News and Views
Latest Mars Newsflash!
"Alien hunters have found an object on Mars that resembles the head of a Roman soldier, but are debating whether it came from a statue or an actual Roman, according to the Daily Mail."
I took a look and sure enough, as far as I could tell, using the latest in personal visual acuity, it looks a lot like, are you ready for this?
Morse Code On Mars!
Woohahaha! Now they're claiming to have found Morse code on Mars! I guess NASA needed a little attention. Naturally after the hype of "dots and dashes" they gave the real story that they were formed by wind and sand blowing around rock formations. It's amazing how after all these years people just don't want to give up the notion of life on Mars, and NASA does its share of being bad with stories like this.
New cover for Evolution Is Stupid!
We always felt the old cover really didn't convey the "fun" of the book, so we devised a new one, and had plenty of fun doing so! We might have this made into posters.
By the way, this cover is actually full of symbolism. Have fun figuring it out!
Evolution Is A Religion!
Well, I've been treated to two choice examples - actually three - once again demonstrating that Evolution is really a religious belief. The first was hearing Lawrence Krauss tell us to "forget Jesus" because it was really the stars that died so we could be born. Say what? "Science" tells us we're all stardust. Nobody even questions it. It's a faith belief. Nobody ever saw a star turn into a human being, nor will they. This stuff is laughable! But the only ones laughing were his students because, like good evolution sheep they just obeyed what the good professor said unquestioningly.
Then on a radio program we heard how mosquitoes have the same sensory receptor in their antennae as in their sperm and how wonderful, magical evolution "co-opts" the good, useful molecules and assigns them different functions. The sense molecule arose in the mosquito's reproductive system, then was "co-opted" by the antennae! Isn't evolution just magical? Well, no. What's magical is how we, in hindsight, can see so clearly exactly what miracles evolution performed even though we have no empirical proof that such a thing ever happened. At the end of the program they praised the "good news of natural history!" Whatever that means. Good news? We evolved from fish and we're going to die and just be molecules again? Is that what they mean?
Finally, heard a speaker tell of when he went to an exhibit of the Australopithecine "Lucy" bones. As they walked into the exhibit they were told to "hush." For some dead simian bones? You have to hush like you're entering a monastery?
Tell me Evodelusion isn't a religion!
Evolution Is Stupid is now on Facebook!
You can find us at @EvolutionIsStupid.
Aliens on Mars
Now we have the "alien skull" on Mars in the news. As with all things evolutionary, people see what they want to see. I happen to be currently reading Confessions of An Alien Hunter, by Seth Shostak of SETI (with whom I've had some contact (no pun intended) in the past). If it were not for the religion of Evolution, or Evodelusion as I prefer calling it, we wouldn't be searching for aliens. The book is more an apologeitc for why we should keep dumping money into a useless search than any actual, substantive scientific evidence that aliens really exist. So, we have no evidence that evolution ever did, or could, actually have happened, but we're searching for evidence that it happened elsewhere. Oh, and another thing: We don't recognize signs of intelligent design on Earth, but we'll sure recognize them if we receive a signal from ET!
Climate "Change" and Evolutionary "Change"
The big news is that Bill Nye, the "science guy," is now green. No, not like the recent "green Moon" hoax that's going around, wherein the planet Uranus is supposed to lend its greenish hue to the Moon - an impossibility. This is about another hoax: Global warming. And Bill Nye says it's true, so it must be true. After all, a few years ago he debated Ken Ham and declared that Evodelusion was true, too, so that must be true.
Anyone who follows my rants knows that one of the major ones is about Evodelusionists who have changed (pun intended) the definition of "evolution" from "descent with modification" to simply "change." After all, we all know living things "change," so, Voila! There you have it! Evolution in action!
So now we have climate "change." Was climate "changing" before man started using fossil fuels? Well, yeah. Has climate always been changing? Well, yeah. But here's the kicker:
Somebody figured out how they could make money - LOTS of money - on "climate change," and the rest is hot history!
And you know what? Statistics say that "95% of scientists" affirm "climate change" to be real. So there! That's about the number, maybe higher, who also say that human beings, those evil purveyors of climate changing machinery, arose from slime which came from nothing before there was slime.
Now, one of my biggest contentions with the whole climate change non-controversy, and with 95% of scientists (many of whom no doubt are making or will make part of their living off it while contributing to the "carbon footprints" they want everybody else to erase) is that those SAME scientists would tell you that you came from a "primordial soup" that fed on noxious fumes and that's how we evil polluting humans got here.
Are you following me? The same stuff they're complaining about - pollution and heat - are among the necessities for creating life! So, what's all the fuss about? Are we not just contributing to factors that will create new "evolutionary niches" for new life forms that will arise from the garbage we're spewing on the land, in the sea and in the air?
Somebody needs to correct me if I'm wrong. I see the whole pollution and fossil fuel combustion products thing as just opening up new chances for life to evolve. Don't you? I mean, hey, we're searching for life on planets that have more poisonous atmospheres than evil mankind will ever introduce on Earth. We're speculating and imagining what kinds of life could exist on those planets - maybe very different life forms than those on Earth.
So, in the ever-famous words of Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?"
Disclaimer: I have tried my best to keep my carbon footprint small in this article. Please do not print it. I also am not making any money off of the Climate Change controversy.
New Book Available March 30, 2016!
John's new book, The Ten Commitments of Creationism, is currently available through this website, on Amazon Kindle, and should be available in book form through Amazon in a few days. The book covers ten key issues in Creationism, without which Christianity falls apart, and includes questions for discussion at the end. It is directed mainly at Bible believing Christians, for use in churches, Sunday School classes, Bible studies and the like, but certainly would be an eyebrow-raiser and witnessing tool aimed at non-Christians too.
We have done our best to keep the price of the book economical, and we are offering discounts on purchases of 10 copies or more. Please contact us for bulk discount prices.
Happy Resurrection Weekend!
The days in this world are growing darker, thanks to those who have no hope. There is no other "religious leader" in history besides Christ who was raised from the dead. No one else can claim that their leader and the founder of their faith is still alive except for true Christians, with hundreds of witnesses to back it up as truth. Nor can evolutionists or atheists offer any hope beyond this pitiful existence of a few years on Earth.
But the Apostle Paul doesn't stop there. The affirmation in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Christ IS alive and there's no doubt about it! That is the Good News of Scripture. If all that Christ did was to come and tell us to "be good," or give alms, or perform some religious ritual, what would be the point? Yet those are the attributes of all religious systems, when it comes down to it.
No, Christ told us that our so-called "righteous deeds" were worthless in God's sight. Why do we think we're doing God a favor by being "good" or performing some outward religious ritual? Man might be impressed by that (like the trumpeting of the fact that the pope would be washing some feet this Holy Thursday) but God is not. He told us to perform our righteous acts in private, not for public show. We do not need to bow down in a certain direction for prayer. God is everywhere and hears our prayers regardless of what direction we face. It is all for OUTWARD show and has nothing to do with INNER holiness. Everyone knows what they are like on the INSIDE, and God certainly knows that too.
Shouldn't we just be good for the sake of being good? The problem is, we're NOT good. That is why we need a Savior, One who alone can guarantee our entrance into God's Heaven.
No, Christ didn't come just to preach pious platitudes, or tell us how wonderful we are, or to show us what rituals to perform. He came to humankind to show us how EVIL we are, so evil and full of hatred that we nailed Him to a cross. Satan thought he had won the victory at that point.
But God never fails to amaze us, and three days later Christ was walking the Earth again! When His disciples realized what had happened, they were so changed that they were willing to go out and be killed (not KILL, but BE killed by those who hate the one true God) for His name.
They will not be disappointed. Some day those of us who have trusted Christ and Christ alone for our salvation will stand in His presence, will know God face to face, and will dwell in His new Heaven and new Earth forever, enjoying all the new wonders that He will have created.
Then I saw a new Heaven and a new Earth, for the first Heaven and the first Earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
The Presidential Race and Christianity
I have never followed a presidential race in the USA as closely as I'm following this one. In fact, I've not been very much interested at all in politics till this race. I do vote, however, as I believe it is a privilege to be able to do so in our country.
What I want to address here is the bickering among some candidates about who is and who is not a "Christian." One says he's a Christian, the other says well, he "can't" be a Christian because look what he does (or did).
I doubt many of the presidential candidates are well versed in Christian theology. In fact, I would imagine most really don't even know the Bible all that well. But what they certainly do not convey to the public is the theological truth that what "makes" one a Christian is not what he DOES, but what he BELIEVES.
You see, every religion in the world focuses on what YOU have to do: Give alms, fast, go to church or synagogue or mosque, pray (sometimes in a certain direction), obey commandments, and so on and on. Or, what YOU should NOT do: Drink, cuss, smoke, dance, wear makeup, like Americans, and on and on.
True Christianity is this: Faith in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, which means your rebellion against God. The true Christian BELIEVES in the Lord Jesus Christ, and is saved. That makes him or her a Christian, not what one does or does not do. What one does or does not do is then a sign of whether one has truly come to Christ for salvation, because at that time we receive the Holy Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit begins to cleanse us, to transform our behavior, our desires, our focus and goals.
Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them." In other words, if they truly belong to me (Jesus), then you WILL see good works, changed attitudes, etc., AFTER the person has believed and trusted Christ for salvation.
We are all imperfect, and our imperfections follow us even after we are saved. So yes, sometimes we're going to do things that make us appear like we're not really "Christians." But that word "appear" is the problem. You see, as the Bible says, "MAN looks at the OUTWARD appearance. GOD looks at the HEART." That is how David, an adulterer and by proxy a murderer, could still be called a "man after God's own heart." David belonged to God through faith. David did wrong. God convicted David of having done wrong. David repented sincerely. God forgave David and restored their good relationship. But God NEVER gave up David. Once David had faith in God, he belonged to Him.
THAT is what being a true Christian means. We belong to Christ. But we "long" to be more like Him every day.
How Many Starving Could Star Wars Feed?
Nothing against movies. No sir. But I can't help but ask: If a church managed to coax a half billion dollars out of the public's pockets like Star Wars did worldwide this weekend, well, do you think anyone would have anything negative to say about that? A half BILLION dollars for a few minutes of mindless entertainment, but who's complaining?
Merry Christmas to all, and don't forget that Jesus doesn't care how much you spend at the local mall. He wants you to receive His free gift of salvation. The Star of Bethlehem came quietly. No "force." No war. Just the quiet birth of the Prince of Peace and the King of Kings. The Savior of sinful mankind.
However, when He returns as the Judge of those who refuse to repent of their sins He will make Star Wars look tame as He crushes the forces of evil under His feet.
The Star of Bethlehem : What It Was NOT
This time of year, sooner or later we'll see an article somewhere that will assure us that the "scientific" explanation for the Star of Bethlehem is that it was either a comet, a conjunction of planets (where two or more planets appear 'close' in the sky) or a supernova. Which means scientists really don't know what it was and are straining to come up with a naturalistic explanation to once again denigrate the Bible. Unfortunately sometimes Bible believers even fall for this stuff.
The Star of Bethlehem was not a natural phenomenon for a number of reasons.
First, apparently only the Magi saw it. There is no indication that anyone else was aware of the Star. If it was a celestial phenomenon, others would have seen it too, but there is no record that they did. The Magi saw it "in the east" (or, "when it rose') and there's no indication that it led them westward. The Bible only mentions - twice - that they saw it "in the east."
Second, the Magi were apparently expecting the Star. You can't predict the appearance of a supernova, and most comets are "new" and unpredicted phenomena too; few are regular visitors, and even those have very lengthy time spans between appearances, and comet periodicity was not a known quantity in the days of the Magi. Conjunctions can be predicted, but the Bible says it was a "star," using a singular noun, not "stars" (planets were included with stars in the Bible, a reference to their appearance, not their substance. The Greeks were the first to refer to "planetes" or wandering stars because of their motion with reference to other stars).
Next was the behavior of the Star. After it appeared to the Magi they went to Jerusalem and basically asked directions and were told the One they were looking for was to be born in Bethlehem. The star had disappeared, but then it reappeared and led them south to Bethlehem. No natural celestial object demonstrates that kind of behavior or motion (movement from north to south).
Finally, the "star" stood over the house where Jesus was abiding. (Note "house," not manger. Jesus may have been up to two years old at the time of the Magi's visit.) If a real star stood over a house, both it and the entire planet beneath it would be burned to a crisp in no time. And there is no way that a star or planet could be said to be over any one particular house. If you look up and see a star above your house, it'll be above your neighbor's house and everybody else's house within a hundred mile radius too at the same time. The star clearly indicated the correct house by stopping right above it. Oh, and it didn't blind or burn the Magi either.
So the Star of Bethlehem was not a star in the sense that Vega or Sirius or Aldebaran are stars. It was not a planet. It was not two planets. It was not a comet.
It was a miraculous phenomenon, not to be repeated, so please let's just accept it as such and stop looking for a "natural" explanation. There is none.
YOU'RE RIGHT. GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS!
The New York Daily News blasted Republican candidates for their responses to the massacre of 14 people in California by smearing "God Isn't Fixing This" across its front page, along with comments from the candidates asking for "prayer" for the victims and their families.
No doubt that will sell plenty of newspapers. After all, if we can just blame God for the evil in the world, that makes us feel better about ourselves, doesn't it? I recall being in the apartment of a young man who had the front page of another newspaper hanging on his wall. That headline referred to the September 11 massacre, and in huge letters just said, "WHY, GOD?"
Well, I have a more truthful, appropriate headline for the Daily News:
"MAN ISN'T LISTENING"
If you want God to "fix" things, the first thing YOU have to do is LISTEN to what He says. How about this for starters:
"THOU SHALT NOT KILL"
If man doesn't want to hear what God has to say, how does that make GOD culpable when man commits a heinous act? And if our society sanctions this kind of behavior by first of all sensationalizing it, secondly glorifying "outlaws," thirdly coming up with all sorts of psychological excuses for the perpetrators of evil, fourthly delaying the consequences by long, drawn-out, expensive court trials, fifthly not obeying God's edict that "whosoever sheds man's blood, by man will his blood be shed" (i.e., capital punishment for capital offenses), and finally offering some criminals a better life IN prison than they'd have in the outside world, then we reap the consequences.
I believe that the rampant chaos, turmoil, destruction and death that we're seeing more and more of in this world is evidence that God is withdrawing His hand from the world, just like in the days of Noah, when God said, "My spirit will not strive with man forever..." Then came the judgment.
God reaches out to us and we slap His hand to the side. Why doesn't the Daily News tell us all about the positive things ATHEISTS are doing to make the world a better place? They can pray to themselves and ask themselves for help, I guess. How about "GOD HATERS AREN'T FIXING THIS" for a headline?
Go ahead and have your say. Blame God. But be ready when you see Him to take a little blame yourself. Because if you have not surrendered to Him and if you are not willing to accept His word, then YOU are guilty of not accepting the fix that He DID provide for the evil in this world, and you WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
So yes, if you want to fix the world's problems, prayer is the place to begin. Start by praying that God would fix YOUR problems. You don't ask, you don't receive. As Michael Jackson would have said, you need to look at "the man in the mirror" first.
Now THAT's Using the Old Atheist Noodle!
Well, this one was just too "full of holes" to resist. A Massachusetts woman, Lindsay Miller, has won the right (?) to wear a pasta colander (strainer) on her head in her driver license photo. And what noble cause is she trumpeting? Is it a protest against burkas? Does she think she can outdo SETI by contacting aliens?
No. You see, she's an "intellectual atheist" as Richard Dawkins might say, who belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a loose group of God-haters who claim there's as much evidence for the existence of the FSM as there is of God.
Well, I'll bet God's up there biting His nails right this moment, worried that these "smart folks" who claim their beliefs are backed by "hard" (read: al dense-te) science, are gonna dethrone Him for sure.
Well I, for one, support Mzzz Miller 100 percent! What better object could she have placed over her brain container than a SIEVE? What symbolizes the thickness of the Atheist skull better than a hard, non-expanding metallic bowl? Seeing her with that on her head immediately evokes a vision of intellectualism, erudition, and the advancement of human knowledge, as far as I'm concerned!
Miller is encouraging her fellow "Pastafarians" (aren't they clever?) to do as she has. After all, if you were a police officer who stopped her for speeding, you might look at the photo and say, "Holy linguini, Batman! This is one smart cookie and I'll bet she's gonna outsmart me on this ticket, too! I guess I'd better let her go!"
Now, in all seriousness, Mzzz Miller and her fellow lasagna worshipers have boiled all their knowledge down and understand that 15 minutes of fame is worth risking an eternity of flame, and we're not talking boiling salted water either. No doubt they have hard scientific proof that God doesn't exist and that when they die they'll just rot away like an old can of SpaghettiOs, even though He's feeding, clothing, and caring for them, not to mention the minor point of offering them eternal salvation while they mock Him. Ask them what "evidence" they'd expect to find to demonstrate that God DOES exist, and you'll see the sieve go into action as they selectively ignore reality.
Yes, Pastafarians, I'm ready to join your club, but can I wear a pizza pan instead? After all, your beliefs are stupid no matter how you slice 'em.
Zircons and Dating Cons
I don't have time to comment on this right now, but an interesting article was featured today (October 21, 2015) on an astronomy website, concerning problems and flaws with zircon dating, especially with regard to dating the age of our Moon : Study questions dates for cataclysms on early moon, Earth
Creationists are forever hammering at the flaws and assumptions involved with dating methods, so it's always good to see a secular article that admits to their failure.
Are We That Desperate?
The latest news "flash" (pun intended) from desperate ET watchers is that a star with the rather boring appellation KIC 8462852 has shown some flickering in its light footprint (that's like a carbon footprint, only lighter - keep reading, the puns aren't going to stop) and - ARE YOU READY FOR THIS? - that might perhaps could possibly may be a SIGN THAT THERE IS INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE! So why not name it "My Friend Flicker" instead of just assigning a number to it that sounds like the number of fried chicken breasts sold by a certain fast food operation? After all, there might possibly perhaps be some kind of BEINGS out there, so let's get personal!
Now, this star is 1,481 light years distant. So we don't expect to be visiting it any time soon, but - hold onto your seats - one theory is that it's possible the flickering is from GIANT SPACESHIPS that were built by alien spaceship builders (well, who else would have built them?) that are passing in front of the star.
However, as the chief astronomer involved (Jason Wright of Penn State University) stated, it's "unlikely to be aliens." How boring is THAT? Talk about throwing cold water on a hot star that's just flickering for attention! Won't he be embarrassed when it turns out that the aliens have actually built a giant KFC after all, and the reason it's orbiting the star is that that's how aliens like to fry their birds! A giant rotisserie! They could call it "Finger lickin' flickerin' chicken!"
Y'all want some fried okra and slaw with that order?
Just putting a word of praise in for the release of Kim Davis from homosexual prison, where they were very gleeful to see her go. I hope many more people, whether they are Bible believers or not, will recognize that marriage is GOD's institution, not man's. It was not invented by a couple of advanced apes, who would have had no reason to invent it in the first place. The fact that it is God's institution is the only reason corrupt sinners want to corrupt the institution too.
At a time when many heterosexuals are choosing not to be married, exactly what, we should ask, other than economics, is the impetus for homosexuals and lesbians to "marry"? If heterosexuals can be contented to just "live together," why can't homosexuals do the same? I'm not condoning the former, just asking the question.
The hateful vitriol that has been spewed against an innocent and courageous woman is actually a good thing because it exposes her detractors for who they REALLY are. THEY don't want to be persecuted. THEY don't want to be victimized. But if it's somebody else with whom THEY disagree, well, no problemo!
And let not anyone bring up the oft-misinterpreted "Judge not..." quote here. Jesus was no wimp, and He called sin "sin." As His followers we are commanded in Ephesians 5:11, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." You can't expose sin by not exercising judgment, and if everybody else really followed their abused version of "judge not..." we would have no police, no lawyers, no judges, and no jails for homosexuals who are JUDGING Kim Davis, to throw her in.
Again I say: GO KIM! I hope the rest of us will be that courageous in the face of persecution, especially by those who are trying to force others to accept what was once rightly considered dysfunctional behavior. Again I ask, as I have often before, how can anyone - ANYONE - consider two men or women kissing each other and having sexual relations normal behavior? Even by the malleable standards of the Religion of Evodelusion it's not normal behavior, as it detracts from the survivability of the species. How badly have our consciences have been seared that we can even vaguely find that acceptable?
Time, and Time Again
If you don't believe what I said at the end of the article below this one, here's another item for you from none other than Carl Sagan in his book The Varieties of Scientific Experience. It is a book in which Sagan seems obsessed with trying to demonstrate that God had nothing to do with the universe. To quote:
"Now, an essential aspect of this idea [viz, that Natural Selection "created" everything] is that you need to have enough time. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, then Darwinian evolution is nonsense. There isn't time. On the other hand, if the Earth is a few thousand million years old, then there is enormous time, and we can at least contemplate that this is the source, as certainly all of modern biology suggests, of the complexity and beauty of the biological world."
So, here's what Sagan is suggesting scientists do. First, they must dismiss a priori any evidence that "suggests" that the Earth ISN'T millions of years old. Like blood cells and C-14 in dinosaur bones, for instance.
Second, they must adopt the assumption, no matter how demonstrably false, that with goddess Time, all things are possible. Oh, but forget that! They should at least "contemplate" (read: use their imaginations) that Time is the "source" of all being.
Third, they must accept, despite all evidence to the contrary, that natural selection is the engine behind all biological development, activity and "beauty," though there is no definition of "beauty" given by Sagan. If mindless evolution is responsible for all creation, then "beauty" is a totally irrrelevant and metaphysical property that we assign to something randomly, and it has no real meaning.
HONEST scientists will admit, as many have done and more are doing, that mutations and natural selection cannot explain either the origin or the complexity of any living thing. Neither of those mechanisms has ever been shown to create anything new, or add any new, useful information to a biological entity.
So where does that leave us other than to say that Sagan's statement is patently false, unscientific, unprovable, untestable, and downright misleading?
I guess, once again, Time will tell...
(P.S. : Darwinian evolution IS nonsense. Take it by faith.)
Ahh, the Magic of Evolution!
I'm currently reading Cosmic Quest: Searching for Intelligent Life Among the Stars, by Margaret Poynter and Michael J. Klein (Atheneum, 1984). As many of us are aware, if it were not for the myth of Evodelusion, we would not be searching for life among the stars because it doesn't exist apart from Evodelusionary imagination, which proffers the old argument that "if it happened on Earth it could happen elsewhere too."
Well, here's what I learned about what happened on Earth that is spurring the faithful onward to look for little green men (notwithstanding the fact that many are deriving employment from said search). Emphasis, unless otherwise noted, is mine.
- "Our earth was born ABOUT 4 or 5 billion years ago." In other words, who's counting? And who's going to call us out on the numbers (besides a few ornery creationists)?
- "The atmosphere cooled down... water vapor condensed and the first rains fell on earth." Where did the water come from? Must you pesky doubters ask? Oh, and it wasn't just a little water that APPEARED out of nowhere, it was a "shallow sea."
- Thunderstorms and lightning caused atoms to get together in the sea. We see it happening all the time!
- "Amino acids and nucleotides, the building blocks of living cells, were CREATED" and - are you ready? "washed into the sea."
- "Winds and tides" caused molecules to collide, and "sometimes they STUCK TOGETHER to form larger molecules [which]... became SKILLED at attracting still more members to their colony." I guess some molecules were hot, some were not!
- After about a billion more years, "one type of molecule DEVELOPED THE ABILITY to copy itself." Uh, yeah, if you say so...
- "As the COMPETITION AMONG MOLECULES increased" (yes, it does say that), " a few of the colony types DEVELOPED specialized cells." Are you with me so far? "Some of the cells digested food." Yup, they just started doin' it!
- Then, finally... hold your breath!... "THE ESSENCE OF LIFE APPEARED ON EARTH." That certain je ne sais quoi...
- Ok, now that the word "appeared" has appeared in the mythological sequence... "Microbes, algae and wormlike creatures were able to survive." They apparently just appeared. Plus they survived. Bravo, little chaps!
- "Eventually, these organisms became divided into two distinct groups... plants... [and] animals." Are we good so far? Plants and animals appeared.
- But wait! "Some of the plantlike organisms took in carbon dioxide and produced oxygen as a waste product." PRESTO CHANGE-O! Just like that! No problemo!
- "Plants, insects and spiders invaded the continents [from out of the seas]" Icky icky spiders appeared! You know how they did it? EASY! "They DEVELOPED a new kind of cell that used oxygen as a fuel." Nada to it!
- "Over millions of years, larger and more varied forms of life APPEARED." Honest! They just did!
- "The dinosaur's brain..." [yes, dinosaurs have now appeared in the narrative, as have their brains] "...gave it a tremendous advantage over the nonthinking creatures."
- "After their disappearance [came the] APPEARANCE of a new species."
- "Laboratory experiments have given support to the believers in 'spontaneous generation,' the CREATION of living matter from nonliving matter." Oh, really? IT'S A MIRACLE! Oh, wait, we certainly can't have that!
- And finally, my favorite. If you've read my book, you'll know why. "...One important ingredient is always missing from any man-made formula. That ingredient is [are you ready?] TIME."
Time. The miracle worker in the Religion of Evodelusion. Just look at all the miracles goddess Time performed! Nothing to something. Something to life. Life to US! And all in just 4 OR 5 billion years, but who's counting?!
There's got to be someone else "out there" if you ask me! Don't worry, with TIME they're bound to APPEAR!
A Lion in Africa vs 1.2 Million Human Babies a Year
The uproar (no pun intended) over the killing of a lion in Africa just serves to further highlight how perverted our society has become. What else is there to say?
Stephen Hawking Looking for ET
Stephen Hawking is teaming up with a Russian billionaire to look for extraterrestrial life. According to Hawking, there is no bigger question than whether ET exists, and it's only going to cost $100 million to find out. A bargain at today's ET-search prices. (Apparently SETI isn't spending enough and hasn't done enough in 40 years of looking.)
I'd like to suggest to Mr. Hawking that there are some WAY bigger questions, and I will herewith provide the answers - for FREE. However, if he wants to pass along a few bucks from the ET piggybank for a nice steak dinner, I won't complain.
- Does God exist?
- Where are you going when you die?
I would suggest to anyone reading this, if you have not already done so, you can go to a local church or some Christian you know, and I'm sure they'd give you a Bible - for FREE.
You can read that Bible (for FREE) and it will tell you about God.
You will see in that Bible that you are a sinner in need of a savior, and it's not going to be ET.
You will then see that God provided that Savior in Jesus Christ, because, rather than wasting time looking for ET so you can have a long-distance relationship with him, her, or it, God wants to have a close relationship with you NOW. And all it will cost you is to "believe" Him, rather than Stephen Hawking or any other fallible human being.
You will also see that your salvation is a FREE gift from God, because Christ paid the price, and $100 million dollars wouldn't do it because you can't buy salvation. He paid with His LIFE.
It's all FREE. You'll find out God exists, how to have a relationship with him, and why you don't need to be looking to the heavens for some pie-in-the-sky fictitious creature who's going to have all the answers, and wasting a sinful amount of money doing so.
Now Let's Restore Pluto to Planet Status!
Ok, there are bigger issues in the world, but for those of us who grew up with Pluto being the ninth planet (and those of us who cared), it was a tough pill to swallow when it was demoted to "dwarf planet" status, whatever that means.
If it looks like a planet, moves like a planet, and was doing just fine as a planet, then let's call it a planet! And so far the New Horizons spacecraft seems to be returning images that look an awful lot like a planet!
I've been a big fan of Pluto and its discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh, since I was a starry-eyed kid with a little 2.5-inch reflecting telescope. When I read the book, The Search for Planet X, that's what really got me started being a diehard Pluto lover. Pluto's kind of the outcast of the Solar System, with an erratic orbit and all, so maybe I felt sorry for it or something.
Visiting Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona as an adult and seeing the actual machinery that Tombaugh used (a "blink comparator" through which he viewed thousands of photos) to discover the planet just added fuel to the Pluto fire for me. What an incredible organ the human eye is, to be able to pick out that tiny spot in one photo and notice that it had moved a little bit as Tombaugh "blinked" back and forth between photos.
That makes me appreciate God all the more, too - the one who created the eye and created human beings who could then turn around and create a machine that could work in tandem with the incredible celestial mechanics the Creator set in place and send their creation to His creation to discover more about what He has made in this universe.
It's unfortunate that so many scientists and others have magnified man to god status, and depreciated God to "dwarf" status, while at the same time claiming that the universe humbles man into insignificance. There's a bit of irony there that I think is lost on most people.
It's also ironic that, as one commenter said after an article on the subject, we feel the need to explore the universe in order to "save" humanity from extinction. In other words, we need to find other places where we can go so we can ruin them and trash them like we've done with the Earth. We simply fail to see that the human heart is not going to be any different on the moon or Mars - or Pluto - than it is on Earth.
But, not to spoil the fun, congratulations to NASA and the team that accomplished this feat. Now, back to that "planet" issue...
Ray Comfort Causing some DIScomfort - Again
Ray Comfort and friends have come out (no pun intended) with a new and timely movie, "Audacity," which confronts the question of whether homosexuals and lesbians are "born that way." Apparently it's already made enough of an impact that the movie trailer has been removed by YouTube because it allegedly contains "spam, scams and commercially deceptive content."
(Update: As of the evening of June 6 the trailer is available on YouTube. Whether it's the same one that was pulled, I do not know. -- John)
I trust that many of us, myself included, are now curious enough to find out about it. I also trust that this will be yet another Ray Comfort bombshell, just like his movies "180," which addressed abortion, and "God vs Evolution" were. Here's more from WorldNetDaily:
One Christian's View of Gay Marriage
I've already heard everything ranging from calling down hellfire to wishy-washy acceptance of the new Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage, so I'd like to present what I hope is a balanced, firm response.
First, I do not believe that fire and brimstone are going to rain down on America in the next few days. That's up to God, of course, but not His usual methodology. Judgment will come, that is certain, but it is not our duty as Christians to call down hellfire like the disciples did in Luke 9:54-56. God is patient. In Noah's day, while Noah preached to his wicked generation (2 Peter 2:5), God got to the point where He said, "My spirit will not strive with man forever..." He waited 120 years for man to repent, then brought the judgment that destroyed the world. We can only imagine what Noah and his family endured - mocking, criticism, threats and so on, during that time.
Second, homosexuals can outwardly appear to be "good" people. So many times I've heard someone comment that they know gay people and have gay friends, and they're nice, polite, upstanding citizens, etc. ANYONE, be they atheist, homosexual, pedophile, adulterer, child abuser, thief, drug purveyor, you name it, can appear to be a "good person" outwardly. Even Satan appears as an "angel of light" and preaches his fake, lovey-dovey messages. The road to Hell is paved with "good" people. Know why? Because God knows what goes on behind closed doors and in closed hearts. In Romans 3:9 and following, GOD says that NO ONE is good. NO ONE is righteous. That's why He died on the cross. "Good people" crucified Him! And God knows who hates Him too, though they may hide it outwardly, and they're certainly not going to be invited to His Party in Paradise. They may be partying now, but their candle will be blown out soon enough.
Third, though we are all sinners, separated from God and in need of God's salvation, all sin is not equal. What we are seeing here is open, blatant acceptance and almost forced PROMOTION of sinful behavior as normal, and a good thing. So it should not be the case that we as Christians brush it off as "just another sin that can be forgiven." There is no shame, no embarrassment. We are calling evil "good." Let's be clear on one thing: You (homosexual) may call yourself "married," but God hasn't changed His mind. You're NOT married in His sight, so don't pretend that He accepts your verdict and say "God made me this way" and think He approves. He doesn't, and I believe in your heart you know that full well.
In the book of Genesis, God destroyed two cities for blatant, open homosexual sin. I've been told of one weak-kneed "pastor" (read: wolf in sheep's clothing) who said the real sin of Sodom was a "lack of hospitality." So, let's see: God looks down and sees that someone's not being real hospitable to his neighbor and the next thing you know He incinerates their city for it. I don't think so. In fact, God was even willing to "bargain" with Abraham (Genesis 18) to spare Sodom if Abraham could find just TEN righteous people in the whole city! The inference is, he could not. Once again, we see God's patience with mankind before He brings judgment.
Finally, yes, judgment will come. God calls homosexuality an abomination in Leviticus. Through Paul He says in Romans that homosexual behavior is the result of sinful desires, and calls it sexual impurity and the degrading of their bodies, shameful lusts, unnatural relations, indecent acts generated by depraved minds, and on and on. In Revelation it is clearly stated that the sexually immoral (those who have not been forgiven through faith in Christ) will be "outside" Heaven with the rest of evil, unforgiven humanity, in the lake of fire.
So, this is not just "another old sin that God can forgive," though of course, He can and will forgive those who sincerely repent. It is people who are laughing in God's face and who think they've won some kind of victory, and I believe God is using it to test Christians to see if they'll stand on His word this time. Many certainly have failed when it comes to the issue of Evolution or Creation. When we abandon Genesis as an historical, factual account, which would include abandonment of God's creation of marriage, this is where we end up.
Now it's time for a tougher test. Let's see how we do.
America Fiddles While Rome Burns
Islamic terrorists are expanding their reach around the world, and what are Americans doing?
Celebrating perverted sexual unions.
This nation is going to Hell on a greased sliding board. Are we so stupid as to think our end will not be the same as past nations who have sunk into cesspools of immorality?
Taking a Stand on Gay Marriage
Ronnie Floyd, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, took a vocal and apparently pretty fiery stand against gay marriage, stating that the Supreme Court is not the final authority on the matter, but rather God's word is, and he's willing to face the consequences if it comes down to a question of having to obey human government and man-made rules, or God's established laws.
I thank God there are people like him who are strong enough to take a vocal public stand on this matter. As he and others have intimated, this issue is going to have a huge impact on religious freedom, not to mention families and children. As far as I'm concerned, same-sex parenting is child abuse. You're using children for your own selfish ends, as a social experiment. There's no way a child with same-sex parents would not be confused about where they really came from and who were their REAL parents. I realize that there have always been cases, such as orphans, where this has been an issue, but those instances are not usually someone playing deliberate social games, or forcing society to accept perverted social behaviors.
People have lost jobs, businesses, and liberties for not capitulating to society's whims and the wiles of those who "call good evil and evil good," who pervert normal human relationships and are so confused that some can't even figure out what sex they are.
As Floyd said, this is a "Bonhoeffer moment," and he quoted the great theologian as having said,
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
Naturally, those who call evil good are already painting Floyd as promoting hate and homophobia. And naturally, they excuse their own hatred of God, God's word, and God's people, and they couldn't care less about anybody but themselves and their own agenda. The agenda of the Southern Baptists is to see people get saved and have a loving relationship with their heavenly Father. I attended a huge SB church for years, and they were some of the most wonderful, loving, giving, genuine Christians I've ever met. Their concern is for OTHERS, not themselves. Homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, and whatever else is out there, true Christians want you to get saved and go to Heaven.
What do YOU want for US?
Carbon-14 in Dinosaur Bones
Depending on what source you read, the carbon-14 dating method should not be able to be used to date anything older than about 50,000 years. So obviously it would not be the first method of choice to date dinosaur bones, if we believe in the conventional millions of years baloney.
However, there are people in this world who don't follow the herd. They think for themselves. They swim against the tide. Some of them are Creationist scientists, and they don't accept baloney if it's not in their sandwiches.
One of the contributors to the Discussion forum on this website posted this link to an excellent article about carbon-14 that is found in dino bones, demonstrating that they are not, in fact, millions of years old.
Now, every dating method has its flaws, and C-14 dating is no more "exact" than any other dating method, but the fact that C-14 should not be found in dino bones if they are millions of years old is what's at issue here.
Naturally, the Evodeluded fanatic believers are going to cry, "Contamination!" That is, that the dino bone samples were contaminated with C-14 that leached into them. And the Evodeluded will line up and pay homage to their myth, which has once again been saved from the evil Creation-mongers.
However, what happens when a Creationist confronts an Evolutionist who insists that a rock he's dated is BILLIONS of years old, and has somehow managed, after all that time, to not be contaminated in any way? That is, suppose a Creationist says that the rock originally contained some lead, so that not all the lead in the rock is the result of uranium decay, but rather part of it was there when the rock formed, or else the lead leached into the rock from some other source (I'm using U-Pb decay just as a basic example; it could apply to any dating method).
Well, we all know that if a Creationist cries "Contamination!" it's because he's either not a REAL scientist, or he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's just ignorant of the fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and that's that.
There is no such thing as an unbiased human being, and that includes scientists. Soft tissues, blood traces, and C-14 have now been found in dinosaur bones (and other organic fossils), yet the Evodeluded will continue to defend the mythology regardless of the facts.
You might call it "truth contamination."
Upset Over a Diet Coke
Today (May 31) we have an article about a Muslim woman who supposedly was denied an unopened can of diet Coke on a United Airlines flight and was "brought to tears" over the incident. She is now calling for a boycott of UA.
Besides being very skeptical of her motives in the first place IF the story is indeed true, my question for her and her ilk is: HOW MANY TEARS HAVE YOU SHED OVER THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE YOUR CO-RELIGIONISTS HAVE NOW SLAUGHTERED, RAPED AND EXILED IN THE NAME OF ALLAH? DO THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY SERVICES WORTH BOYCOTTING?
Protest at Phoenix, Arizona Mosque
A number of Americans, including those who served in the military campaigns in the Middle East, joined a protest against the tyranny of Islam outside the mosque in Phoenix, Arizona yesterday and today (May 29-30). According to The Washington Post article,
"Usama Shami, president of the Islamic center, said he was not surprised by the event.
"This is not new. Hatred, bigotry, racism - that's old. It's the same thing," he said. "No different from Nazis or neo-Nazis. They don't believe society should be multicultural or multiethnic. They think everyone should believe like them, I guess."
I have to admit, my head was spinning when I read that comment. While I do not advocate hatred of ANYONE over their beliefs, but rather dialogue, for a Muslim who is enjoying the freedoms we have in this country to make a statement like that is downright devious. Their own adherents are SLAUGHTERING people all over the world, and he calls US Nazis??
Where are the CHRISTIAN churches in countries that follow his Muslim religion? Where are the freedoms? Where is the endeavor to make Muslim countries "multicultural"? Muslims don't believe others should "believe like them?" Yeah, "I guess" is right.
Where are the hordes of people knocking down doors to get into Muslim countries? Just the opposite is happening as people flee those countries to look for a better life elsewhere, or just look for work. "Hatred, bigotry, racism?" Why don't you go preach that against ISIS and some of the other Islamic sects that are killing people, especially Christians, for nothing more than their beliefs or the fact that they are not Muslims?
How about organizing a nice band of Muslims to go help with and encourage the construction of Christian and other church buildings in Muslim countries. Then maybe some of us hateful, bigoted, racist American 'Nazis" would be willing to listen to what you have to say.
Folks, we can sit back and say nothing and continue wrapping ourselves in our comfort zones, but sooner or later this is going to bite us and our children in the butt. SPEAK UP, PEOPLE. Stop pretending it's not going to come to your door. Just like homosexual perversion, it's now HERE.
"Live and Let Live"
So said the banner in the headline highlighting a vote currently being decided in Ireland over whether to legalize gay marriage. I'm going to be brief. This is addressed to gays in general.
If you know someone is inside a house that is burning down, you want to warn them at minimum, or help save them at best. If you do nothing at all, but you CAN do something, someone is going to hold you accountable, if not your own conscience.
If a Christian, who knows God's law and who knows God's judgment, sees you heading toward an eternity in Hell because you refuse to repent of your blatant sin, which God calls "abominable," and and he says nothing, he is not practicing "Live and Let Live," but rather "Live and Let Die." And if he says nothing to you, and you end up in Hell and see him off in the distance in Heaven, and you cry out, "Why didn't you tell me?" and he responds, "I wanted to but you didn't want to hear it," what will you say then?
John Glenn, We've Got a Problem
Most of us will recall the words, "Houston, we've had a problem," spoken by commander Jim Lovell on the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission.
According to a recent Fox News article, astronaut John Glenn apparently does not have a problem with teaching evolution as fact in our schools, and has no problem believing that God used evolution.
Yes, we've got a problem.
Of course the media jumped on Glenn's statement without any qualifying data other than that Glenn could not look at the Earth from space and NOT believe there's a God. But he has no problem believing God used evolution.
I'd like to suggest just a few problems with that compromising position.
First, there is NO mechanism by which evolution works. Mutations do not create anything. Natural selection does not create anything. They work with what's ALREADY THERE, and don't make anything new whatsoever, nor do they explain where life came from in the first place.
Second, I prefer to believe in a God who is capable of creating a fully-functional universe without having to wait billions of years biting His nails and hoping everything will turn out all right, especially that those bacteria will turn into fish which will turn into amphibians which will become chimpanzees and then humans who can fly into space.
Finally, God TOLD us what He did at the beginning of Genesis, and nothing in that account corresponds with the processes nor the mythological creation story (got that? STORY) of evolution.
That's just for starters. Now, while Mr. Glenn (and I love the space program and am a big fan of all the astronauts, so don't get me wrong here) called for the teaching of evolution in our schools, apparently he did not call for teaching about God too. So what we're really teaching kids is that God is actually an unnecessary corollary - take Him or leave Him. We can believe in evolution WITHOUT God too, which is really the final agenda of the fanatical adherents of the religion of Evolution, and which is why they love to hear pronouncements like that from Glenn - a person who is respected and has influence and "must know what he's talking about" so don't bore me with any facts.
"I've Got to Stop You"
I'm currently reading Doubts about Darwin : A History of Intelligent Design, by Thomas Woodward. He recounts a meeting between the late Stephen Gould and ID proponent (and author of Darwin on Trial) Phillip Johnson, just prior to the second session of a debate between the two. Gould warned Johnson that he was going to be polemical, and ended with the menacing words, "You're a creationist, and I've got to stop you."
Notwithstanding the fact that Johnson is not a creationist in the strict sense of the word (he's a theist, but far removed from a YEC), I found that exchange to be unusual for Gould, and witnesses said Gould was visibly agitated and shaking bodily during the session. It's no secret that he was an outspoken anti-creationist, but usually he couched his hatred of creationism in less harsh and more subtle or cynical terms.
What really "got" me about that exchange was how Evolutionists want so badly to censor or even obliterate any notion of ID or creationism, yet on the part of the latter's adherents, I rarely if ever hear calls for censorship or erasure. What I hear instead are appeals for dialogue, for people to be able to think for themselves and make their own decisions on the matter. I myself always encourage people to study all sides of the debate (evolution, creation and ID) and come to their own conclusions, not just accept what they're told by the "experts."
We can only conclude that Evolutionists, being fanatical devotees of their substiute religious system, do not WANT people to know there is another side to the story and that they just "might" be wrong. Calls for censorship and annihilation of the other guy's position usually are motivated by fear, insecurity, and/or just plain ignorance.
It's the same with the homosexual issue. If you want to live that lifestyle, I'll disagree with you, but I can't force you to obey God and respect His rules about sexual conduct. I can't force you to be a Christian, but can and will gladly dialogue with you about it; neither can or should you try to force me to accept your lifestyle as normal, but you REFUSE to dialogue with me about it. Why? Because your conscience would be bothered, that's why. In the same way the Evolutionist would be convicted that he's wrong, so would you, and that's what both of you want to avoid.
"The wicked shall be turned into hell - all the nations that forget God."
I believe in the coming weeks we are going to see another example of our nation forgetting God, though of course I hope that's not true, and of course that would not mean that every individual in our nation has forgotten God.
But first and foremost, the question of homosexual marriage is a spiritual one. This is another example of the battle between sinful man and the God he (and she) has chosen to hate. This world is in Satan's hands for the time being, so Bible believers should not expect that people, who since the beginning have demonstrated that they would much rather hear Satan's deception than God's truth, are going to act rationally. But for those, even Christians, who may be sitting on the fence on the issue (which, of course, is always the easier way out), here are a few thoughts.
- Homosexuals are not born that way, other than the fact that they are born in sin like the rest of us, so
- Their behavior, like most behaviors, is a choice. For many, the real, bottom line choice is motivated by a hatred of God and anything Biblical (for many lesbians, it is also a hatred of men). Their definition of "love" is ooey gooey feelings for another person. Anyone can have that kind of "love." REAL love wants what's best for others, not just oneself, and it includes looking out for a person's spiritual well-being and their future after death. If they do not turn away from their sin, they are going to Hell. We don't mince words here.
- If the homosexuals "win," of course we can expect much gloating. But, as the verse above says, it's not going to last long. Where are Sodom and Gomorrah today? God permits sin to fester and ripen and lets us have our "fun" for a while, and then once sin reaches the pinnacle of evil, and once He's given us the chance to repent, then He destroys utterly. The grapes of wrath get crushed under His feet.
- This is yet another example of relativism and the influence of evolution on society. After all, if we're just evolved fish, who cares who marries whom? What rationale do we have for denying a person to marry their pet, or denying multiple marriage partners, for that matter?
So, when we see evil continuing its march toward oblivion, we should not be surprised. Rather we need to keep in mind that ultimately victory belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that every knee will one day bow to Him. When Satan saw Christ hanging on the cross looking defeated, no doubt he gloated.
And no doubt the smile disappeared real fast three days later.
As for Me, I'll Have Another Order, Please
Johns Hopkins University students have voted to keep Chick-fil-A off campus because they see CEO Dan Cathy's stance against "gay" marriage as a bad thing and think that allowing their students the freedom to eat there might be construed as "microaggression" against the LGBT "community," which likely consists of a handful of students out of tens of thousands.
In the meantime, not chickens, but HUMANS are being beheaded and tortured by Muslim extremists for no other reason than their Christianity, but our poor little students are no doubt being protected from knowing anything about that otherwise I'm sure they'd be protesting loudly, refusing to eat middle eastern food, campaigning against the wearing of burkas, and certainly they'd be challenging Muslim students on their campus to speak out against the massacres.
The ironic thing about Chick-fi-A is that the more the LGBT "community" protests them, the better their bottom line's looking, so I doubt they are sweating too much over the loss of a few mind-numbed students' dollars. It's more like free publicity and an invitation to people with higher moral standards to go eat there.
I wonder what ever happened with Barilla pasta over their stance that normal families consist of a man, woman and children. As for me, I'm still buying Barilla exclusively and will continue to do so. Doubt their product sales were hurt much by sexually perverted, hate-filled antagonists who only care about sex and money and think that they can run anybody out of business who doesn't support their perverted lifestyles.
This country is adrift in a moral vortex that is sucking us into oblivion. We need to pray for leaders who have the guts to stand up against the tide and who themselves have a godly sense of right and wrong.
Addendum April 26, 2015:
An Oregon couple has been fined $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding because it's against their Christian beliefs. Ahh, so much "love" and "tolerance" on the part of the LGBT "community." I guess there were no other bakeries they could have gone to. Oh wait, as one commenter put it, it's likely that they DID go to other bakeries till they found one they could sue and get some free money for their "emotional suffering." Of course, the fact that the Christian bakers have lost their business and could lose their home is also causing "emotional suffering" for the lesbian couple. Or, maybe not.
I do not know of any Christian who would not like to see gays and lesbians get saved through the forgiveness of their sins by Jesus Christ, and go to Heaven. On the other hand, it is clear that if they had their way, Christians can go to Hell. Who are the real "haters" here?
Li(f)e in Space by 2025!
I could be wrong (imagine that!), but it seems to me that ever since the Apollo moon program came to an end, NASA and other space-related agencies have increasingly looked to the "Life in Outer Space" card to drum up public interest. There was life on Mars (maybe) and life on Jupiter's moon Europa (maybe) and life in meteorites (maybe), and life from comets (maybe) and life from stardust (maybe) and now, conveniently as they're so far away and one needs highly sophisticated instruments to even detect them let alone learn anything about them, there's life on exoplanets (maybe).
The latest from the NASA folks (don't know if they need grant money or what's up with this) is a highly publicized prediction that "signs" of ET life will be discovered within the next decade and life itself will be discovered in the next 2 to 3 decades. That should help keep a number of people employed for a while, at least. Personally I believe these "predictions" are no better than astrology, but that's just me.
Now, I've been a big fan of the space exploration program from the first beep of Sputnik. And I don't need to be prodded with the pitchfork of evolutionary mythology to maintain that interest. There's plenty out there to discover without having to throw in the "life" bait, which, if it were NOT for evolutionary deception, would not even be there. The plain fact is, if people recognized that life never evolved on Earth to begin with, they would not be looking for it anyplace else. Sure, God "could have" created life elsewhere, but that goes completely contrary to what He SAID He did and the resulting condition of humankind and the universe.
But now, what are some of the "scientific" arguments for ET life? These are the kinds of comments you'll hear from most people, scientists included:
- WE evolved from stardust, so why not "them?"
- Water, water everywhere, even in outer space. Without water there can be no life as we know it. So maybe life evolved where there's water.
- The universe is enormous. What a waste of space if there's no life anywhere else but here.
- Isn't it "arrogant" to believe we're the only sentient beings in the universe?
- Complex molecules have been found in meteorites, so we have some proof that the "building blocks" of life are present in outer space.
- Maybe the Earth itself was "seeded" with ET life and that's how we got here.
Folks, using these arguments or extrapolating them to "prove" ET life is all science fiction, and I hope to address this and much more in a new book I'm writing, focusing on astronomy and space, so I won't get into it further. But I will say dogmatically that "IF" we should "discover" life in outer space, it will only be the result of some grand deception on the part of mankind itself, not a real, actual discovery. I do believe we're being set up for just that sort of thing. We are looking for a savior in all the wrong places, and no one can doubt that one underlying desire of many evolutionists is to prove the Bible wrong, so there's motivation there too.
If millions of people can be duped into believing the religion of Evodelusion that we evolved from nothing to stardust to fish to monkeys to spacemen, they can be duped just as easily into believing the religion of Exodelusion, my word for the concept that there's life in outer space.
Li(f)e in space is a big Lie with (f)aith thrown in. Even if you believe your ancestors were fish, don't get suckered in.
Happy Resurrection Weekend!
Despite the fact that there are millions who would still crucify Him, Christ is risen from the dead and holding out his nail-pierced hands to a humanity filled with hatred for their Creator (Romans 8:7).
Hundreds saw the risen Christ. Millions have sacrificed their lives for His sake and the sake of their fellow man. Yet there are still those who are looking for "proof" of His existence and who would rather believe in fish and apes because they think they can hide from God by substituting His truth for a lie (Romans 1:25).
To all who are celebrating Christ's birth, death and Resurrection this week and weekend, we rejoice with you. As for the enemy, Satan, as Luther's song puts it:
"One little word will fell him!"
Soon enough we will hear the Lord of the Universe say to Satan and to all His enemies:
But for those who have trusted Him for the forgiveness of their sins, we will hear Him say
"COME! ... Take the free gift of the water of life!" (Revelation 22:17)
Maranatha! The tomb is empty!
Depressed and Petrified : A Scary Non-Uniformitarian Tale
I have always been fascinated by petrified wood (PW). A few years ago I took a pretty grueling hike in the Gallatin National Forest in Montana with a PW fanatic who wanted to see and measure an upright petrified tree. We hiked for about 9 hours and saw tons of PW along Tom Miner creek and got close to the tree's location, but had to turn back before dark. The next day he went back up there alone (in grizzly territory) and located it.
In Wyoming one could find chunks of petrified wood in streams, and we collected some nice pieces. Some of my samples are agatized, some opalized (from Utah), some have crystals, some are crumbly.
But I don't think there's any more beautiful PW than that found in areas of Arizona. My wife and I recently drove about 3 hours to a private ranch where collecting is permitted for a small fee. We went home feeling like we'd just found a sunken treasure chest, with some really pretty pieces to polish, having colors ranging from red to orange to gold, green, blue and white.
Besides being overwhelmed with the evidence of Noah's Flood we were seeing, I noted that some of the huge petrified logs had an oval shape. They obviously had been compressed vertically and had expanded laterally. I began to think about what sort of immense pressure had to be applied to a tree trunk that was at least 3-4 feet in diameter to squash it into an oval shape. Furthermore, it was obvious that this had to have happened while the tree was still supple, and while the matrix surrounding it was still relatively soft. Otherwise how could the tree expand laterally? The only pressure I could imagine that could be responsible for what I was seeing was that of a tremendous column of water above, as there was not enough material covering the tree to have exerted that kind of pressure.
The oval outline of a compressed petrified log can be clearly seen above the white sediment layer. Long axis measures about 4 feet and covers about 3/4 of the photo's diameter.
This log had been removed from its original location, but is clearly oval-shaped.
All of the evidence led me to the conclusion that the trees were buried rapidly in volcanic debris and subsequently subjected to enormous pressure from water above while saturated, then as they were petrified both the tree and its environment were hardened to nearly their present form.
Any comments or further information from readers would be appreciated either by emailing me through this website, or posting something on the Discussion board here: Petrified Wood and Its Formation
Discussion Board is Back!
Folks, sorry, but due to a death in the family and other pressing matters, I had to discontinue the board for a while. Now that things have settled a little bit, we've opened it up again (I say a royal "we" because my wife handles the techie stuff for me, with much thanks!). Hope you'll join in and we can challenge and enlighten each other a bit on all sorts of topics.
Thanks for your understanding.
And Now the Moth-er of all Moths
Another non-news item not hardly worth commenting on. A moth (the "enigma moth") recently discovered in Australia is being called a "living dinosaur" (go figure) because... are you ready for this?... it hasn't changed in FIFTY MILLION YEARS. If you're not amazed, you can go back to sleep now. Just another Evodelusionary example of "going where the evidence leads..."
The Yawn of History
Another (yawn) piece of a jawbone with some teeth (yawn) has been found in Ethiopia and it's going to (yawn) re-write human history. Been there, heard that...
Should We Question the Myth Since "Science" Is Wrong Again?
The news is out that it's now ok to eat fat. A TIME magazine article claims that there was no real "science" to back up the fat-free fad started back a few decades ago and that fat intake recommendations were "arbitrary." But they're still not sure if we should indulge our fat tooth or not.
Ok, so is it fat or no fat? Butter or margarine? Salt or no salt? Eggs or egg substitutes? Sugar or some other chemical concoction? Caffeine or no caffeine? Bacon or make-believe bacon? Six million or seventy million? An asteroid or some other killer? Piltdown man or no Piltdown man? Gradual or Punctuated?
What's a person without a science degree to do? Oh, you'll just have to accept that this is real "science" at work, continually digging up new facts and discarding the old ones.
Now, wait a minute... If "science" can't figure out whether or not fat is good for you, and tells you one year that it's not and the next that it is, does that mean other areas where "science" has made presumptuous proclamations might be wrong too?
Like, umm, Evolution?
The "faith versus science" argument seems to run this way: "Science" has [supposedly] proven that the Bible is wrong about where life came from and things like how strata were formed and the dinosaurs disappeared, so we should abandon the Bible altogether because it's not a "science" textbook and it's probably wrong about other things too.
But, but, but since "science" has also demonstrated that a lot of things "science" affirmed in the past are no longer considered true and "science" textbooks are being re-written on a daily basis, maybe when it comes to the creation myth that "science" calls "Evolution," we should abandon that too because "science" has proven wrong in so many other areas, so it's probably wrong about that one too.
Right? FAT CHANCE. We'll just keep clogging our arteries with Evoplaque and dance merrily to our hopeless end. We can trim the fat, but we're going to swallow the myth no matter what.
This Time It's Only 100 Million Years
(February 6, 2015)
The only hope I see is that some people are finally just getting tired of scientists throwing millions and billions around like so many handfuls of pixie dust. This time it's an alleged discovery by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, designed to study the alleged Cosmic Background Radiation.
Bottom line: Stars formed 100 MILLION YEARS later than "we" previously thought. As one commenter cynically stated after the article, "I don't think I'll be changing my plans for tomorrow." Once again we see how Evodelusionists can add or subtract a HUNDRED MILLION years and nobody bats an eyelash. After all, this is what "real science" is all about, right? If a Creationist did something like that he'd be laughed off the stage.
The whole millions and billions of years thing is a sham. It's nothing but numerical hocus pocus with no real proof other than that Joe Blow with a few letters after his name said so.
Two-Billion-Year-Old Organism Proves Darwin Was Right!
Evodelusionary "scientists" have discovered a microorganism in mud off the South American coast that - are you ready for this devastating news? - MIGHT PROVE DARWIN WAS RIGHT! OH NO! Creationists are doomed again! You know why? Because this microorganism has gone unchanged for - are you ready for more devastating news? - TWO BILLION YEARS!
So once again, we see that no matter what the facts, no matter what the evidence, no matter how illogical, Darwin is ALWAYS right! You see, somehow these "scientists," who probably need a little infusion of grant money, KNOW that this microorganism has not changed one whit in two billion years! They've watched it all along the way! Ok, maybe not.
Once again, we see the faith of the blinded fanatics at work, where instead of questioning whether the organism really is 2 billion years old, they accept that as unchallenged fact and instead have to concoct a story about how it hasn't changed at all in that time, while other bacteria and gunk was turning into people who could concoct stories about bacteria and gunk turning into people. For a whole lot of other examples of "living fossils" that haven't changed in millions and billions of years, check out the book Living Fossils by Carl Werner.
Time Change = Climate Change Hypocrisy
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved their "Doomsday Clock," an indicator of how close humankind is to global catastrophe, two minutes closer to "midnight." And it's all because of climate change (yawn) and nuclear weapons.
Folks, we have only three Doomsday Clock minutes to grab for the gusto, eat drink and be merry and live life to the fullest, though I'm sure Super Bowl Fans are more concerned about other countdowns and potential catastrophes at this time.
Why hypocrisy? Because with hardly a shadow of doubt those same scientists who are groaning about climate change and how humanity faces extinction would assure us that the VERY REASON WE'RE HERE is because of global catastrophes and extinctions that allowed humans and other living things a "niche" where we could develop.
So what's the big deal then? Aren't we just watching evolution in action here? Survival of the fittest? Natural selection? Maybe a good dose of nuclear radiation will help evolution make some newer, faster, stronger critters! Maybe at "midnight" we'll all turn into pumpkins and evolve from there!
C'mon guys, get on the boat! Oh... maybe that's not the best metaphor to use, eh?
130K Pages of UFO Materials Released
Alien huggers are all abuzz about the release of 130,000 pages of Air Force documents about UFO sightings from 1947 - 1969. The documents are supposedly posted on a website called The Black Vault.
According to the Air Force, in that 22 year interval, over 12,000 sightings were recorded, of which 701 have not been fully explained. In case you don't have a calculator, that comes out to about 5.9 percent. Over a period of 22 years, that's about 32 cases per year that are unexplained.
Now, according to at least one website, there are about 70,000 UFO sightings worldwide each year. So using the figure above, on average about 0.046 percent of them are unexplained.
Naturally, that's enough to satisfy even the most conservative UFOnik that they're real, there's something out there, and the government is hiding information from us.
More interesting, however, are the comments after the article I read. The very first one attacked - get this - not Buddhism, or Islam, or Taoism, but - are you ready for the shock? Christianity! Doesn't that surprise you?
However, in all fairness, after singling out Christianity, knowing their head would not be cut off for doing so, according to the attacker a discovery of life in outer space would destroy every religion but Scientism, though they didn't have too kind words for that one either. But the next post came to the rescue and said they were wrong, because "maybe" Eve didn't take the apple on another planet.
Sigh... The Bible says "the whole creation" is under a curse now because of sin. That includes Alien Eve, who, given the same set of circumstances that Earth Eve found in the Garden of Eden, would have done the same thing, namely, chosen to believe she could be LIKE God, rather than accepting that she was not. It's the same reason Satan, one of those "alien" beings the Bible calls angels and demons, fell into sin (rebellion against God) too. It also explains why people are looking for a savior other than Jesus from "out there." Maybe if we just find an alien civilization it will mean we're not really going to be judged by God after all and can do what we please without consequences. We've filled the foxholes on Earth trying to hide from God, now it's time to look for them elsewhere.
$$$$$$$ Akbar! Money: The USA's Great Satan!
Duke University was about to begin permitting Muslim students to chant the "call to prayer" over a loudspeaker, and when Franklin Graham and others protested and URGED DONORS TO WITHHOLD SUPPORT, suddenly the school found a reason to, well, maybe not allow the Muslim students to do that. While I find Graham's actions commendable and really respect him as one who stands for Truth and against the lies coming at our society in tidal waves, on the other hand it appears that Duke, a school founded on Christian principles, may have capitulated to fear of another god: The Almighty Dollar.t
When it comes to the philosophy that "money talks," this country can really be sickening. Too often it seems that's the bottom line, not whether something is right, or moral, or good for individuals and society, but in the end, it always seems to come down to money. Are we really so STUPID that we can't see a threat here?
If you don't USE your head, you are going to LOSE your head. Laugh now. Pray (in dhimmitude) or pay (in death) later. This is not about peace and "diversity." It's about gradual SUBJUGATION and SUBMISSION.
FOOLS! Go ahead and sit back and DO NOTHING because it's not biting YOUR derriere yet. It will do so soon enough.
No, I do not hate Muslims. But if you're Muslim and you're out there reading this, and you do not come to Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, you are going to Hell, not Paradise. Muhammad is not going to help you get to Paradise. He cannot forgive the sins you've committed against God. Only the Savior Christ can do that.
The National Center for Evodelusion Indoctrination
I recently became aware that the mis-named "National Center for Science Education," whose former director, Eugenie Scott, is well-known in Creationist circles, and whose stated goal is to "keep evolution and climate science in public school science education," has a "Religion" link (and, ahem, a "Donate" link too, but we won't go there). That link brings one to a discussion about "Science and Religion" beneath which is a link to something called The Clergy Letter Project
Being the inquiring sort that I am, and knowing that the NCSE's unstated goal is to bury Creationism, I wrote the NCSE with a few questions about that item, and received an immediate response to the effect that "that's not our baby, you'll have to contact the originators of that Project directly." I responded that I was a bit confused as the NCSE was both utilizing and endorsing the project, but ok, I'll contact the originator of the letter directly, which I did.
You should go to the letter link and read it. The questions I submitted follow. I assured them that I was a serious inquirer, and asked them if I could either share their responses or if they would post them on their website. IF they respond to me, I will let you know. My questions:
- Why do you feel a need for this sort of outreach?
- Would you agree that within the community of Evolution believers there are also numerous areas of dispute and disagreement?
- What parts of the Bible should be taken literally?
- What is the "proper relationship between Creator (and it appears here that you do accept a Creator?) and creation?"
- What "timeless truths" do the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah convey?
- What do you intend by the phrase "transform hearts?"
- Can you name some human achievements that would not have been possible without a belief in Evolution?
- If the God-given human mind examines Evolution critically and comes to the conclusion that it is based on false assumptions and false interpretations, what would your response be?
- Again, you mention "our Creator." So do you accept the existence of a Creator then?
- What is your definition of "God's loving plan of salvation?"
- Can school board members affirm the existence of God, a Creator, the timeless truths of the Bible, and a loving plan of salvation, or only of Evolution, as core components of human knowledge?
- Since religion is also, according to your Letter, a "form of truth," should it then be taught and affirmed in schools?
- Since no one actually saw the Big Bang, or saw life arise from nothing, or saw evolution from particles to man, would you agree that there is a large component of faith involved in believing cosmic and biological evolution?
- Are other religious "books" on equal par with the Bible, and if so, why do you seem to focus only on the Bible and its "stories."
Update: I did receive a response to my questions (10 of the 14) but my request to post the responses here was denied. The discussion was cordial, but disappointing. While some (including the responder) might be impressed by the number of religious folk who have signed the "Clergy Letter," more rational thinking people realize that it's always easier to accommodate the popular paradigm, as the Pharisees did in Jesus' time, as religionists did in Galileo's time, and as religionists did after Darwin's first tome was released, than to fight it.
That's not to impress you, but rather just to make known that, as in so many things, Evolution included, there's another side to the story.
Paris Tragedy: Is "Religion" to Blame?
If someone is looking for an excuse to blame "religion" for the world's ills, the events in Paris this week would certainly seem to bolster their cause. Here you have a few Muslim radicals who think that murdering people and then being killed themselves is what constitutes "martyrdom" and they were told by their religious leaders that they would be REWARDED for their actions. How do you contradict that? In their minds, they were honoring Allah and Allah was going to honor them. For murder? I mean, does Allah really say, "Job well done, fellas. Welcome to Paradise" because they murdered people?
Level-headed, reasoning individuals will realize that "non-religious" people commit atrocities too, for different reasons. Millions have been killed by godless tyrants and deranged individuals who had nothing to do with religion, or even tried to eradicate God. The root of the problem is not religion. It is mankind's rebellion AGAINST our Creator, and the Creator has turned the world over to Satan and sinful man, and we're just demonstrating the fact that we're not doing a very good job of running things. But does that cause us to turn to the Truth, and repent of our evil doings and ask God for forgiveness? Of course not. Sinful man would rather believe that sooner or later we'll find the "answers" and the "truth," whatever and wherever those may be, and soon Paradise will be restored on Earth. And sometimes sinful man uses "religion" as a platform.
Jesus Christ is not a "religion." He's the Savior of mankind. A true "martyr" is one who has been killed because of his unwavering faith in Christ, not because he went out and murdered people who don't have faith in Christ or who don't belong to his "religion."
On a final note, the actions of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo should not be excused either. There is no reason to show mocking public disrespect for ANY leader, whether political, religious, or otherwise. Usually it's Christ who is the brunt of human mockery, but usually Christians don't massacre people for it. God can take care of Himself, and when Christ returns, the mockers will be assigned to their place. In the meantime, we can always hope that they'll turn from mocking to following, which is the much smarter, more rational path.
Bell Sounds Off and the Tone Deaf Are Singing
Ryan Bell, a now ex-Seventh-Day Adventist "pastor," has declared, much to the godless liberal Media's delight, that he spent the last year living "without God in his life" and now is convinced there's no God. Yes, and I can tell you that I've spent the past year living without farmers in my life and am now convinced that food magically appears in cans and packages in supermarkets.
Well, whoopee for Ryan Bell. My first thought, as with others judging by comments I read after the story, is that, let's just say if he writes a book it will likely be a best seller. And, umm, let's just say he had a documentary crew tagging along and also has a blog. Movie time? But Atheists are all honest and not out for filthy lucre, so we should not be too quick to jump to conclusions here.
This is clearly a case of someone who didn't really believe in God to begin with and perhaps saw an opportunity to garner his 15 minutes of fame. Did he also come to the conclusion that Satan does not exist? I've not read any evidence to that effect, but unfortunately Satan's got Bell by the clapper and he doesn't even know it.
Bell does credit religious people with intelligence (thank our lucky stars!) and admits the arrogance of some Atheists, and also admits that religion has historically had a positive influence on society, but as he said in one interview, the "emotional energy it takes to figure out how God fits into everything is far greater than dealing with reality as it presents itself to us." Whatever that means.
Obviously, with an entire wasted year behind him, a documentary to make, interviews (which no doubt will be numerous now that the news is out), and a blog to keep up with, the reality of how much time and energy he'll now have to put into denying God's existence did not occur to the "pastor."
Once again I would definitely say Psalm 14:1 rings true, but should we pray for someone like Ryan Bell? Perhaps, but I believe this is a clear case of Hebrews 6:4-6 being fleshed out and he's gone, and that is frightening to even begin to contemplate.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
May 2015 be the year that many Evolutionists and Atheists come to their senses and turn away from lies to the Truth!
Well, it's that time of year when Christians are happy, Atheists are mad, and Evolutionists are celebrating the position of the sun in the heavens.
Count me in the first group.
God bless, and best wishes for 2015!
From Golf on Mars to Aliens on Bread!
The other night we cooked some Indian naan bread in the oven, and this was the result. I am sure someone "out there" is trying to send a message with this image of an Alien with a black eye, but unfortunately both that and the missed opportunity to sell it on ebay occurred to me too late, as I ate it. I may donate the photo to Roswell.
Who Cares About Methane? There's GOLF on Mars!
A Man A Clam A Plan : Clam Art Rewrites History!
Holy clams and spaghetti, Bat-Homosapiens! History has once again been rewritten for the millionth time by Evolutionists (that's almost what the headline said). An allegedly 540,000 year old clam has been found to have been decorated "artistically" by one of our half-human ancestors, showing that they might have given rise to people like Andy Warhol after all.
So, what are the ASSUMPTIONS that this discovery is going to support?
First, that our halfmans (which I prefer over "hominins") had unexpected cognitive abilities, unlike many of those who in our day invent stories about them.
Second, that the halfmans had artistic (read: abstract) thinking.
And third, another clam was found with the "artsy" one that appears to support the early use of so-called tools!
How did they "date" the clams at 540K annums? Well, they just did, so there! Do they look like clams? Yep! Do they look like halfclams? Nope. Was there any doubt they were clams? Nope.
So history will have to be rewritten. Again. And again. Why? Because we found some halfman-made scratches on a clamshell. And I'll bet those tricky Evolutionists also found clams that had dinosaurs carved on them, but they're clamming up about that one! (I had to say that; I just had to!)
We Interrupt This Program...!
I just found out about this news item today. It is absolutely mind bogglingly crazy. I'm keeping this short so as not to knock the TG message down too far, but you need to read the article and take note of the minuscule possibility the astronomers give for "chance" being involved. As for the "missing ingredient" at the end? Let's just say you need to read the Psalm below.
Those of us who have something besides mindless evolution to thank for turkeys, tastebuds and other humans we call family and friends would like to thank the Creator of them all for the gifts He has given us with this rendition of Psalm 8.
O LORD, our Lord,
How majestic is Your name in all the earth.
You have displayed Your splendor in the heavens!
Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes You have established strength because of Your adversaries, to make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers - the moon and the stars, which You have ordained - what is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than Elohim and You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands. You have put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord,
How majestic is Your name in all the earth!
Believing Is Seeing!
We now have a "humanoid skull" on Mars. UFO advocates have given it a very high chance of being real. Just look at this photo for proof! (Click to enlarge.) The "skull" is near the bottom left of the photo.
And, as a matter of fact, there are other Earth-like objects in that picture that the UFObees missed, and you are going to see them right here on EvolutionIsStupid.com first!
For instance, at the bottom of the photo, just left of center, there is a fossil clam shell!
At the bottom right, there is a three-toed dinosaur print!
At the top of the photo there are numerous insects in flight, but I'll bet NASA would say those are just shadows of small stones.
And the oblong, lighter area at the top of the photo is obviously a landing site.
HAH! NASA can't fool us!
Philae Detects Organics on Comet
Uh oh. Here we go. As if it's a big surprise, scientists are claiming to have found carbon-based compounds on comet 67P based on some information returned from the Philae lander. (Carbon and carbon compounds occur throughout the universe, as has been well-known for some time.)
Let's admit that landing on that comet was a spectacular space coup. But let's not admit the stories that are now going to be concocted about how comets brought the first organic molecules to Earth which then got together and became space scientists. Let's just not go there.
I ran an astronomy club for a short time. When I tried to introduce some evidence of creation and design into the fabric of the astronomical information we were studying, one of the club members, a church-going supposed Bible believer, asked me, "Can't we just study astronomy?" I assured him that that was exactly what we were doing. Obviously he didn't want to rock the boat and was happier compromising with the herd and not having to stand up for anything.
So now, I'll ask my astronomy and space colleagues that same question: "Can't we just study the comet and not try to tie our findings into our modern Evodelusionary creation mythology?" If there were some sort of evidence that comets actually brought all the ingredients for life on Earth, and that those ingredients could then get together, come alive, start replicating and bring to light every known living creature and plant, then maybe we'd be onto something.
But there's not, and we're not. It didn't happen. And we could never prove it did.
So, again, Can't we just do science and leave the myth out of it?
Spectacular Photo. Usual Storytelling.
Last week the European Southern Observatory (ESO) published a beautiful photo of a star surrounded by concentric circles of gas and dust, taken by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radiotelescope array in Chile. The media, including astronomy-related media naturally, was abuzz with the first real "evidence" of a formation that supposedly confirms the theory that solar systems like ours started out as gas and dust disks which condensed into a central star with rings that then condensed into planets. Even though there are myriad reasons no such thing could have happened in reality, for cosmic evolutionists this was another opportunity to supposedly confirm one of their fabricated stories. I responded to an article on one astronomy website which asserted that the system "suggested" planetary formation. It doesn't "suggest" any such thing. All it is is a star surrounded by concentric rings of gas and dust. There's no need to invent stories about what we "think" it "might" be doing, as there's no actual evidence that any planets are forming around the star, or that planets ever formed in such a manner. It's simply a star surrounded by rings of gas and dust.
Let's look at our own solar system. If, as cosmic evolutionists propose, our solar system had accreted from an original planetary nebula, at minimum we should naturally expect the composition of the planets to be similar and for those planets to have circular or nearly circular orbits, with axes of rotation parallel to the axis of the central star.
Is that what we see in our own solar system? Not at all. The compositions of the planets are radically different. Some are solid, some gas. Earth is about 70% water. Their orbits are elliptical, not circular. Uranus has an axis of rotation that is nearly parallel with its orbital plane. Venus rotates backward in relation to the rotations of the other planets. Saturn has concentric rings of water ice and rock that is NOT condensing into moons or planets (and certainly should have by now, or there should be some evidence of it). The planets also have moons, many of which defy the concept of having been formed by condensation (some were captured by the planets, but others like our own were not).
In other words, getting back to the ALMA image, again, it is simply a star surrounded by gas rings. There is no reason to assume those rings are turning into planets, or will do so, other than evolutionary wishful thinking. And again, this is not science, it's science fiction and storytelling.
If This Isn't Proof That Evolution Is a Religion...
I just got through teaching two sessions on "Evolution as a religion" at our church (nothing about the Bible, or creationism, just Evolution), which was well-received with a lot of interest. While preparing the study I was hoping to get my hands on a copy of the September 2014 issue of Scientific American magazine, which was devoted to Evolution, and just yesterday I "miraculously" found a copy through our local library bookstore for only 25 cents, which is about what I thought it was worth, so that worked out fine!
The first, and primary point I made in the presentation was that Evolution seeks to answer the three main questions we all ask, and the very questions that every religion tries to answer:
- Who am I?
- Why am I here? or, What is my purpose?
- Where am I going?
Well, guess what? On page 39 of that issue of SciAm, at the bottom, is a little dialog section entitled, "What's in this issue?" The answer is divided into three sections. Have you guessed them yet? Here, let me help:
Part 1 : Where we came from
Part 2 : What makes us special
Part 3 : Where we are going
If that's not enough, well if I can brag a little about my ability to make other scientific predictions based on the fact that Evolution is baloney, here's another one. In my book, Evolution Is Stupid!, I mockingly assert that every few months a new so-called human ancestor is discovered that OVERTURNS our whole concept of the alleged evolution of man and completely REWRITES THE STORY!
Well, guess what? On that same page, 39, right after telling what the "story" of the evolution of man WAS in the 1990s, are the following words:
"As it turns out, fossil and genetic evidence amassed since then has cast doubt on or downright disproved every element of that CliffsNotes accounting of our origins."
So where does that leave us? Well, the defenders of the Evodelusion faith will holler, "THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS, YOU DUMMIES! As new evidence comes to light we throw out the old."
Creationists will counter with, "And how long is the "old" going to last THIS TIME?"
Do we have to throw out the evidence for gravity every 10 years? Do we have to change the story of spectroscopy and replace it often, or that sodium combined with chlorine will make table salt or hydrogen and oxygen, water? Do we have to throw out the evidence that the moon and planets reflect sunlight and re-write the story every few months? How often do we change our story about X-ray images of bones and replace it with some other reason bones show up in those images?
So then, what's so "special" about human evolution that we have to continually re-work the "story?"
Maybe because it's... A story.
Here's What Satanists and Atheists Have to Offer Our Children
In order to counter those radical Bible believers who are offering hope, help and salvation to humanity, the Satanists and Atheist/Humanists have come out to peddle their philosophies too. After all, they have so much to offer!
The "Satanic Temple" wants to offer The Satanic Children's Big Book of Activities to the Orange County Florida school district, which has approved as legal the distribution of Bibles to children on school grounds. According to one article,
"The book features children in traditional Satanic rituals, along with pentagram imagery, Cerberus [look it up] the Dog, and a maze leading to a spell book, the Necronomicon [Harry Potter would be proud]. The book also contains anti-bullying messages."
Satanic anti-bullying? Is that the quintessential definition of an oxymoron or what?! You might as well put a pedophile in front of a bunch of kids as a role model for a youth chastity program.
Then we have the Atheist/Humanist gang (deliberate word choice there), in what could hardly be called a "hate crime," who have sought to block the distribution of shoe box Christmas gifts by two public schools to needy kids around the world. The annual outreach of Franklin Graham's Samaritan Ministries brings Christmas joy to thousands of children and their families worldwide. A letter sent to two schools, one in S. Carolina and the other in Colorado, included this blarney with threats of legal action (ahh, the American Way):
"The boxes of toys are essentially a bribe, expressly used to pressure desperately poor children living in developing countries to convert to Christianity, and are delivered with prayers, sermons, evangelical tracts and pressure to convert. While a private religious group is free to pursue such a goal, even through such questionable means, a public school cannot affiliate itself with, endorse, promote or support such a group's program without violating the Establishment Clause."
I'd like to see some documentation where desperately poor children are PRESSURED to convert to Christianity because they receive a gift box with toys, clothing, and such, and then I'd like to see what the Humanists are doing for those same poor kids, but I don't think anyone is pursuing finding out, nor am I aware that the poor kids have been asked their opinion. Instead, one of the schools has already capitulated, citing the possible costs of a legal battle (ahh, the American Way, part 2 : money means everything).
It's really unfortunate that such a large portion of humanity wastes the gift called "life" expending energy fighting for the stupid things they believe. After all, Humanists and Satanists have done so much for the betterment of humanity, how can we possibly argue with them? I wonder what would happen if, instead of threatening financial sanctions, or to combat Bible teaching, they actually did something constructive.
But I'm not going to hold my breath. If I do, I'll die. If I die, please bring a lawsuit against the Humanists and Satanists for me, would ya?
The Pope Gives the Dope on Evolution
Woe are we, for we are undone! "Il Papa" has pronounced Evodelusion and the Big Bungle to be true and real, and Intelligent Design and Fiat Creation to be "pseudo theories!"
Of course, we can expect that Evo scientists everywhere will come out of the woodwork to denounce the Pope for not being a "real scientist." Ok, maybe not...
Now, the Pope himself said that God is not a "magician with a magic wand" who created everything LIKE HE SAYS HE DID IN GENESIS. So wow, whom are we to believe? The Pope, or God? That's a tough one! The RC church has always been right in its pronouncements on scientific matters, hasn't it?
However, if pressed, no doubt the Pope will defend the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, where perhaps millions of times per day ordinary bread and wine are MAGICALLY transformed into the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus Christ. Nor will he denounce miracles that so-called RC "saints" have performed that cannot be verified scientifically. Nor will he denounce the power of so-called "relics," nor alleged apparitions of the Virgin, nor the miraculous healing powers of the waters of Lourdes (which you can purchase online, btw).
But when it comes to God as Creator, well, He's no magician!
Pat Robertson, to some (not me!) a spokesman for evangelical Christians, also recently denounced Young Earth Creationists for making Christians look silly by believing in a 6000-year-old creation.
Let's open this one for discussion. Please see the thread I've started in the Discussion Forum under "Evolution Topics," here: Pope gives Dope and Pat chews Fat on Creationism
Is Earth the Center of the Universe?
A friend sent me this news item from CBN today:
The film contends that there is evidence that Earth, or at least our galaxy, is at the center of the universe. I've always believed that our galaxy (though not Earth) was at or near the center, and this video includes some material from both secular and creationist science that supports that. One reason (for my personal belief) is the cosmic microwave background radiation is virtually equal no matter what direction one looks. Another is that, simply put, there is NO WAY for someone who is not an outside observer to PROVE that our galaxy is NOT at the center of the universe. We observe from within, and we've not found a boundary to the universe no matter what direction we look. So who's to say for absolute certain that we are not at or near the center? No one. Can't be proven.
Of course detractors have attempted to divert attention off the issue at hand by raising accusations that the executive producer of the documentary, Bob Sungenis, is an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, both of which he denies. We won't get into Darwin's racism or the fact that Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists here because we're already ruffling feathers, nor will we mention Richard Dawkins's recent appalling response to a question about Down syndrome babies. Oops, I guess we just did.
In any event, it appears that the film is attempting to bring back the notion that we are "special" due to our location in the universe, but I have always contended that our "specialness" has absolutely nothing to do with WHERE we are, but rather WHO we are. I realize that modern Evodelusionists revel in the notion that we're nothing special and blame Galileo, Copernicus and Einstein, mainly, for allegedly helping demonstrate that. But you can do a simple scientific experiment to demonstrate that location has nothing to do with "who" we are.
Here's what you do. Find someone you love. Put them in the center of your home if you can find it. Are they special to you and do you love them while they're there? Now give them a nice airline ticket to take a vacation in, say Hawaii, or maybe Alaska. Once they get there, ask yourself if they're still special and you still love them even though they're no longer at the center of your home.
God created us in His image. We're special enough that He came to die for us so that we could have the relationship with Him restored, which we ruined by rebelling against Him. He's also the Creator of the universe and wants us to discover what He's created and give Him the glory for it, not the mindless materialism that further stokes our rebellion.
Here's a little something I wrote years ago: Significant Nothings
Boneheads and Neanderthal Sex
The exciting news for sexually challenged Evolutionists is that Neanderthals and humans "might have" had sexual relations 45-50,000 years ago! Doesn't that change your whole perspective on life? I mean, wow, will you ever be able to enjoy your morning latte the same again?
Scientists studied A THIGH BONE for SIX YEARS to come to that conclusion. And just what have YOU been doing the last six years, eh?
Now let's look at just a few phrases from the news article I read about it.
"They determined it's a man's bone, and it's ABOUT 45,000 years old."
"Their research SUGGESTS Neanderthal genes flowed into [huh??] the ancestors of this man..."
"That means humans and Neanderthals COULD HAVE first bred about 50-60,000 years ago..."
"Because the bone was found in Siberia, it SUGGESTS that early humans migrated... We USED TO THINK..."
End of article: "... it's giving scientists a lot to think about."
Well, it's going to take at least another 6 years of research and funding to fully think about it some more, so stay tuned!
More on the Homosexual Issue
It's interesting to see some of the goings-on involved with the recent gay marriage decision by our corrupt courts and administration. Anyone who can look at a picture of two men kissing on the lips and not, deep down inside, know it's wrong has to have what the Bible calls a "seared conscience." Something I've found interesting is how many gays mock and jeer at Christians for taking a stance against their re-definition of marriage, often citing a "separation of church and state," but the funny thing is, they not only want to be recognized by churches and consider it a great victory when they are (they're really hammering at the Roman church and pope to accept homosexual marriage), and they want to be married IN churches BY ministers (or priests). Often those "ministers" who marry them are women, adding rebellion to rebellion.
So on the one hand we have calls for no church or Christian involvement, while on the other hand there's nothing they want more than acceptance by the mainstream churches!
Our local paper printed an opinion asserting that gay marriage was really no big deal and wasn't going to change anything in our state. It showed a picture of two lesbians kissing and quoted the one as saying she "prayed for this all these years." So much for not involving religion. But there's no need to pray for something that God has clearly said He does not approve.
The liberal media also loves, as in our newspaper's case above, to point out how the "loving" couples have been together for many years. So what? I have close friends whom I've loved too for many years; I just don't have a perverted relationship with them. And who knows how many other side relationships the "lovers" have had? Who should even care, or why should they care? Go out, have a fling, and come home to your "partner" and who's going to care? Why not spread the "love" (and who knows what else) around?
So, let me suggest a few reasons why this IS a big deal and changes everything.
First, "God is not mocked." (Galations 6:7) Laugh at God now, pay later. God is not going to be mocked by your actions. You WILL suffer consequences, sooner or later. So will society. We experimented with free sex and rebellion against authority in the 1960's and '70's, and where have we benefitted from them? Hint: Sodom and Gomorrah are gone. Wiped off the face of the Earth.
Second, anyone who thinks that the people involved in these actions are interested in protecting freedoms and rights is nothing but blind and naive. They are interested in THEIR rights and freedoms, not those who disagree with them.
Third, you can't explain to a child that this sort of "family" relationship is normal in one breath then explain that you need a man and woman to create a child in the next. That is a form of psychological child abuse, nothing less. We have no right as a society to perform social experiments on our children.
Fourth, there is absolutely, positively, without question, NO reason that this should not lead to other perverse definitions of "marriage," including pedophilia, bestiality, bigamy and polygamy, and whatever else you want to come up with. There is no justification to deny people those "rights" if we're going to pander to the homosesexual community too. If you don't believe me, look up NAMBLA for starters.
All of this is the result of a combination of two things: A denial and abandonment of anything having to do with God or His word, and an acceptance of the Evolutionary line of thought, which, in effect, leaves us rudderless and without bounds or morals. Which is just what these people want. If you don't believe that, read Psalm 2. That will give you a good idea of where we're headed.
WHAT ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR?
I have asked that question repeatedly to Evolutionists, Atheists and others, and I never get a direct answer.
What am I fighting for as a Christian? I'll tell you in a moment. First, though, let's look at what some others are fighting for.
Homosexuals: What are you fighting for? Well, in today's news (15 October, 2014) we see you are fighting for the "right" of transgenders to use women's bathrooms. What a noble cause! Yes, that's right folks. And the allegedly lesbian mayor of Houston, in the interest of free speech, reportedly has demanded that pastors turn over their sermons to the government for review so it can be decided whether they are in violation of anti-discrimination laws, even though the pastors had NOTHING to do with a lawsuit that was filed to stop the transgender bill. It will be noted that they have not demanded the sermons of any Muslim leaders, as no doubt they are much more tolerant of homosexuals and transgenders.
Then we see that Ellen Degeneres and her "partner" might be "having a baby." How that's going to be possible, I'm not sure. But that's what you're fighting for. The right to illicit partnerships and to abuse children by forcing them to accept that they have two mothers or two fathers despite what even nature shows you is obvious. And the right to illicit sexual relations. Yep, THAT's worth fighting for!
Atheists: What are you fighting for? Well, let's see... We want people to deny the existence of any god, but particularly the God of the Bible. We want people to know they basically are free to do whatever they please and will never have to answer for it. We want people to know, as Madalyn Murray O'Hair put it, that when you die the worms eat you and that's it. Now THAT's worth fighting for!
Evolutionists: What are you fighting for? Well, we believe that we all came from stardust, and we're just all part of the universe. We believe we started out as molecules and they magically came alive and turned into bacteria and those became fish and those became monkeys and those became us. However, though we believe we're at the top of the evolutionary ladder, we also believe the Earth is a drop of nothing in the great universe and that, in effect, we're nothing special so let's just accept our UN-specialness and that when we die we'll just become more dust to feed the evolutionary process. Wow, what a past! And what a future! Now, THAT's worth fighting for!
Now hear my side of the story. God created this universe. God controls this universe. You are something special in God's eyes, so much so that He wants to have a relationship with you. But because you have rebelled against Him that relationship has been severed. He so wants that relationship to be restored, that He Himself became one just like you and me, and died for your sinful rebellion so that, through placing your faith in Him, rather than in homosexuals, or atheists, or evolutionists, or scientists, or even religionists, you can have that relationship restored, have peace with God, and KNOW that you have everlasting life and will dwell with God in Heaven forever.
But no, I'm not sure that's worth fighting for, are you? I mean, aren't unisex bathrooms, same-sex marriages, a godless existence, and the belief that your ancestors were fish much more worthy causes to fight for?
You tell me.
I Say We Need an Ape Constitution Too!
The farther we get from God, the stupider the things we do. As if a recent story on Fox News were not enough, about a Lincoln Nebraska school whose principal sent out a directive that teachers were no longer to address children as "boys and girls" because we don't want to offend anybody who doesn't like being a boy or a girl (it's called "gender inclusiveness" in case you care), today we have a news item that a court in New York is going to be hearing a case concerning whether chimpanzees deserve the same rights as humans.
Not like we didn't see this coming. The lawyer representing the chimps is named Wise. Steven Wise. You gotta love that. Wise claimed, according to Reuters, that this was the culmination of three decades of seeking to accord the same rights to animals as humans enjoy, and we're not talking just chimps now, but all "intelligent" animals, including elephants, dolphins, orcas and other "non-human primates."
The term for an elephant or porpoise who has rights is "legal personhood." As if we're not confused enough about who we are, thanks in large part to evolutionists, and radical feminists who have nothing better to do than try to force men and women into the mold they so desire where women become more masculine and men more feminine (they've done a good job, by the way). So now, not only do we have human personhood, but animal personhood too!
The problem as I see it is, as these animals become more intelligent, humans are becoming more stupid. So eventually the tables are going to be turned and the intelligent animals are going to have to go to court to protect HUMAN rights. Or do I err? I mean, just you wait till some elephants start poaching human ivories and the orcas have to come to our defense to save us from extinction.
The minute we think we've seen the depths of human dumbness, somebody grabs a shovel and they dig down a bit deeper.
Oh, and don't forget, Bible believers are stupid for thinking that God created humans as a special and distinct species, apart from the animals. Dummies.
The Supreme Dictatorship Has Decreed That God's Law Is No Longer Valid
For anyone who might read this, here's truth in a nutshell.
- God instituted marriage. He created a man and a woman, united them, and that's where marriage came from. It was not a concoction that some apes came up with.
- God is ultimately the lawgiver. He decreed that anything outside normal marriage between a man and a woman is perversion, sinful in His eyes, and would bring judgment on the individuals and nations that practiced and condoned it.
- Weak-kneed "pastors" who place their stamp of approval on sexual perversion rather than warning those who practice it are not only serving themselves and not God, but they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Don't follow them.
- The Apostle Paul spoke of "the mystery of lawlessness." The mystery comes in that the more laws we make, the more lawless we get. One form of sexual perversion is going to lead to others. We have opened the floodgates.
- This nation is no longer "free." It has become a free-for-all. And the only "offense" that no longer counts is an offense against God.
- The number six being that which represents the imperfection and corruption of man (which is why the Antichrist's number is 666), we will end here with a certain expectation that if we do not repent God is going to destroy this nation. We can laugh at that while God allows us to dig our holes deeper, but God will not be mocked for long.
"Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil." --Ecclesiastes 8:11
Poor Richard's Almanack of Gaffes
Maybe we should at least credit him with getting out and speaking what's on his mind, but Richard Dawkins continually seems to paint himself into a dunce's corner.
A number of years ago Dawkins was interviewed and asked by an Australian film crew if he could give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome. In the video, which can be seen on YouTube, Dawkins looks heavenward (and only Heaven knows why he would do that!) and simply says nothing for over 20 seconds, then asks that the camera be turned off. When the film picks up again, he gives his trademark roundabout response and never actually answers the question. He and his fanatical supporters went out of their way to try to clean up after that one, but it didn't work.
Some time after that gaffe, Dawkins is seen being interviewed by Ben Stein in the excellent documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." In that interview, Stein asks Dawkins to quantify his assertion that there is no God. Dawkins tries to wriggle out of it, but Stein figuratively puts Dawkins' back up to the wall. Dawkins admits that, ok, he's 99 percent sure there's no God. But Stein's not going to let it go at that, and asks, "Why not 97?" Dawkins then agrees that maybe it could be 97 percent. Stein presses on and asks why not 50 or 46? And at that point Dawkins confidently asserts that he's more than 50 percent sure God doesn't exist.
So if all that isn't bad enough, and if it's not bad enough that I have a video where Dawkins claims that humans came from bacteria, we now have major gaffe number 3, where Dawkins shows what his heart really is like. A woman Tweeted a question to him. Now, understand, apparently Scientist Extraordinaire Richard Dawkins did not understand the concept of social media. So the woman Tweets him a statement that she felt she would be faced with an ethical dilemma if she were to get pregnant with a Down syndrome baby. Not realizing that the world would be able to read his response, Dawkins told her that if she knew she was carrying such a baby, it would be "immoral" for her to carry it to term, and she should just abort it and try again.
Needless to say, Dawkins found himself with major evolved egg all over his face on that one. Even the basest, most immoral, deluded evolutionist can see there's something wrong with that reasoning.
How is it that an Atheist can even call something "immoral?" Who's he to decide? If a "normal" baby is born and then becomes diseased or crippled, should we then terminate that life too because it's "inconvenient" for us? The bottom line for Dawkins, no doubt, is money and his definition of what constitutes "happiness." Is it not possible for a Down syndrome parent, AND a Down syndrome child, to both be happy? Of course it is.
Stop listening to pseudo-experts like Dawkins and DO YOUR OWN THINKING.
Design Isn't About Science
Hey folks, these discussions in the Prescott Daily Courier are almost getting to be fun, if it weren't so sad to see the average person's spiritual condition. The latest one in the Opinion section starts with a gentleman who insists he believes in God, but also the Big Bang and Evolution.
Unfortunately there is absolutely no compatibility between the former and the two latter concepts, but we've gotten into a discussion about other things like design and Atheism there. Have a look when you've got time. I've not been able to get permission to supply links, so you'll have to google the Prescott Daily Courier, then go to the Opinions section on the homepage.
The Verderame Constant
Ok, so we have Planck's constant, Hubble's constant, the gravitational constant, and so on.
I now propose the Verderame Constant. Here it is:
"The validity of the Evolutionist's argument is inversely proportional to the density of the Evolutionist."
Put in simple laymen's terms (I realize I need to do that because this can get quite complex), the more dense the Evolutionist, the less valid his argument.
The main reason I've invented this Law stems from constantly having to figuratively beat Evolutionists over the head with the fact that the main arguments they harp on as proofs are nothing more than a working or re-working of what is ALREADY THERE. I've said the words "ALREADY THERE" so many times in the last few decades that I'm even tired of hearing myself say it.
Natural selection works with what's ALREADY THERE. It doesn't make anything new. Mutations work with what's ALREADY THERE. They don't create anything new, and more often than not result in a LOSS of what's ALREADY THERE. No new genetic information = No evolution.
Why these people can't "get it" is just beyond comprehension, but they don't.
Hence, the Verderame Constant.
Evolutionists on the Rampage
The Prescott Daily Courier posted a new letter in their Opinions section, which is a response to my letter (see "Stirring Up the Evo Bee Nests" below). I responded, but sometimes it takes up to a day for new responses to appear, so if you want to be entertained, keep checking back to see what folks are saying. Since their terms and conditions do not permit links without prior approval, we're not posting them here, but if you go to the Prescott Daily Courier homepage, just click on Opinions and you'll see a letter entitled:
"Evolution proof is bountiful."
Should be fun following the comments as they develop.
Oh, What Suckers We Mortals Be
To read the headline, one would think there was some Earth shattering news about how humans were going to become "a new species" by 2050. "Evolutionary anthropologist" Cadell Last has proposed that radical social and longevity changes in the current generation are proofs that humankind is evolving.
"People are going to be able to have more control over how they spend their time and energy, culturally speaking. And that will be a big change, that will be a fundamental difference between industrial society and the society we're making."
So now "evolution" from monkeys to man includes social change. The "society we're making" says it all. We're creating our own evolutionary change, then calling it evolutionary change. And who would disagree that society is changing? So, there you have it, evolution in action.
First, whoever wrote the article needs to look up the definition of "species." New species are isolated when they can no longer interbreed with the "old" species. A species is a reproductively compatible population. Was there any hint that this "new" species of human could no longer interbreed with the old one? Of course not. Then how will they have "evolved?" By changing from people who live fast and die young to people who live slow and die old, stupid! What did you think?
Once again, it boggles the mind what passes for "science" these days. If you call yourself an evolutionary such-and-such, of course that immediately accords you credibility. Then you pass off your dumb story or so-called research to the gullible public and they eat it up.
I have decided that I'm going to become an Evolutionary Stupidologist. That should help me along in the current climate of things.
Ok, So the Discussion Board Is Back
I missed it. Yes, I'm busy and all that, but having the Board is a challenge and helps keep me (and maybe you) on your toes. Besides, I'm just getting into discussions elsewhere instead, so might as well come back here.
So, if you're still out there or want to join in, please do.
Stirring Up the Evo Bee Nests in Arizona
I recently responded to a letter in the Prescott Daily Courier attacking "fundamentalists" for their belief in a young Earth. The responses to my response, though not unexpected, have been almost depressing. As usual, the discussion quickly degenerated from one about science, or the lack thereof, in this case concerning radiometric dating, to attacks on God, the Bible, and religion. Since their terms and conditions do not permit links without prior approval, we're not posting them here, but if you go to the Prescott Daily Courier homepage, just click on Opinions and scroll down to see the letters entitled:
Letter: Science has settled earth age debate
Letter: People select, reject facts to support bias
What? Another Atheist Church Service?
Well, we're going to have a special session here because I just found out about the competition. "What?" you say, "somebody else has an Atheist Church service?"
That's right folks, there's another Atheist Church out there, and it's going to give us a run for the money - literally -
It's Friday, So Here's a Good Fish Story
As a young boy growing up Roman Catholic, we normally ate fish on Friday, so I figured it was appropriate that this story was in the news today, Friday, August 29, 2014.
The headline boldly pronounced that fish were "raised to walk on land." Being as I don't have an unskeptical bone in my body, my immediate response was, "Yeah, right. Ok, lets see what the latest in evodeception is." I wasn't disappointed.
So when you read what the ACTUAL FACTS are, beyond the deceptive headline you find that "scientists" at McGill University raised some Senegal bichir fish, which already have BOTH LUNGS AND GILLS, in about a tenth inch of water. Got that? - we're not talking bone dry desert. Ok, are you following me? The bichir are a type of eel that can ALREADY breathe outside water for a period of time, and they were NOT placed in a dry environment to see how they'd fare, but rather in a "less wet" one than usual. That's because, without mosture, their skin would dry out and they'd be, well, dead. And dead things don't evolve and that would RUIN the story.
So what magical evolutionary trick happened? Did they suddenly stand up and walk around the laboratory room? Did they start dancing to the tune "Rock Lobster?" Did they walk out of the water holding a sign saying "Nya nya ny nya nya to Creationists?"
Well, what happened was they were actually able to walk better on their fins than the control group that was immersed in their normal aqueous habitat.
Are you amazed? I certainly am. I am biting my nails right now because of this latest devastating "proof" of evolution. I think I'll go for a swim and try to work off my nervous energy.
Now for the Latest Neanderthal News
Our semi-simian ancestors have made the headlines again. What did they do this time? Well, nothing. They were the innocent party. It seems we modern humans are the culprits this time because it was the humans' fault that the Neanderthals went extinct. And guess what? It's TURNING HUMAN ANCESTRY ON ITS HEAD! Can you IMAGINE? I don't think (cough cough cough) THAT's ever happened before, now has it? (Hint of sarcasm there, I'd say.)
Check out this quote from a recent article, with the usual expressions of certainty (emphasis mine):
"Most thought our early human ancestors went extinct about 30,000 years ago, but dating really old bones can get tricky. And in what The New York Times called "the most definitive answer yet," a new study suggests Neanderthals actually disappeared from Europe 10,000 years earlier than previously thought."
Ok, rational analysis time. So, we "previously thought" such and such, but now we "think" such and such else because a new study "suggests" it. And wait, a "definitive answer SUGGESTS it?" What am I missing there?
And get this: "dating really old bones can get tricky." Can you IMAGINE? Who'd a thunk it? So if dating "thousands" of years old bones is tricky, well, then, what about those "millions of years old" dinosaur bones - you know, the ones with blood cells and soft tissue still in them?
Oh, and here's a real doozie from the same article:
"The simplest way we can explain it is that researchers used radiocarbon dating but removed contaminants they think were making samples seem older than they actually were."
That speaks for itself. That is, it speaks for itself to rational thinking people. To brainwashed Evofanatics it won't mean anything at all.
One last choice tidbit: The "study" characterized humans as an "invasive species."
Stardate : Unknown
The headline read that "traces" of the first stars in the universe were found, and this is how the article started out (emphasis mine):
"An ancient star in the halo surrounding the Milky Way galaxy appears to contain traces of material released by the death of one of the universe's first stars, a new study reports.
The chemical signature of the ancient star suggests that it incorporated material blasted into space by a supernova explosion that marked the death of a huge star in the early universe - one that may have been 200 times more massive than the sun."
Does this really need commentary? How long are we going to tolerate this sort of thing as "science?' You gather a bunch of facts, invent a story about them that you can't possibly demonstrate as true, or falsify, and the public just eats it up as one more proof that the universe evolved.
The truth is that the universe demonstrates unequivocally that it is dying, and this is just one more example of that. No more, no less. There's no evidence one way or another that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the stars weren't created at the same time. They simply age differently, just like everything else in the universe. Some die younger than others, but there is no way to determine the absolute age of a star without, as usual, a bagful of assumptions.
Atheist Church Service 17 August 2014
It's been some weeks since we last met, but no doubt you've had much more important things to do with your Sunday mornings - sleep, eat, waste time on your
computer, go shopping - all the important things in life.
Touchdown for Georgia!
Hooray for the town of Gainesville, Georgia, for not bowing the knee to Atheist losers who have nothing better to do than try to take away American liberties, especially Christian ones, so they can have their 15 minutes of fame. It's amazing what some people think they have to "fight" for. Maybe these cowards should volunteer to go to Iraq or some other place where "religious" people are being persecuted and killed for their beliefs, and you don't enjoy the freedom to be an Atheist who has nothing else to do than go around looking to create trouble where before there was none. Sort of like a Biblical character you can read about in Job 2:2.
Here is a report from Todd Starnes:
P.S. I have already ordered a copy of Todd Starnes' book, God Less America. Will let you know once I've read it.
Everyone's "Tolkien" About the "Hobbit" Fossil
Well, another hominid, or hominin, or hominoid, or hominy grits, or whatever the latest moniker for them is, has bitten the paleontological dust. The fossil, found in Indonesia about 10 years ago and nicknamed "The Hobbit" because of its stunted growth, has been knocked off the mountain (again) and determined to be a human that likely had Down syndrome. As usual this is not big news for Creationists, as we well know there were no "pre-human" ancestors so we don't waste time looking for them. How much time, money and effort has been wasted on this stuff? Ahh, but it's "real" science, right?
Here's the story according to NBC news:
Of course those who have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive are fighting this latest theory. So much for a united front when it comes to human ancestors. For more on that, read Roger Lewin's expose' Bones of Contention : Controversies in the Search for Human Origins.
So now we have the Hobbit suffering from Down syndrome, and the Neanderthals suffering from ricketts. I don't know if this would cause skeletal deformation, but it seems a lot of paleontologists suffer from amnesia, as they don't seem to recall that EVERY so-called apeman has been debunked as being either a simian or a human, whether a "normal" one or one that suffered from some sort of disease. No doubt this latest embarrassment won't stop them from coming up with some new ape-person. They have no alternative but the Truth.
Someone to Watch Over Me
Folks, this is one of the best articles I've read in a while. Credit goes to Samaritan Ministries, a Christian Healthcare agency, and the author, Rob Slane.
The More Feminine the Face, the Less Men Punch Each Other Out
It boggles the mind. I don't know what else to say. For the latest in Evodelusionary stupidity, please see my post here:
Kentucky Fried Compsognathus
The only time people act more foolishly than behind the wheel of an automobile is when it comes to the stories they invent about dinosaurs. The latest in dino fiction is the notion that the behemoths got SMALLER and turned into birds. Magically, of course, as no such thing ever happened in real life history, but if you look at the nice little artist's rendition, suddenly feathers appear on the little fellas and there you have it! Come fly away, come fly away with me!
But wait a minute. Didn't they get LARGER to fend off predators? What's with the "honey I shrank the dino" bit now?
See one of the articles and join in the discussion right here:
Happy Birthday Moon Landing
Forty-five years ago today America landed men on the moon. If you're old enough to remember, no doubt you recall exactly where you were at that time. It was a riveting point in history. I was a teenager living in Italy, and watched on a small black and white TV in a hotel lobby as Neil Armstrong took that amazing step into the lunar dust. (Side note: Prior to any spacecraft landing on the moon, some of the billion-year gang assumed the dust of the eons would be so deep it would swallow the craft.)
A few almost-forgotten facts: Armstrong and Aldrin almost didn't make it. Their computer gave a false alarm which they over-rode, then they encountered a boulder field, and with only 30 seconds of fuel left they had to maneuver the lunar lander manually to a level landing area.
And Buzz Aldrin took along a little bit of bread and tiny vial of wine to celebrate communion on the moon with Armstrong. NASA decided not to broadcast that. Huffington Post ran an online article about the communion service today. The article itself wasn't too badly written, even for HP, but naturally they had to do some God-bashing (with lots of ignorant anti-God comments) after the article, where they presented some of our "top scientists" and their views of God (as if God is biting His nails worrying about what they think). Here's what one of the great thinkers of our time, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, had to say:
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
I don't think I'll comment on that, as it speaks for itself. Instead, I'll end with some LIVING words of REAL importance. Here, in David's words, is God's response to arrogant, puny people who think they know it all, and what Aldrin read during the communion service, from Psalm 8 (un-feminized version):
When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers,
The moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained;
What is man that Thou art mindful of him,
And the son of man that Thou visitest him?
Now, you might wonder why I make a point of saying "un-feminized version." Well, it's because weak individuals have capitulated to a feminist agenda of changing God's word to make it sound more "inclusive." So, let's do that with Neil Armstrong's words:
"That's one small step for a person, one giant leap for humankind."
Oh, we can't do that with Neil's words? But it's ok to do it with God's words, right? If the verse uses the term "man" then that's what God wanted the verse to say. If you don't like that, well, that's just too bad.
Have a good day, and next time you see the "person" in the moon, tell him/her/it "Hello" for me!
NASA Must Need a $$ Infusion
Here we go again. NASA held a conference on extraterrestrial life, and guess what? It might could maybe possibly be "out there" somewhere! This is all fueled by the belief that life evolved on Earth, which it did not. You'll hear statements from scientists and the public like,
"Well, life evolved here, so why not elsewhere?" or
"If there's no other life out there, the universe sure is a big waste of space!"
As I have said before, I do believe that we are being set up for the grandest deception since Eve was duped in the Garden of Eden. And what did she fall for? "You shall not die, but you shall be like God." Isn't that really the driving force here? We want to know that somewhere in the universe life goes on, and maybe, just maybe we'll really live again somehow or other when we die here on Earth, and we don't need any help from any other god but us, thank you.
If you ever watched the movie "Contact," based on Carl Sagan's book, the underlying theme is that life goes on in some form or other, as astronomer and spacegirl Ellie meets a phantasm of her deceased father on a galaxy far far away.
I just finished reading a book about Kartchner Caverns in Arizona. Even in that, a book about a cave, you couldn't escape evolution and the hope that "we're not alone," as one of the cave discoverers, Randy Tufts, later got involved with research on the Jovian moon Europa, said to contain a vast ocean of water beaneath its ice mantle that maybe, just maybe, might could maybe possibly mean it was an incubator for life.
That sort of reasoning has always fascinated me. Even though water has been detected throughout the universe, its presence on any celestial object immediately is touted as signaling the possibility that life may reside there, as if all you need is water and an energy source to "create" living things. But something else fascinates me about this whole ET bit, and I'll let Mr. Tufts explain it in his words:
"It always seemed to me that if we found life someplace else, it would give us a vastly new perspective on existence. And we would probably realize that we weren't quite as important as we thought we were. I mean, it might take us down a peg..."
"...when we humans find extraterrestrial life... the meaning of that discovery may be this: That life is what the universe 'does'..."
[Kartchner Caverns, by Neil Miller. University of Arizona Press, 2008, p. 176]
What is it with this desire on the part of people like Tufts, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others to see humanity denigrated before the powers of the universe? God said we were created in His image. Could it be that what's behind it is really a desire to bring GOD down a peg or two? And why, exactly, do people want so desperately to believe we're nothings floating in the middle of nothingness and going nowhere? What wonderful new perspective will that give us on our purpose and place in the here-and-now, or in the future when we die?
None. The greatest deception is the one you're not aware of. Jesus came to open the eyes of the blind. If you really want a new perspective on existence, ask Him and He'll open your eyes and give you one, and you'll wonder how it was you were so deceived before.
Big Bang Crunched Again
The above news item confirms what many creationists have been saying all along, namely that the Big Bang is anything but a cut-and-dried fact of cosmological evolution, and is constantly coming into question. In this instance, some new information seems to indicate that the BB would have crunched itself back into nothingness within the first second of its occurrence.
Creationists have no problem with an expanding universe. The Bible says that God "stretched out the heavens." We certainly have no issue with the universe having had a beginning. We do have issues with the universe popping out of nothing and nowhere and making everything in existence all by itself, including humans who can contemplate it. That's stupid.
And in Other Exciting News: Back Off, Buthter!
Yosemite Sam would appreciate this evolutionary gem. A "study" (read: waste of time and resources) from the University of Chicago has shown that humans have a natural fear of things that are moving closer rather than away. To quote the article that appeared on AoL,
"In evolutionary terms, this makes sense. Early humans were nowhere near as equipped to deal with danger as we are now -- so a wild animal or a person we don't know approaching us could be a sign of potential danger."
Here's the EvolutionIsStupid interpretation of that statement:
"Ok, now it's time to invent some stupid evolutionary 'explanation' for the unthinking masses to swallow."
In reality, the "evolutionary terms" make no sense whatsoever. Who says "early humans" weren't equipped to deal with danger as we are now? In what respect? So nobody's dying from being attacked any more now that we're so "equipped" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? And how did we evolve this sense of "potential danger?" Did it just pop into our brains after some apemen were attacked by ape muggers? Or, maybe after a wild animal attacked an apeman and killed him, the other ape people looked at him and said, "Ugh! We'd better not let these critters get close to us any more!"
I will admit that when I see my wife holding a carving knife while preparing supper, I keep my distance, especially if I've done something that didn't make her happy, but otherwise I prefer she move toward me, and am certainly not afraid when she does. I also don't mind hugging people (being of Italian extract and all that), so again I'm bucking the evolutionary trends, and most of them don't mind hugging me back.
But of course, we can invent an Evo story for that one too, and here it is: Our ape ancestors needed warmth, so found out that hugging was a good idea! Hoorah for smart simians!
One of our contributors posted a news item in the Discussion threads that has to be one of the most head-spinning pieces of evodelusionary bunkum I've ever read, and that's pretty bad. It is a CLASSIC example of using big scientific-sounding words to make the case that you know what you're talking about and nobody had better argue with you. The title should immediately alert you to that fact, and here it is:
To put it in everyday English that we common dummies can understand, the face evolved to be able to withstand punches. Which means, of course, that fists (or the ability to curl the hand into a fist and then extend it to the other guy's face) also evolved. Which means, of course, that the brain also evolved the ability to know that the fist wanted to curl and throw a punch. Which means, of course, that all the bones and muscles to do that evolved to perfection, and then hooked themselves up to the brain, which by then had figured out how to make it all work. Which means, of course... You get the idea. Hopefully.
If the utter stupidity and backward reasoning of this study, which is another waste of human time and effort but no doubt will be hailed as the epitome of scientific progress, is not immediately evident to you, you need to whack your skull against the wall a few times till it shakes your brain back in place and you can think like apes did before they started beating on each other.
Honestly, I'm (almost) at a loss for any more words on this one. Just read the abstract for yourselves and see if you're impressed with all the big words. Then THINK about it. So, human faces evolved to withstand fists? Problem is, bad old Apedude soon figured out how to use clubs, didn't he? Oh, that will be our next evolutionary "study." And in the meantime, Apegirl was learning how to throw karate kicks. Happy Science, y'all!
New Movie - Getting the Word Out
I've been contacted about a new movie that's coming out about a girl whose faith in the Bible is tested when she goes to college and has to take a course that makes her accept evolution. Sounds like a pretty promising film and it's been endorsed by Answers in Genesis, Ray Comfort, and others. Here is a trailer: www.amatteroffaithmovie.com
The title, "A Matter of Faith," kind of conveys that we believe the Bible only by faith. Hopefully the movie conveys the fact that we do not believe in Creationism and the Bible by faith alone, but that all the evidence in the world supports it.
In Fact, In Other News Is the Evolution Is Stupid! Expanded Version Book Release!
In a few weeks we hope to release a much expanded version of Evolution Is Stupid!, which will include a lot of discussion (taken from feedback and elsewhere) about why Evolution is unsupported by the facts. We will be removing the Feedback section from this website, as it is not as active as previously due to the Discussion board having been implemented.
Not only will the new book be much longer, it will also have the title on the spine! Whoopee! CreateSpace would not let us do that because there were not enough pages for the book format we chose.
We will notify you when the expanded book has been released and how you can get a good discount on it.
On the Move - 7 May 2014
We are currently in the midst of a major long-distance move, so I will not be able to post to the website for at least a few weeks. My apologies, but I hope those who have been involved in discussions here will continue.
Thanks for your patience,
Check Out the Atheist/Evolutionist "Church" Service for the Atheist Celebration of Nothing Day!
We here at EvolutionIsStupid.com got to thinking about how Atheists and Evolutionists miss out on Sunday mornings. We're sure you probably feel guilty sometimes,
especially if you were brought up in one or another of those "religions," if you know what we mean, so we have devised a little Nature Worship service for you. We hope
it makes you feel good about yourself, because, after all, what else should we really live for? We're just trying to survive, right?
Happy Resurrection Day!
Since many are occupied with celebrating this "Easter" weekend, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank God for providing the Savior and demonstrating to us clearly that there is a Resurrection and Eternal Life for those who have trusted Jesus Christ as Savior. I can only hope that many will "cross over from death unto life" this season, and come to their senses and accept the truth about the Creator, Savior and Redeemer of Mankind.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)
In the meantime, since Atheists and Skeptics have nothing whatsoever to celebrate apart from their own great wisdom, I will be sure to post a special Atheist church "service" for them before the weekend.
First, Was Jesus Married?
Newsworthy, if you can call them that, items are coming fast and furious. First we have that an ancient Coptic papyrus supposedly has been confirmed authentic. The problem? It alleges that Jesus had a wife. Now, of course the HEADLINE stated that the item was authentic. But at the end of the article they quote an Egyptology professor who insists that it is a fake and contains lines based on or lifted from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. But of course to admit it was a fake would not make as good a headline.
Bible Skeptics on the Rise. Why Is That No Big Surprise?
Next we have the non-news that the number of people who are skeptical about the Bible is on the rise, according to a recent poll. Those who are most skeptical are called the "millennials" or people between the ages of 18-29. That item can be found here: American Bible Society
Maybe It Was a Martian TV!
Then we have the "shiny object on Mars." Maybe you heard about that one. A UFO fanatic said that it was from Martians who live underground and use lights like we do. Yes, folks, that's ONE tiny, shiny object, for which normal people involved with the Mars exploration had a number of possible reasonable explanations, but I guess we'd better get ready for the "cover-up" accusations from the fringes.
The Kermit You've Never Heard Of
Finally, a friend sent me this: Jodi Arias vs. Kermit Gosnell -man on the street and it blew me away. I had no idea who Kermit Gosnell was, and I keep up with the news pretty well. If this isn't a blatant case of media bias, I don't know what is. I found some damning commentary on the obvious reason why the liberal media chose to ignore this story, and you can too by googling Kermit Gosnell. Sickening.
Homosexuality - Again
You might be as bored with the homosexual agenda as many others are, but they're hammering away, and if we don't hammer back we'll be held responsible some day.
Two of the latest items in the news are that former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson has a new commercial advocating homosexual "marriages" and using the old heartstring-puller about two people "loving" one another.
The other is that in Mississippi teachers are required to instruct students that homosexual activity under the "unnatural intercourse" statute is illegal, and that a "monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the only appropriate setting for sexual intercourse."
On that latter item, the homosexuals spent no time mouthing off about how Mississippi has the second highest rate of teenage pregnancies (2013). Let's analyze that a minute. I've always found it fascinating how homosexuals are the first to point out the alleged moral failures of others. So it's ok for two men to have oral and anal sex, but for a teen to get pregnant, somehow that violates their moral standards. Another one they often like to bring up is paedophilia, especially among Roman Catholic priests. Well, I wonder how many of those priests are homosexuals. Homosexuals seem to hold high standards of morality - for others, though I'm not sure where their standards come from, unless they're conveniently robbing them from Judeo-Christian doctrine. Just sayin'.
As for Al Simpson and "love," I do not believe I've ever seen a homosexual definition of "love." It seems to me that it mainly means sexual desire. The Bible calls that "eros" - the lowest form of love. The other definitions for love in the Bible include "phileo," or brotherly love, and "agape," or sacrificial love, which is the deepest form, and defines the love God has for us.
Now, as to homosexual "love," why stop at just two people? Can we have marriages between three or more, whether it's men and women, women and women, or men and men? (Or is polygamy against the homosexuals' high moral standards?) Can we "love" and marry our own kids? I mean, we love them, don't we? - or most of us do, anyhow. Where do we stop the insanity?
Al Simpson also wrote a letter to our local paper, to which I responded. The local Tea Party got wind of my letter, liked it, and printed it on their front page. I am grateful to them for doing that, and got permission to post the Tea Party newsletter here: Letter to Alan Simpson
This issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with love. It has to do with wanting to send a message both to God and to those who seek to obey God's word that, "We're not going to listen to Him, and we're certainly not going to listen to you." One day they will listen to God and will have no further choice in the matter. We seek to warn them of that day, but I'm afraid we are too far gone into the depths of what the Bible calls "the days of Noah" when they were "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the Flood came and took them all away". So will the coming of the Son of Man be." How ironic that a blasphemous movie about Noah was just released too.
Why Zebras Have Stripes
It's fascinating that scientists, many of whom believe in the mindless, purposeless, religion of random Evolution, are always looking to assign some purpose or other to various structures or features in living things. I love animals like zebras and platypuses that confound them. They can't come up with the excuse that zebras needed stripes for defense. Nor that the stripes serve as camouflage. So, here's the latest reason zebras have stripes: to confound biting flies. That is, the flies get confused when they see the zebra, and so they don't land and bite them.
Well, it appears to me that some scientists were having a "slow science day" to come up with that one. But, like I said, they're always trying to come up with this or that reason why something appears to have purpose in their purposeless world of Evodelusion.
Let's apply some logic to this. I hate flies landing on me, don't you? And I'm sure our ape ancestors (who no doubt smelled like zebras) did too. So why don't you and I have stripes? Horses, cows, and numerous other creatures also have to deal with flies. Stripes would have helped them too, wouldn't they have? And what came first, the stripes or the flies? And if flies were feeding on the zebras' blood, why didn't the flies evolve eyes that wouldn't be confused by their very food source? And why stripes? Couldn't the zebras have evolved a scent that would have repelled the flies? Do flies not land on bacon because it looks striped? Are lions deterred from eating zebras because of their stripes? One would think a lion to be a bit more dangerous than a few flies.
Well, yes, I think it was a "slow science day." Maybe a slow day for EvolutionIsStupid.com too, but it's always fun to pick on these guys. We can only wonder how much money and time have been spent over the past century by people trying to figure out why zebras have stripes. Of course, if we were to say that God created them that way to confound Evolutionists, we'd be branded as "anti-science," so we'll just pretend we said it.
Happy Atheist / Agnostic Day!
April 1, 2014
From your friend and admirer Psalm 14:1
Chick-fil-A Fries KFC Despite "Boycott"
A little over a year or so ago the fast food chain Chick-fil-A was in the news because its COO took a stand in support of traditional, normal marriage between a man and woman. Liberals, of course, call that a "controversial" stand. That's the new catch word: Controversial. Abnormal "marriages" are no longer controversial; normal, biologically logical ones are. So, of course, the homosexuals called for boycotting Chick-fil-A.
It didn't work.
The big news is that for the first time, CfA, with only 1,775 outlets, has stripped the title of "Fried Chicken King" from Kentucky Fried Chicken, with 4,491 outlets. What's even more amazing is that CfA is closed on Sundays, a policy which the founders instated to encourage employees to attend church.
I'd be interested to know what happened to Barilla pasta (our fave!) now, after they called for a boycott on that because Barilla didn't want to air commercials with same sex "families," but rather normal, uncontroversial families consisting of a man and woman who had their kids the normal way. (And, of course, no "hate" statements were ever directed toward either Chick-fil-A or Barilla by gays for their positions on the "controversial" issue - only love and compassion.)
In other news...
The town of Greece, NY is in the midst of a battle over having an opening prayer at their monthly meetings. Is it because they're endorsing one religion over another? No. They've had Wiccan, Baha'i, and Jewish prayer leaders. The complaint, made by a Jewish woman and an Atheist woman, and apparently ONLY by those two, as other people didn't seem to be bothered by the prayer, was that most of the pray-ers were Christian, and that made them feel uncomfortable. Of course, if the Christians were uncomfortable having to listen to a Wiccan priestess, and I certainly hope they were, that didn't matter.
The town is awaiting a Supreme Court decision on the matter. Christians, on the other hand, are awaiting the Ultimate SUPREME Supreme Court decision on the matter, when the one true God will have these people (along with those on the Supreme Court) stand before Him and give an account of themselves.
And, by the way, "Wiccan" prayers? To what or whom? This country is going down the tubes faster than you can say "flush."
Noah Movie Opens
As I'm sure many of you know, the movie "Noah" opens in theaters today. I will reserve comment on it for now, as I've not seen it and don't know if I plan to (not a big movie going fan). But if any of you out there do go see it, PLEASE share your thoughts in the Discussion Forum. I have already started a thread, "Noah Movie" in the General category. One thing I just found out this morning from a very reliable source, though I've not yet confirmed it, is that the director is an Atheist, and the word "God" is not mentioned once in the movie.
Update on World Vision
World Vision International has reversed their decision concerning hiring same-sex couples. Apparently the sound of pocketbooks closing got pretty loud pretty fast.
So, was this a publicity stunt?
World Vision Blinded by Gays
In the latest blatant capitulation to the homosexual revolution, one of the world's largest Christian charity organizations, World Vision International, has announced that it will hire "gay Christians" who are in legal same-sex marriages. (see Christianity Today)
Update on Tyson's "Cosmos" March 24, 2014
The latest cosmic upheaval is that Creationists have requested equal time with Neil DeGrasse Tyson's mythological version of "science": our ascent from stardust. The Huffington Post (online version), no friend of Creationism or anything Biblical (earlier in the day they had a fine item about a "medium" who suckered some guy into believing in her powers), reported (if you can call it that) that Creationist astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner wants to be able to present the other side of the story.
The HuffPost commentator, a black man, didn't even get Tyson's name right, calling him "Neil DeGrassen Tyson." I listened to it over and over just to be sure I heard right, and could read his lips, too. His "unbiased" reporting had a sarcastic tone to it, and he was obviously relishing the opportunity to support his man against those who don't believe we evolved from scum. As I said previously, it boggles the mind to think that blacks would be supportive of a theory that portrays them as a lower form of human. And yes, it does, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Look up the name "Ota Benga" for starters, then tell me the lie that there are no evolutionists living today who think that way.
The "reporter" had apparently never heard of Dr. Faulkner, or else deliberately snubbed him by referring to him as "Mr. Faulkner," then referred to "a group called 'Answers in Genesis.'" Given the recent hugely publicized and watched Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate, any reporter or person who follows the news who has not heard of Answers in Genesis must have his or her head in the clouds.
Faulkner made the simple point that in the first episode, Tyson talked about science being a concept where everything's open for discussion, but it seems that doesn't include Creationism. This smacks of the same thing Carl Sagan said in the original version, namely that science is a search for "truth, wherever that may lead." That is, as long as it doesn't lead where we don't want it to lead. And, of course, no definition of "truth" is given.
Tyson's response was to blow off Creationists by making a reference to "flat earthers." Apparently Tyson hasn't done his homework either, as the concept of a flat Earth never had its roots in Creationism, and in fact the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth is a circle or sphere that "hangs on nothing" (Job 26:7, and see this excellent article for more : Who Invented the Flat Earth . Amazing that that was written around 3500 years ago, but that doesn't matter to the Evodelusionists).
The plain fact is that people like Tyson, while patting each other on the back for their great scientific prowess, are AFRAID to be confronted with the truth that their Evolution myth has nothing whatsoever to do with science, is untestable, unprovable, and empty of scientific, philosophical, or moral meaning. The bottom line is simple arrogance and an unwillingness to consider that there might actually be some being greater than themselves in the universe. If they didn't think that way, then why would they be so insistent that we believe what they tell us?
Check Out the Atheist/Evolutionist "Church" Service for March 23, 2014
We here at EvolutionIsStupid.com got to thinking about how Atheists and Evolutionists miss out on Sunday mornings. We're sure you probably feel guilty sometimes,
especially if you were brought up in one or another of those "religions," if you know what we mean, so we have devised a little Nature Worship service for you. We hope
it makes you feel good about yourself, because, after all, what else should we really live for? We're just trying to survive, right?
Homosexual Insanity Continues
The latest state to rule that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is Michigan. Plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed a lawsuit challenging the ban that has been in effect since 2004 and won.
The homosexual community always revels in this sort of thing, thumbing their noses at Christians who do not support their lifestyle, and accusing those of us who agree with God that homosexuality is an abomination, as being promoters of hatred. It always helps to label "the enemy." Back a few decades ago, "the enemy" was uneducated, then "the enemy" became homophobic, and now the popular moniker for "the enemy" is hate-monger. Of course, all homosexuals are filled with love for Christians and others who disagree with their sexual choices, if they can be called that.
Naturally the photo portrayed the two lesbian women as the "happy couple" with three children they adopted. I have always found it fascinating that normally homosexual men are very handsome and well-built (it's all about the body after all), and lesbian women tend to be not too attractive, and one of them in a relationship usually has a mannish haircut and look about her. I don't mean that in a derogatory manner; it's just an observation. Often homosexual men have a hard time relating to the opposite sex (I've known women who made that observation), other than a strong attachment to their mothers and no good father figure, and many lesbians have a hatred for men.
As for the "happy family," let's just make a few points here. First of all, children come out of all sorts of situations, and can be happy regardless. Some kids go through war. Some are orphaned. Some live in violent homes. Some are neglected. But they can still turn out just fine. So the fact that the kids might be (or at least appear to be) happy is irrelevant.
Second, homosexuals can revel all they want in their temporary, temporal "victories." They are still going to die and face God. The party will be over soon enough, and they are not going to like the after effects. If they have not turned their sin over to Christ and have not asked forgiveness, they will go to Hell. To mince words about this is a disservice to them.
Third, it is no use trying to point out that same-sex marriages are illogical and immoral, don't even make sense biologically, especially when we think of these "parents" trying to explain to their kids how they got here, and put people at the risk for serious diseases. If someone is going to sin wilfully, whether homo- or heterosexual, they're going to do it, regardless of the law, or what Christians or other "religious people" say, or what God says. Sure, it's worth trying to fight it and that's the responsibility of moral people, but in the end it's not going to stop them. The judge in this case even admitted, in so many words, that "the will of the people" in this matter, didn't matter.
As usual, the comments afterward attacked Christians, attacked the Bible, attacked God, and spewed hatred. But that "doesn't matter." WE are the haters because we want them to repent and get saved. For eternity. Where the victory will endure forever, not just for a few paltry years.
Enjoy it while you can, God-haters. He will have the last word in the matter.
If Only We Could Do This with the Word "Evolution!"
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has decreed (not in a bosssy manner, now) that the word "bossy" should be banned from human language (see banbossy.com). That's because supposedly when a boy "asserts himself" he's showing leadership, but if a girl does so, she's being "bossy." So, if we just ban the word from our language, that'll take care of that!
My first response to this was, what with Ms. Sandberg being a billionaire and all, why not handle this the American way and throw money at it? I thought that solved all problems, but I guess not.
Now I'm not saying girls can't lead, but isn't this really about "control?" Somebody's got to be in charge, whether in business, family, church, military, etc. So, why not a man? Well, nowadays that's not politically correct. Hillary for President, and all that.
I do not for a moment expect that people who don't know God and don't respect His word are going to listen to what He has to say about it, but the fact is that men were CREATED to be leaders, and women work best in support positions. Ooooh, I know I'm in trouble, but what else is new? No relationship is more beautiful than when a man leads and a woman supports that leadership. That's when the world works best, like it or not.
Sure, women have done great things and it's good that we're recognizing that more. But so have men, and I don't think we crave attention quite as much, but that's just me.
Having lots of money doesn't give anyone the right to dictate what we should say or think or how we should act. This appears to be another example of the feminist portrayal of males as "the enemy" who must be emasculated and subdued. The fact that boys naturally want to be in charge is not a bad thing, and should not be treated as such. I believe that campaigns like this foster resentment and division. In fact the way I found out about it was through a secular commentator who stated just that: America is more divided now, over every possible thing from politics to social mores to race to gender, than it ever has been, and it's getting worse by the day.
And yes, I ran this by my wife and would not post it without her approval. Now it's time to go see about getting "evolution" banned.
PS: I highly recommend the book Women Who Make the World Worse, by Kate O'Beirne, who pulls no punches on the real motives behind the feminist agenda.
Another Tyson "Cosmos" Update: 14 March 2014
Well, it looks like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's re-made version of "Cosmos" is going to keep us busy here. In the latest, an Oklahoma TV station apparently cut off his 15-second discourse on millions of years of human evolution, and replaced it with a commercial break. After that, it sounds like he got back to real human history, which is what I imagine the rest of the series will portray.
First, it's amazing to think that for millions of years our "ancestors" were doing nothing but evolving. Then suddenly, about 6000 years ago (cough cough) they were able to build complex civilizations. So we have 15 seconds of evolution, and the rest of the 13-part series talking about reality.
Second, the segment in question showed an apparent scene in Africa, with Tyson following some footsteps in the mud (possibly at Laetoli) and slowly starting to stand up. As he does so, he comments that once we began to stand up, our eyes were no longer focused on the ground. Apparently that's the Evodelusionary story for why we now have astronomers. You see, for millions of years we didn't notice the sun moon or stars because we were too busy staring at the ground, or contemplating our simian navels. Then suddenly, WHOA! Hey, there are shiny things up in the sky! And the next thing you know we have Aristotles, Ptolemys and Galileos running around.
Finally, as a demonstration of just how much of a grip the falsehoods of Evodelusion have on us, what amazes me is that a black man is so fervently pushing the very philosophy that once considered (and if the truth be told, tacitly still does) his color to be an indication that he was less evolved than someone with lighter skin. Why would you want to perpetuate a myth that portrays you as something between ape and white man, which is exactly what Darwinism does. Face the truth and admit it, Evvies. I know it's not politically correct, but I'm not going to mince words. I have personal experience with this (besides being well-read on the subject), and many black people I've known are quite aware that Evolution portrays them as less-evolved humans.
So, Evodelusion missed its 15 seconds of fame in Oklahoma, and now the Evos are all in a tizzy about it. Add the 15 seconds back in there, and what do we have? Another concocted mythologial story supposeldy telling us why we started looking up at the heavens. And I'll bet the first thing those evolving humans saw when they looked up was the constellation Taurus - the BULL.
Update on Neil Tyson and the new old "Cosmos"
When asked why we needed a re-make of the Carl Sagan "Cosmos" documentary (which has just begun airing), Neil deGrasse Tyson responded that it was because everything has changed since then.
Ok, so what does that tell us about science versus storytelling? Has gravity changed? No. Have the stars in the sky changed? Well, not a whole lot. Has the history of science changed? No, it's history. Is the sun still shining every day? Sure is. Umm, has Genesis changed? Nope!
So what has changed?
The stories. The "may be, might be, could be, possibly" version of what we call "science" today. For one, Tyson assures us of the "possibility" that we inhabit just one universe of many. And that there "might be" life out there somewhere. And he's sure the elements in our bodies were formed in stars. That's his biggie. The one that's supposed to explain all about where we came from and why we're here.
And what about God? Oh, Mr. Tyson's too busy for God. He reasons that if a tsunami and an earthquake can kill millions of people, then there's no such thing as a God whom we could call "good." Of course, he didn't comment on the fact that his religion of Evolution can ONLY progress if things die, regardless of how they die, so in HIS religion, earthquakes and tsunamis are just clearing the way for, well, maybe, possibly, perhaps, perchance, some new, more advanced forms of life. So does that make Evolution good? Or bad? Or do we just remain neutral on that one for convenience' sake.
If anyone out there doesn't know why there are earthquakes and tsunamis, it's because our GOOD God created a GOOD world and gave us all GOOD things, and we threw them back in His face and told Him to take a hike. And that was the end of Paradise on Earth. God doesn't believe in entitlement. If you want to try to run things your way, then this is what you get - a destroyed world full of those who are ready to blame anything but themselves for their own stupidity.
But He's still good, and still God, and still offering salvation to those who hate Him despite their hatred, and when Tyson and the unthinking stardust sheep who follow him are gone and forgotten, our good God will still be there as He always has been.
So will Heaven. And so will Hell. We need not make excuses. If you don't want to be with God and do things His way, which is the BEST way, He has prepared other accommodations, where you can spend eternity impressing yourself with your great intellect. Or not.
Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest Dinosaur Theory Yet?
The news items are coming fast and furiously!
In the latest effort to avoid admitting that the Biblical Flood wiped out the dinosaurs, our Evodelusionist friends have come up with what must be the greatest stretch of the imagination yet.
Dark matter killed 'em!
That's right. How can you argue with the concept that something you can't even SEE killed off the monsters? So not only were we not there to see what killed them off, even if we WERE there to see it, we would not have been able to see it! Of course, they did say that the dark matter was the force behind meteorite strikes that killed off the dinos, so let's give 'em that much. Kind of like a cosmic shooting match with the dinosaurs waiting in line to be blasted.
There was no mention, however, of how the dark matter or even the meteorite strikes resulted in the dinosaurs being buried in massive sedimentary strata, nor the fact that meteorites are not found in those strata (of course Evos have come up with some pathetic alleged contradictions to that assertion, though if there were enough meteorites to kill off dinosaurs all over the Earth, well, there should be plenty of evidence of them), but let's not complicate things. And needless to say, there were the usual "might have, we think, may have, scientists hypothesize, probably, could have" expressions of doubt and uncertainty, leaving room for even MORE speculation in the future, and more and more additions to the roster of extinction insanity.
Oh, and of course there were other scientists who disagreed with the dark matter blarney, no doubt because they all have their own theories and need media attention and funding. By now we could probably fill a swimming pool (or maybe a cesspool) with all the theories that have been invented to get around admitting it was the Flood that did it. Stay tuned, though, there will be more to come!
Wyoming Governor Takes a Stand "Against Science"
The liberal media are attacking Wyoming Governor Matt Mead for taking a stand against so-called Next Generation Science Standards. While Mead's stance was mainly
against the teaching of Global Warming as a fact, included in the standards, of course, is the same notion about evolution. You can find some of that information
HS.Natural Selection and Evolution
All I can say is that trying to reason with unreasoning and unreasonable people is not going to work. The comments following the article I read were so biased against God, against religion, and against anything really scientific, and are so uninformed, bigoted and filled with hatred toward Christians particularly and Creationists, that it makes the head spin to realize how gullible people can be. "Scientists," as any well-informed individual knows, are totally divided on the subject of Global Warming. There is plenty of evidence that in the past few decades the global climate has been COOLING overall, but to liberals who have nothing better to do than try to make themselves appear rebellious, advanced thinkers, the facts, as with the religion of Evolution, really are not what matters.
I personally am as much an environmentalist as anyone, and believe it's our God-given responsibility to protect creation, even in a sinful, fallen world that is passing away. I try not to use too much water, or eat more than my fair share of food, or waste electricity - I don't even like mowing the lawn because of noise and air pollution it causes, and I use hand tools whenever possible (no blowers, weed whackers, etc.). But I also don't let people tell me what to think, and nobody's going to tell me that humans are causing any more climate change than would occur if humans vacated the planet. I simply don't believe it, and believe that politics and money are more the motivators behind the concept than anything else. As usual, if there's a problem you can bet either money, or sex, or both, are somehow involved. I don't know about sex, but I guarantee you money's involved in the whole Global Warming deception.
New Version of "Cosmos": More Propaganda from the Particles-to-People Crowd
On March 9 we will see the debut of the new series, Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey, to be hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is likened to the new Carl Sagan (and was voted "the sexiest Astrophysicist alive"), so it's fitting that Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan, has also been involved in the production.
Just like the earlier version of Cosmos, wherein Dr. Sagan assured us that "the cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever will be," this version promises to profess more of the same arrogant evolutionary drivel couched in scientific-sounding verbiage.
On the website that is dedicated to the TV production, cosmosontv.com an article by Tyson tells us why we shouldn't feel "small" in the universe. Of course he needs to tell us that, because if indeed we ARE small, then that makes him REALLY small, and makes what he has to say about who we are and why REALLY REALLY unimportant. So let's hear why we're not small, direct from Neil deGrasse Tyson.
He begins, of course, with a reference to religion, in that some people have what they might term a "religious calling," and claims that he had a calling from "the universe," which apparently is what those who subscribe to the religion of humanism have, though they wouldn't dare admit they belong to a religious system. Now here's the punch line. The reason you should not feel small is... Are you ready for this?
"Our molecules are traceable to stars that exploded and spread these elements across the galaxy. If you see the universe as something you participate in - as this great unfolding of a cosmic story - that, I think should make you feel large, not small."
Now, doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Let's just analyze the first sentence there. Are our molecules REALLY traceable to the stars? I mean, I can trace footprints in the snow because I see them and can follow them. But some of the same molecules in my body, like iron, are also found in automobiles. I can't trace the iron molecules back to automobiles. All I can say is that my body contains iron, and so do cars and so do stars. The notion that we can "trace" the elements in our bodies back to the stars is pure bunk, and part of the fabricated story of the religion of Evodelusion.
So, then, if this is what Mr. Tyson's "calling" has led him to preach, I would suggest you withhold your offerings when the plate is passed around, and that you take the rest of what he says with a healthy grain of skepticism.
A CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS
FEBRUARY 4, 2014
I would like to issue a challenge to Evolutionists to provide ONE - just ONE - piece of irrefutable evidence that Evolution is true.
We'll define "true" as observable, testable and repeatable, and we'll define Evolution from both the cosmological and biological perspectives, namely that stardust turned into living things that became cells that began to replicate and became organisms that turned into fish that turned into simians that turned into we humans who can contemplate it all.
Just ONE piece of irrefutable evidence that that is true, please.
Here's where you can tell us about it and open it for discussion:
Ham's Ark Afloat Again
Now that the "big" debate is over, Answers in Genesis has bobbed back up to the surface of the floodwaters with news that their life-size Noah's Ark project in Kentucky has been revitalized. Of course the item I read online called the project "controversial." If it were the largest gay bar in Kentucky, or perhaps the largest porn theatre, they'd probably be praising it as a great way to bring jobs and money into the state. Noah's ark, on the other hand, is a symbol of judgment, so not quite as exciting; it may force people to think.
On the other hand, AiG is also apparently planning an attendant theme park with the ark. Hopefully they will keep in mind that Noah's Flood was a judgment on a corrupt world, and not meant for our entertainment.
To those who poo poo spending so much money (an estimated $70 million so far) on such a project, you'd do just as well to focus on government waste, or how much money is spent on super bowls (which makes the ark look like a rowboat by comparison), or how much money atheists are making off what they claim doesn't even exist, or how much money is being wasted by SETI listening for little green space creatures.
Or, you might just consider looking at your OWN life and how much money you yourself waste on frivolities and trivial pursuits.
But that might be too convicting...
The Zircon Con
Let's heave a collective "Sigh" for the latest in radiometric dating news. A zircon gem found on a sheep ranch in Australia has the Evo gang bah bahing as they follow their ex-simian shepherds in faith. The crystal is... are you ready?... 4.4 BILLION years old. And there it was, just sittin' there waitin' for to be picked up by someone who would believe that.
Now for the stories the crystal, umm, I mean, the finders of the crystal, have woven about it. Amazingly, they were able to look into this tiny crystal and see all sorts of things, like that the Earth's crust formed soon after the planet formed, and the findings "suggest" (there's that word! Read: the finders of the finding suggest) that the early Earth wasn't as harsh as scientists thought. Uh oh, now we have to re-invent the story.
To quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald,
"To determine the age of the zircon fragment, scientists first used a widely-accepted dating technique... but because some scientists hypothesized that this technique might give a false date..." [emphasis mine]
Need we say more here? What is really astounding are statements like the finding supports a "cool early Earth, where temperatures were low enough to sustain oceans and perhaps life..." And ALL THIS from a PIECE of zircon crystal!
Now, if we can only get them to predict lottery numbers and the future of the universe using that same piece of crystal!
The Latest Fossil Follies
A major fossil find in the vicinity of the famous Burgess Shale location in the Canadian Rockies has turned up thousands of finely preserved animal fossils. Some of the preserved details include "retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts, and even a possible heart and liver" according to one article. The article goes on to say that scientists "think" [read: storytelling time!] the fossils of the Burgess Shale (and presumably the new find, termed the Marble Canyon fossils) were swept to their locations by swift storm currents and buried in deepwater muds.
Once again we see that in the face of the facts scientists refuse to deny the role of the religion of Evolution in this incredible find. The article notes that these complex fossils are a window on the time when such creatures "APPEARED" (the commonly-used word) in the Cambrian "explosion" of complex life forms.
It should simply go without saying that complex, fully-functional organisms that were not on the way to becoming complex, fully-funcional organisms, don't just "appear." Oh, and then, of course, we have the usual baloney that scientists "think" [read: storytelling time!] that there was an "arms race" during the period when these fossilized animals lived, during which time they "developed" hard parts, like shells, to protect themselves from predators. Now, if that is not attributing premeditated design and purpose to blind chance Evolution, what is? If the organisms were surviving WITHOUT the armor, then why did Evolution decide they needed to develop it? And exactly how did Evolution know how to develop this armor, and where it should be located on the animal's body? As I've said so many times before, ISN'T EVOLUTION AMAZING? It seems to think, but without thinking! Sort of like its fanatical followers, if you don't mind my saying so, and even if you do.
If "the present is key to the past," which is one of the dogmas of the religion of Evolution, then why don't we see "swift currents" burying myriad complex creatures NOW, in OUR DAY, and find those creatures in various stages of fossilization? Why not? Because it doesn't happen, that's why not. But once again we see the Evodelusionist denial of the obvious: Complex creatures "appear" out of nowhere, and then are magically fossilized by a process that doesn't create fossils, and here we are to invent stories about it!
God's Message to Michael Sam
In big, major, life-changing news this week is another homosexual "coming out," that of football player Michael Sam. Supposedly Mr. Sam was "applauded" for his "courage" even by the likes of our President, Mrs. President and Vice President. Interestingly, when quarterback Tim Tebow "came out" as a Christian who did not support the gay lifestyle, he was denigrated and despised by our perverted liberal media, and pretty much had to go looking for a job. No applause for Mr. Tebow. No praise from the press; no praise from the Pres.
A few questions: What exactly did Mr. Sam do that deserved applause and praise even from our top politicians? Did he do something productive or heroic? Should adulterers, thieves, prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, pedophiles and other sinners also receive our applause if they come out and admit "who they are"? Born that way? Not on your life. It's a choice, just like those other sins.
Some actress also came out as gay this week. Her fellow entertainers showered her with "love and support," according to the news. With their perverted understanding of "love," that is. True love doesn't just accept everything everyone does "as long as it doesn't harm me or anyone else." True love warns people that disobeying God's law will result in harm to them and all of society. As the saying goes, "You don't break God's law. God's law breaks you." And here is what God says about the "applause" Mr. Sam received:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." [Romans 1:26-32, NASV]
Michael Sam needs to ask God's forgiveness, be restored to a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and receive God's gift of eternal life. That is GOD's message of TRUE LOVE to Mr. Sam. And you know what else God's word says?
The saints and angels rejoice when ONE sinner repents. That's the applause I'd like to hear!
Life in Outer $pace!! $ETI $ays $o!
In late breaking news, the good ET huggers at SETI have assured us that in the next 26 years (not 20, not 25, but 26) we will certainly contact extraterrestrials, who themselves are probably trying to contact US right this moment! SETI stands for the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence, and has been trying for a number of decades to find some sign of intelligent life outside our planet. They've not yet figured out that earthlings are more than a bunch of lucky chemicals that got together and turned into humans without an intelligent designer, but they're certain that they'll recognize intelligent design in aliens from the planet Zonker. Of course, since they're not officially a "religious" entity, no one would accuse them of wasting millions of dollars on this project, now would they? After all, if we do contact ET entities, they figure that'll be the end of religion and any belief that a Creator was involved.
I've said before that this sort of science fiction project and the tremendous amount of man-hours and money that is being sucked up by it will not go to waste. Sooner or later humanity is going to be duped into believing we've made "contact" with some fictional space persons who are going to save us from ourselves supposedly. But we may have to wait at least 26 more years, which guarantees an income and job security for the folks who are currently hard at work listening for the equivalent of an Elvis song that has traveled bazillions of miles through empty space.
One of my favorite SCIENCE FICTION movies is "Contact," based on Carl Sagan's book of that title, and inspired by SETI, as Sagan was one of its founding supporters. In the movie, some ET life form makes contact with earthlings and we get all excited and build a machine that lets us experience what they know, which is that when we die we turn into some nebulous form of memory and show up elsewhere in the universe. What the movie really demonstrates is that, devoid of any hope of life after death, humans will invent imaginary scenarios that give them some false assurance that death really is not the end. And of course, if we can have some form of life after death without God, all the better. Fortunately, God has already told us what's coming after death, so we don't need fairy tales. Either it's judgment and Hell, or, if you've received forgiveness and restoration with God through Jesus' death and RESURRECTION from the dead, you too will be resurrected and have a real body, in real Paradise, with a real Creator God, forever.
Another Hump for the Bible to Get Over
In the latest feeble attempt to discredit the Bible, "scientists" from the Dept. of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University have found some camel bones that supposedly prove that domesticated camels arrived well after the times of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, making Biblical references to them historically incorrect. Once again we observe, from the outset, at least two things: If you say your findings discredit the Bible, you are SURE to get publicity (and maybe funding?), and second, "scientists" put an awful lot of faith in the stories they invent about bones they find.
They supposedly used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domesticated camels in the Middle East. C-14 dating can't be used to "pinpoint" ANYTHING. There are too many assumptions involved in any radiometric dating method, including C-14. And it's mind boggling that anyone would make the claim that the few bones they found are a "proof" of anything whatsoever, other than that they found a few camel bones. The most telling statement in one article was that "camel bones found in earlier layers PROBABLY belonged to wild camels" (emphasis mine). Or, maybe, probably, possibly, could be, might be, we kinda think... they DIDN'T belong to wild camels?! Oh, but that wouldn't make the news or discredit the Bible, now would it?
Finally, and most laughable, is the claim that a few camel bones are a direct PROOF that the Bible account was written many years after the fact. I always find it amazing that the Bible writers never caught on to all these "flaws" we come up with - many years after the fact. Smile.
Ham on Nye and the Media Lie
On February 4, 2014, popular TV personality Bill Nye debated Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I watched the debate and it was civil and well-presented from both sides. As in all debates, it's likely that camps that were divided at the beginning would remain so at the end, but it is still necessary and interesting to hear each side's arguments and see how they are presented. Among many other things that can be said about the debate and the issues involved, one I'd like to address here for sure is the media LIE that this is an issue of "faith versus science." The fact that they continue to present it as such betrays their penchant for taking a lie and propagating it because of their own worldviews and biases, rather than objectively reporting the facts and letting the reader decide.
To say you believe that matter popped out of nowhere, turned itself into stars, which then exploded and sent elements out into the universe, some of which landed on Earth and turned themselves into tiny living things by some sort of natural alchemy or magic, and that those living things somehow survived, began to replicate, turned into fish, amphibians, simians and finally humans who could then invent stories about all of it and call that "science" takes an AWFUL LOT of faith.
Ham was at least honest enough to admit that Creationists believe by faith what they teach about the past. Now it's time for Evodelusionists to fess up and admit the same. He as much pleaded with them to do so, but it's not going to happen. As long as they can disguise their myth as "science" and use the "faith vs science" card, they're going to dupe the public into believing that that's the real issue and the myth is truth.
But there's one more matter that needs to be addressed. When Bill Nye was asked by Ken Ham why any "wonderful" discovery would matter in the end, if, in effect, we're all just going to die and that's all there is, Nye did not have a response. When Nye asked what about all the people in the world who did not believe what Ken Ham believed about the Bible, my first thought was, "Well, what about them from YOUR perspective? They're just going to die off and be fodder for future evolution, so what does it matter what they, or you, believe in the end?" I wonder, does the Atheist, or Agnostic, or Skeptic EVER think about these things? Apparently not.
For another review see: Clash over worldviews: An analysis of the Ham/Nye debate
For those whose last supper will be their last:
I recently came across The
World Famous Atheist Cook Book, which of course is probably only "famous" among a few choice Atheists as there aren't very many copies around. It was put out by
the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and one site where I found it online says it's for those who "prefer to do their frying in the here-and-now." What I'm afraid
these people don't realize is the joke is on them. The Introduction has a fictitious quote by the Wizard of Oz, who says, "You atheists have so much going for you -
intelligence, integrity, courage, erudition... But what you don't have is a cookbook!" and goes on to call them "freethinkers." Interesting they should use a quote
from a movie, because like the movie folks they're good at patting themselves on the back for how smart they are and what a good job they're doing. Perhaps next we'll
have the Atheist Intellectual Awards. I would suggest, though, that the Atheist gang, rather than cooking up some "Blasphemous Bran Waffles," instead watch "The Wizard
of Oz" again, and maybe it will sink in that the man behind the curtain has them royally duped.
Or maybe it was square, or maybe it was triangular, or...
A "new" old version of Noah's ark has appeared in the news today. Of course it conflicts with the Biblical version otherwise it would not have made news. The Bible makes it clear that Noah's ark was rectangular-shaped, but according to a recently deciphered cuneiform tablet at the British Museum, it was round. As usual the comments after the article were more interesting than the news report itself. One obviously rankled Bible hater made sure that everyone knew how stupid it was to think that Noah and his sons could have gone to the North Pole to get polar bears, and to Antarctica to get penguins, to bring them back to the ark alive. It makes my head spin when I think of where I'd have to start to respond to that one. Others, as usual, attacked the Flood story as a myth and brought up all the imagined obstacles that Noah would have had to overcome for the story to be true. Of course, they don't actually WANT answers to their questions. If they did, they'd find plenty of them, backed by good research and fact. And then, no doubt when given the answers, they'd need still need more evidence, because for the doubter and uninformed skeptic, enough is never enough.
Ham on Nye:
Creationist Ken Ham is slated to debate science popularizer Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") on February 4, 2014 at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Kentucky,
USA. Tickets for the event (900 of them) sold out in the first two minutes after they were made available. The Atheists and skeptics are out in force with the usual
smoke and mirrors tactics, saying Ham just wants money (of course Nye would never stoop to such a desire [Update 2/5/2014: One source claims that Nye's normal speaking
fee is between $50-75,000, and that Answers in Genesis paid his expenses]), or that Nye is just giving credibility to the Creationists, blah blah blah... Anything to
avoid the real issue, which is that Nye has said, in effect, that creationism is a threat to science and should not be taught to children.
Ahh yes, we need to indoctrinate our science-starved children with the Evolutionary religious myth that their ancestors were bacteria and fish and apes otherwise how will they be able to build rockets or computers? Well, Bill, as I say in my new book, one day you too will stand before God, and at that time you will be known, for certain, as "The Silence Guy."
The "Hand of God" photographed in space:
NASA's NuSTAR (Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope
Array) photographed an image, apparently from a supernova explosion, that appeared to be in the shape of a partial human hand and was dubbed the "hand of God." Of
course, some of the news articles were quick to point out that "religion and astronomy don't often overlap," despite the fact that some of the most famous astronomers
and space personnel in history believed in God and at minimum were influenced in their research by a belief that there is order and purpose in the universe which is
If it is indeed the hand of God, it's probably on the way toward Earth to slap some sense into us.
The blood-stained 'century of evolution'
by Carl Wieland
Those attacking Christianity sometimes point to the many religious wars and atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ and the Church. They forget that not
everyone self-labeled 'Christian' truly follows Christ. Also, that many times more people have been killed this century, most by their own governments, than
in all religious conflicts, ever. And this slaughter happened because of philosophies openly hostile to biblical Christianity, and flowing directly from evolutionary
Nazism openly proclaimed its dependence on Darwin. It was right and moral for the strongest race to survive; to have pity for the weak was to defy nature's laws. It is doubtful whether this brutal ideology would have so captivated the nation that gave us Bach and Luther if not for the 'scientific' underpinning of evolution.
Atheist with a Mission
Critique of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
reviewed by Philip Bell
The title of this book immediately
betrays the bias of the author - even for those unacquainted with the writings of this Professor of the (so-called) Public Understanding of Science of Oxford
University, Richard Dawkins. Just to skim the chapter contents is to give one a forewarning of what to expect. For instance, Chapter 1 is entitled 'A deeply religious
believer in no God.' Chapter 4: 'Why there almost certainly is no God.' Chapter 7 is 'The 'Good' Book and the changing moral Zeitgeist'- showing Dawkins' absolute
dislike of the message of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. More provocatively still, the ninth chapter is 'Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion.' The single
appendix is 'a partial list of friendly addresses, for individuals needing support in escaping from religion.'
So much for any attempt at balance and objectivity - this book is certainly not a disinterested search for truth and is devoid of any careful weighing of evidence, for and against his thesis. Rather, it is this author's most polemical work to date, that of a man driven by an unholy zeal to depose the God he claims to disbelieve in but transparently hates.
'I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.' (p. 36: emphasis added in all quotes unless otherwise stated)