe them all out, and some
escaped, most likely the queen and the king’s son, because the
Amalekites show up later yet again and almost succeed in
wiping out the entire number of Jews throughout the Persian
Empire, at the hand of the wicked Haman, who is identified as an
“Agagite”. An Agagite,  descendant of the wicked King
Agag of the Amalekites.]

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

[Yes, these were the witches of those days like the ones that still today in many lands, who knew the tricks and recipes to cook up poisons, take power over other people by stealth and enchantments, and foor a price do great harm to somebody. In Israel it also always went together with pagan rites, child sacrifice, secret intrigues, and of course there is always plenty of fraud. 

It is seen as working in lands where people generally believe in it. In the 21st century, it stays mostly hidden from the innocent because it still carries some social stigma. The stigma is rapidly diminishing, though, to the hurt of our society.

For example, Hitler was a big follower of such occult practices, and his SS was top to bottom a priesthood of witchcraft.

Generally it does not work on believing Christians, to the consternation of practitioners and the demons they invoke, as one former Satanist has said. In the lands where people generally don’t believe the devil exists, he is
more than happy to oblige by staying in the shadows.

My daughters saw this in action in Honduras more than once. A
girl who pointed at a pencil and moved it like John Travolta’s
character in Phenomenon, and after she split with a boyfriend,
on a dare, had him begging for a redo.

…And another tech colleague from Cameroon whose family is
split between sorcerers and Christians, and who hates
Halloween for its celebration of real things.]

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

[There you go taking verses from a list without checking, that remove context
to contradict the intended meaning. This was a specific prophecy against
the enemies of God that was fulfilled the night of the Handwriting on the Wall in Daniel:

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This is also another example of the Biblical law:  You reap what you sow]

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

[Yeah, do you want one very old man to go out there and take on the entire bunch of thugs? Not for nothing that the anti-theists leave out what happened
next. He stayed alive so these thugs could get their due punishment as a lesson for the rest of this wicked tribe.

That was the tribe of Benjamin, and they had forsaken
the laws of God and fallen into violence and wickedness, like
the present violent USA.

So the old man went home and sent messages to all the other
tribes about what those wicked men had done. All the tribes
had a meeting and they demanded that the Benjamites punish the
thugs. Benjamin’s tribal elders refused to punish them. Now,
with the entire tribe exposed as equally guilty, they fought
the Benjamites and of course in the end it was capital
punishment for them.

What would you have done?

I knew one brother who came home mutilated once because a gang
of five approached his female partner (in witnessing) to rape
her. He got the verse in a quick prayer, “He teacheth my hands
to war”, and fought them off so she could get away.

What would you have done?]

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

[Romans 1:27 is a warning you of the
consequences of your own actions is
love,
not hate. Hate is when you slander the messenger because you
hate the message. I tell you socialism makes poor people even
more poor, you can’t tell me I hate you if you’re a socialist.
If a person hears a warning given in the spirit of love, if
it’s in the spirit of love or concern, or a sincere warning,
and reacts with anger, or hate. or accusations of hate like an
adolescent to his well-meaning parents, this shows a spirit of
guilt, meaning the reaction shows a knowledge of being in the
wrong.

Every Christian voice of any significance at all in the United States has denounced the Westboro gang. 

Some church-ites do live up to the self-righteous stereotypes. But that’s an attitude I’ve seen very common among atheists as well, who get snotty-nosed and uppity about how much smarter they are than dumb brute Christians. And then although they have no independent external basis for any morality themselves, get so self-righteous indignant about sins of Christians, while saying that the truly massively brutal regimes of official atheists don’t count.

Like Christopher Hitchens blaming the mass murders in the officially atheist regimes of Lenin and Stalin and Mao, and blaming Christianity! Can you believe that!

 Westboro cannot get more than two or three dozen people to follow them, and most of them seem to be  from the same family. They are literally shunned by Christians.

Atheists don’t like mentions of Stalin and Mao’s mass murders but they love to bring up the Westboro gang. That shows they do not believe in treating others
with the same respect they demand, or that they see the world with warped lenses. I once suffered the same sight impairment.

John 15:22   If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.]

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

[This is the one story that best shows that God HATES child sacrifice. 

Christians are the babies’ best defense against the brutal, atrocious barbaric practices in
today’s aborticide centers.

The operative word in Gen. 22:2 is “offer”, as in “offer him
there”, NOT “sacrifice him there”.

In literally HUNDREDS of verses God promises the harshest
judgment against this pagan practice of sacrificing children
“to the fire”, denouncing worship of Molech, a pagan god of the day for whom
they built idols with fires inside for babies.

Proving that atheists often do have moral sensibilities, many
atheists are horrified over today’s baby-killing fields.]

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

[This is already answered
above. In context, Paul also wrote that husbands and wives
should submit themselves to each other. In the verse just
before it, 21, he wrote that everyone in the church should
submit one to another.

“One flesh” doesn’t mean one arm beating up the other arm, it
means taking care of it.

In the context of the culture of the times, too, it seems that
in some churches there were some women from the Pharisaical
traditions, and from the very misogynistic Greeks, and
even Romans, and others, that they went wild with the freedom
they had in Christ, like the mother-in-law in Corinth that
seduced her own son-in-law and he went bragging about it.
That’s where you get Paul’s harshest words about women.

Another point. In government and even other schools we learned
a bit about St. Patrick. I talk about his life elsewhere. His
followers in Ireland went on to establish monasteries that
saturated the island in the years following his mission. Most
of those monasteries were famliies living together. And a
great many of them were led by women “shepherdesses”, or pastors.

The missionary work I was privileged to work with is also now
led by a woman. Very strange, in officially atheist lands I
can’t think of one woman dictator (they’re all dictators of
course).]

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

[That very bad verse comes not from the actual Bible but from one of
the worst plagues on Christiandom of the 20th and 21st
centuries, and that is, COUNTERFEIT BIBLES.

Here is the real genuine verse from the Holy Bible,  the Authorized Version”, also known as the King James Bible, although he only authorized it and refused to let it be named it after himself:

1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with
all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
froward.

Note it’s “SERVANTS” not “slaves”. Translators
of the modern English language “versions” of the Bible (1)
use the abominable Westcott-Hort-compiled corrupted
Gnosticized Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and codexes for
their “translation” base, (2) they use Greek lexicons
based on the work of Hitler’s “Christian spiritual
adviser” Gerard Kittel, and (3) many of them are graduates
of Ivy-League Divinity or Theology Departments where the
dean hates the Bible just like Westcott and Hort did, and
the students are almost any kind of thinking besides Bible
believing.

There is nothing on the entire planet,
in fact, that has done more to eradicate slavery, than
Christians. Thank God that it succeeded among Western
nations earlier than the time Darwin’s book hit the
bookstores, because slavery having been shamed into infamy
by the Christian abolitionists.

After all, Darwinism gave strong
impetus to the Jim Crow laws, forced segregation, and
oppression, and later to eugenics. Pygmy Ota Benga was kept
in a zoo. Congolese rebels are even eating Pygmies, saying
they are “animals”.

That’s the other stupidity that
creeped in from counterfeit “Bibles”, using the words for
“holy race” instead of “holy seed”. If the Israelites and
Jews of David’s day and Jesus’ day were a holy “race”, then
they were a “mongrel” race, because in their veins flowed
the blood of not only Jacob, but blood of Joseph’s Egyptian
daughters, Ruth the Moabitess, Rahab the Jericho prostitute,
Ammonites, Edomites, Hittites, and all kinds of “races”,
brought together by the word of God.
]

To conclude, here are some helpful links to information about evolution. I hope you sincerely take the time to research the topic; it is quite enlightening, much more than a burning bush.

[Of course I not only have
researched it from both sides for decades, there was a time
when I was not so educated in the subject, not as convinced
you might say, that I picked up a book at a clearance sale
thinking it was a Creation science book, but I was
very glad to find out it was a collection of articles and
essays that were compiled as the best effort to “prove
evolution”.


I was a little nervous about reading the article by Isaac
Asimov, but his arguments against Creationism were ridiculous.
He struck down arguments from authority for example, that
Creation scientists never ever use in debates. In fact,
Darwinists that do debates seem to always want to argue about
religion, while Creation scientists keep bringing them back to
science.


That book clinched the issue for me forever, though. It
was an experience like, “Is that the best you got?!?!”


In fact the editor, Ashley Montague, said he got the idea
for the book after being totally embarrassed after a debate
with a Creation scientist. He didn’t say it that way, but it
was obvious.


So now, a Darwinian that gets a challenge to a debate
with neutral rules, will usually curl up his nose and act
snottier than the snootiest British royal of old and refuse to
“stoop” so low.]

….

[The rest of it is links to anti-Creation web sites.

[
Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see
more
teaching of the facts that relate to the “general theory of
evolution”, including facts they always leave out.]

This one is about misconceptions about evolution, probably the most important link in my reply; it even touches on your punctuated evolution claim.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see
more
teaching of the facts that relate to the “general theory of
evolution”, including facts they always leave out.]

Of the misconceptions propagated on anti-creation web sites, some are completely ridiculous, some are reasonable, some of their criticisms of some the assertions we already agree with because we already agree with them and they do not contradict Creation even if talkorigins thinks it does. Also, anti-creationists love to find straw man arguments and ad hominems that are easier to take on, instead of truly addressing the scientific origins issues actually raised by Creation science

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

[The so-called “evidence” for darwinian human origins theories has been refuted ad infinitum by science and Creation scientists, often with excuses for the lack of evidence, and plenty of fairy tales to fill in the gaps, as in the symbolic digital coded nature of the DNA code, the origins of life, the lack of any forensic example or even as much as an artificial breeding on scales higher than “kinds” or “forms”, the lack of addressing the objections to the pre-hominid constructions, the ongoing insertion of Hoeckel’s frauds into textbooks, Pasteur’s experiments proving that life can only come from life, on and on it goes.

Instead they offer some facts always with language that imposes the theory overlaid on those facts, a circular circus that’s enough to make you dizzy. Using variation within kinds as “proof” of variation from kind to kind.]

A video from Jerry Coyne on evidence for evolution. Get passed the heathen Richard Dawkins’ introduction.

[Dawkins’ militancy is a ball and chain around the neck of anti-creationists, a vestigial shadow of the brutal atheist regimes of the 20th century. He calls creationists insane, and says letting them teach it to their children is “child abuse” (his words). He even wants to restart the conversation about eugenics. Oh, but Darwinism has nothing to do with racism, eh?]

Here is a link where one can find answers to many or most of the talk-origins claims about Creation science:
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

In fact, many of the talk-origins web pages have been changed after their refutations appeared on the Creation wiki, They were so obvious.

Here is a list where those who are really interested can find out more actual real-world science, mostly relating to the subject of origins:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationtoday.org/
http://www.kenthovindblog.com/?page_id=399
http://www.creationtoday.org/
http://www.creationscienceevangelism.com/

You can a bunch of free videos here. They are free downloads, and they are even free to copy to distribute I think, as long as you don’t charge for them; the copyright is meant to protect that:
http://freehovind.com/index

<…….>

One student prays, atheist claims “religious bullying”. Poor thing, let me count the ways…

May 29, 2013
English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton ...

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (Credit: Wikipedia)

KJV Bible

KJV Bible (Credit: knowhimonline)

Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/atheist-graduation-prayer-its-religious-bullying/

Poor guy, right. The anthropic principle, inverted fossil strata, polystrate fossils, the very long list of quotes from darwinian believer scientists that call evolution a “fairy tale for adults”, a “scam”, that it does not meet the traditional requirements of “the scientific method, these are all robbed from the texts, thrown out with God from inside. Students get failing grades on papers for believing the Bible on origins, for believing the Bible on homosexuality, for believing the Bible on history.

Isaac Newton is even bullied and his reasons for doing science are not allowed in a science class. What he thought about science and what it proved are not allowed. What Isaac Newton thought was his most important work is not allowed.

I’ve been subjected to more religious bullying for being a Bible-believing Christian in one day than this kid will ever get in his lifetime for being atheist, take it to the bank. One place was so bad, where they put me and three other contractors in one conference room. One New Yorker and a Russian played one-up-joke tag on me when the topic came up –mind you I never push when somebody’s not interested but I do reply even some flippant questions when asked.

I just pointed out one day how it was officially atheist regimes that had done more mass genocide in one century than all the monotheistic regimes in history combined. And pointed to Hitler‘s reference to a religion that was so dangerous that they had to kill them all. (And he did point to the religion, and he said Christianity was the “bastard stepchild” of Judaism and he would wipe it out too).

The other guy I think was Jewish and must have gotten so offended at those guys that he must have told somebody, because the development manager delivered a strong rebuke and warning. It slowed down but never stopped.

We are told we cannot set up in front of a government-funded school that teaches that our religion is wrong.

We are told that we cannot thank our God for our blessings.

We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).

We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.

We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.

We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.

We cannot escape the news feeds that tell us every stupid insult against Christians that proselytizers of militant anti-theism like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens can think of, epithets of stupidity, ignorance, and dangerous they say. Therefore, they say, it is a form of child abuse to teach our children what we believe.

We are subjected to the most ridiculous and idiotic “theories” of history than no historian believes and whose purpose it is to tell more lies about Christ and Christianity.

And we are the bullyers? Hello? What’s next? They’ll accuse us of war crimes because Christopher Hitchens said Christianity was to blame for the mass genocides of atheists like Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin??

Who are the insane ones here?

Jeremiah 2:27

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

 

Warning lands Batavia teacher in hot water – DailyHerald.com

May 27, 2013

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130525/news/705259921/

John Dryden did right, and now they want to punish him. He told his students they had a right not to incriminate themselves, because a survey had questions about drug abuse and other such things. But he is a reluctant hero, and he’s “not a martyr“, and “calm down”.

Dryden mentioned his situation to a former student, Joe Bertalmio.

The campaign

Bertalmio was outraged. The 2002 graduate, who took one class with Dryden, credits him with teaching him how to examine positions and make logical arguments, no matter where one stands politically.

“Back it up — give me evidence,” is what Dryden taught, Bertalmio said.

Bertalmio posted the news on Facebook, where it was noticed by fellow graduates. Parents of current students have also joined in. There are more than 1,000 signatures on the “Defend and Support John Dryden” petition at the petitionsite.com, although many seem to be repeats. He has also urged people to write letters to the Batavia school board, plans to speak at the board’s meeting, and may have a rally before the meeting. A Batavia alderman told the city council Monday he plans to attend the meeting in support, and encouraged other people to do so.

Stick to the issue

But Dryden doesn’t want this seen as him vs. the administrators. He said he knows they were acting in what they thought was the best interests of the students.

“These are good, professional, smart people on the other side who want to do what is right by kids,” he said.

He would rather focus the discussion on the survey.

“I have asked people (the supporters) to talk about the survey. I think I am a sideshow,” he said. “This (the survey) was rushed and it wasn’t vetted.”

“I’m not a martyr,” he said. “I’m trying to refocus people’s attentions. Calm down.”