Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

We watched these from Netflix as part of our homeschooling classes which spurred great discussions about various subjects. I recommend them to anyone that has not seen them. The following is from the marketing of the films.

Do you know?

- If there are creatures that really produce fire to defend themselves?

- How a giraffe gets a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?

- How Geckos can walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Dr. Martin himself was a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution – rather, a revolution – when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education. And thus began the evolution of a creationist...



Now, please spare all of us the gripes, complaints, and ad hom's about this gentleman and these films. It is getting old hat to hear such things from atheists out there. Unless that is your "A" game.

Darwin's Method Helped ID

Bible and Science

This post is for my reference mainly, but AIG has a sensible approach to Science.

We need to realize that:

a) all humans are fallen and fallible;


b) science itself is a wonderful, but fallible human tool;


c) all the hypotheses and speculations which one uses to explain things within the framework of Biblical history can only be tentative, since humanity will never have all knowledge, and new data is constantly becoming available. For the same reason, hypotheses and submodels within evolutionary theory are constantly changing. So the same thing will inevitably be true in the creationist scientific world.



tinyurl.com/BibleScience

'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?

Really? Is it OK if even a Christian is skeptical about that news?

Talk about rejuvenating the world towards Christ, I can only pray this to be the truth.

That's right folks, WorldNetDaily claims that the actual Ark of the Covenant to be revealed to the world this Friday by the patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia!

If this news is in fact true, then that would be yet another sign of the coming of Christ, from what I read. Even Muslims say it will be found near the end of times by the Mahdi – a messianic figure in Islam. It would be hard pressed for Atheists to deny that type of historical archeological evidence, but I am sure they will make it look easy.

Maybe Christianity hasn't jumped the shark, this is something that I have been praying for, a sign, for atheists to start believing the truth. After watching Indiana Jones, one can only wonder what may happen. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: In an e-mail received by WND from the webmaster of a church website in response to an inquiry about the truth of the matter.

"It is not going to happen so the world has to live with curiosity," said the statement, signed only "Webmaster" in response to the WND inquiry.

The webmaster statement described the tempest as being caused either because of a translation mistake or "a slip [of the] tongue from the patriarch."

Galileo's Persecution

From what I read and quote, Galileo published a book supporting the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, and implied that the Church was in error. Galileo stood alone against the power of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and on April 12, 1633, he was brought before the Inquisition to defend himself against charges of heresy. Facing torture and death, that brilliant scientist was forced to read and sign a confession, disavowing his belief that the Earth revolves around the sun. (Sinful Spyglass)

The RCC concluded he was wrong based on the verses Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5

Galileo augured that we are not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs. I agree. I can refer back to a past post about the earth being flat or sphere, but I never expounded on the Galileo, heliocentrism, and the passages the RCC had issues with so let me try.

Galileo adopted Augustine's position who said, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

So the intent of the Bible is not to explain the facts of the universe but to shed light on mankind's purpose and Salvation. This does not mean that the Bible is not scientifically accurate though, which it is.

I am not sure if time should even be spent on the Psalm verses since they are poems and songs. Although, I will touch on meanings a bit to appease.

Psalm 93:1 "the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." In the erection of that kingdom of the Messias which can never be moved.

Psalm 96:10 "the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved" That kingdom shall never be destroyed, but shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)

Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." i.e. upon itself, or its own weight, whereby it stands as fast and unmovable, as if it were built upon the strongest foundations imaginable; which is a stupendous work of Divine power and wisdom.

1 Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (Strong's H4131) be overthrown or it cannot be removed. (Psa 125:1 "abideth for ever")

Ecclesiastes 1:5 can be understood best in context.

First verse 4 sets it up by saying "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."

Which states the repetitive nature of life as pointed out in verse 5-8: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits, All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Verses 9-11 explains what the prior passages mean. Poole says that the things of this world are so narrow, and the mind of man so vast, that there must be something new to satisfy the mind; and even delightful things, by too frequent repetition or long continuance, are so far from yielding satisfaction, that they grow tedious and troublesome.

By comparing the sun, and wind, and rivers, Poole compared the earth with man, might show that man, considered as mortal, is in a more unhappy condition than these things, because when the earth abides, man goes; and when the sun sets, he riseth again; and so the wind and rivers return to their former place and state, but man, when once he dies, he never returns again to this life. (Job 14:7,12)

So we can easily see that, in context, these passages have nothing to do with a literal sun moving through the skies. In fact, what Atheist has never uttered the terms sunrise or sunset? It is still, to this day, part of our language and vernacular. So we all understand, when an Atheist grumbles through a sunrise, he knows that the sun is in the center of our solar system and his life here on earth is limited.

Subsequently, on October 31, 1992 after 359 years, the Roman Catholic Church admits that it erred in its persecution of Galileo.

"With" Makes The Difference

Atheists try to lie their way into our society?

What better way to do that by being photographed with this congresswoman.

While this picture is no big surprise to me at all, the title and implications of the article was.

In Google, if you notice, it says "Atheist activist meets with top Washington officials" which is loaded with all sorts of insinuations.

No matter how small the imperceptibility was, it was wrong. Since then the article's title alone was changed to reflect a more honest approach to what transpired, but the gist of the article was left the same.

This guy shows up to have pictures taken with the congresswoman and met her, but didn't meet "with" her. There is a Howard Huge difference. This Sean Faircloth guy is trying to act like he matters by getting pictures taken with familiar faces in hopes to be popular and get his agenda press, which worked. At least, that is my take on it.

Notice the skew of the entire article "Hopefully, we will begin to see the fruits of his and SCA's labors in the near future. But for now, this gives hope that atheists are on the verge of becoming a true force with a respected voice in Washington."

Which is completely not the case at all. He merely took a few pictures and shook some hands. Quite a dishonest article, if you ask me. The "fruits of his labor" will be shown, that is for sure, but that fruit is not good as described in God's Word.

These Atheists are trying hard to promote this Atheism to get a foothold as the religion of Washington and society. According to the Bible, most of the world will be Atheists so relax Sean and Trina, your agenda will be promoted in time without this kind of dishonesty. Or maybe it will since the "father of lies" is your god, it is your destiny.

tinyurl.com/AtheistsDeceptions

Our Judeo-Christian Nation

In a past post I may have commented on Obama's inflaming words. It is a blessing to know that I was not the only one that felt upset at his pathetic, contempt towards Christians and America, comments.



I applaud Congressman J. Randy Forbes, Republican Virginia-4th District, words and I want him to know that he has my support. We have soldiers of Christ fighting the good fight and at least the fruit of this congressman shows we are willing to counter in this battle against a Godless group of people such as our current president Obama and Atheists.

tinyurl.com/JudeoChristianNation

The Austrian School of Economics

One of the greatest speeches that Peter Schiff has delivered was on 13 March 2009 during The 2009 Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture.

Recorded at the annual Austrian Scholars Conference, Ludwig von Mises Institute. Its worth listening to many times.

I downloaded it from Ludwig von Mises Institute or you just right mouse click here and "save link" to your HD.

tinyurl.com/AustrianSchool

Speed of Light

A comment I left on Ray's Post: The age of the universe

Someone asked him, "Dear Ray I have a question for you, considering God made the world and the universe in six days and considering He created Adam in about 4004 BC why is it that scientists say that the most distant planets are over 20,000 light years away. This means that the light from these planets has been traveling in space for 20,000 years, far longer than the universe has existed even if you count a day of creation as a 1000 years?"

My reply was, "Everyone needs to keep in mind that 20,000 light years away is a measurement of distance NOT time. I just thought I would point that out before I start reading all these comments. You are taking great assumptions thinking that light can travel at one speed.

In a lab setting they even slowed and stopped the speed of light. (Google: Bring Light to a Stop)

I remember that Carl Sagan explained in Cosmos that if a spaceship traveled at the speed of light when he returned back to earth after 5 years many hundreds of years (Corrected to: Mere minutes turned into many decades) would have passed on earth. Everyone that space traveler knew would be long gone. So if speed of light indeed effects time then one can see, quite simply, that the appearance of millions of years is actually a short time at the speed of light.

BTW you all do understand what God is right?...1 John 1:5

In Cosmos maybe Carl Sagan was talking about 2 Peter 3:8.

UPDATE: Is there a fellow geek/nerd out there that can tell me, in reference to Lorentz transformation (Lorentz factor), how to calculate the difference between (x) earth time and (y) speed of light time?

For example 1 minute of (X) equals, let's say 30 years of (Y)...and does it grow linearly, any takers? I just read "If space is homogeneous, then the Lorentz transformation must be a linear transformation."

Great I found the formula. Now I have to figure how to enter this into my HP 32SII calculator

Now I just read "Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime"

That is if light can be accelerated, which is the case as in black holes right? (People, like Einstein, believe that light cannot be accelerated. They jury may still be out.)If light can be slowed and even accelerated, as in black holes, then it could be seen that light could reach a point at a perceived length of time which relative to reality of (y), the spaceship, took a very short time.

UPDATE 2: I concede that explaining about God in this manner does a real injustice to the Gospel. Not to mention how extremely unbiblical it is.

Also someone recommended a book called "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" by professor John Hartnett. Building on the work of secular cosmologist Moshe Carmeli, Dr. Hartnett's book explains how we can see distant starlight in a young universe while at the same time doing away with the big bang 'fudge' factors of dark energy and dark matter. I might want to get a copy of that one.

Atheism: Defined and Examined

If you want the end all explanation of atheism just look at our friend Mariano's exhaustive essay on it called Atheism: a critical examination of its causes and effects .

Those unfamiliar with Mariano's work, visit his blog called Atheism is Dead.

The brilliant and well written essay's points really could be turned into hundreds of posts debunking atheists and still have a plethora of material left over. In fact some of the subjects, and quotes, have been talked about here in some past posts. Instead let it speak as a reasonable plea to help our atheist friends change their presuppositions and worldview.

The Obama Deception

I decided to watch this today...care to join me?

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations (banking) have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes."

-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins less than five months before he was assassinated.)

"Plutocracy is abhorrent to a republic; it is more despotic than monarchy, more heartless than aristocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in the hour of its calamity. Conscienceless, compassionless and devoid of wisdom, it enervates its votaries while it impoverishes its victims. It is already sapping the strength of the nation, vulgarizing social life and making a mockery of morals. The time is ripe for the overthrow of this giant wrong. In the name of the counting-rooms which it has denied; in the name of business honor which it has polluted; in the name of the home which it has despoiled; in the name of religion which it has disgraced; in the name of the people whom it has oppressed, let us make our appeal to the awakened conscience of the nation."

--William Jennings Bryan speech at Madison Square Garden, New York, 30 August 1906

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

--Possibly from Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

We, as a nation, need to stop worrying about the left and right puppets and worry about the puppet masters. End the FED.

I just read a fantastic article about this subject. It is worth the read for anyone.

The next major move in the stock market will be DOWN

Flag Day

These are indeed different times. This year I chose to fly different flags than the typical stars and stripes. The two flags that are flying in front of my house today are the Appeal to Heaven flag and the Gadsden flag.


Appeal to Heaven flag

This flag was used by George Washington on his squadron of six schooners which he outfitted at his own expense in the fall of 1775. This flag was a variation of the New England Pine Tree flag. It was later modified and adopted by the Massachusetts Navy. The Sons of Liberty would rally under a large tree, in Boston Massachusetts, which came to be known as "The Liberty Tree". This tree became a symbol of American independence. Knowing they were up against a great military power, they believed they were sustained by still a greater power, thus their "APPEAL TO HEAVEN".

Gadsden flag

This flag has a great deal of history starting with Benjamin Franklin. In 1751, he made the first reference to the rattlesnake in a satirical commentary published in his Pennsylvania Gazette. It had been the policy of Britain to send convicted criminals to America, and Franklin suggested that they thank the British by sending rattlesnakes to England. These days it has been used in modern politics as a symbol of disagreement with the current government.

Denominations of Atheism

I thought denominations were bad enough in Christianity. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. But I just read that even Atheism has its denominations also.

Apparently, John Gray believes there are different flavors of Atheism. I am sure I can come up with more then Gray's five. Wasn't it Christopher Hitchens who proclaimed Protestant atheism, or something to that effect, when asked if he was a Catholic non believer or a Protestant non believer? It appears that even Atheists are at odds with their beliefs and religion.

Gray identified five strains of Atheism:

1. Science-Oriented Atheism. An atheism that grounds itself in scientific modes of understanding, and the discourse of science. My notes are unclear on this point, so I won't say anything more.
2. Ultra-Protestant Atheism. This kind of atheism rests strongly on the idea of individual autonomy, and holds that one shouldn't take anything on authority. Gray thinks this is rooted in Protestantism.
3. Non-Humanist Atheism. Arthur Schopenhauer, Gray says, is a good example of this orientation. Schopenhauer didn't like Christianity or the churches, but he also believed that atheism is its own thing, and owes nothing to science. Science and atheism are, to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, "non-overlapping magisteria." One doesn't have anything to do with the other. (It's my sense from reading Gray's work that this would describe his own position -- this, combined with Naturalistic Atheism, see below.)
4. Anti-Liberal Atheism. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. It as actively anti-liberal, and contemptuous of liberal values. In Gray's view, this is completely logical. Liberal values - ideals of toleration - come straight out of Judaism and Christianity, says Gray. Nietzsche viciously attacked liberalism precisely because of its Christian values (it pitied the weak, for example, and was a slave religion that honored what was contemptible in man, in Nietzsche's view).
5. Naturalistic Atheism. The idea that religion is a normal part of life, that if you try to eliminate the religious sense from life, you're going to get repression of natural instincts. It's a benign or favorable attitude toward religion as a natural expression of what it means to be human. It's interesting to reflect, says Gray, on how atheist regimes -- Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, the Third Reich -- have quickly adapted a secular sacerdotal gloss, becoming political religions with their own pantheons of saints and sacraments, to speak to the religious sense within man. This sort of atheist isn't threatened by religion, and in fact sees religion as satisfying an important instinct within human beings -- but it must be kept in its place.

Gray added that Atheists cannot deal with the fact that atheism in power has been horrifically deadly, because it would deny the basic dogma of their faith: that atheism leads to liberation and redemption, and that their project of liberating people from their traditions and their history also severs them from their humanity.

Do you have another category that you follow? Maybe you all should have a council of sorts, like Council of Necia, to determine what is, and is not, to be believed.

As a Christian I enjoy being identified by what I believe. It must be horribly difficult to be labeled for something you don't believe. That list is too extensive for me. Proclaiming to be a Non Santa Atheist, for example, seems to be a pointless label. So does Atheism for that matter.

tinyurl.com/DenominationsofAtheism

Death Camps

Reinforcement of the religion 'Atheism' can now be promoted with the help of a camp for children in California. Let the indoctrination begin.

Join the festivities like:

* Search for that lesbian in you (8-17 yrs)
* Pin the tail on the monkey(human)
* Deny your conscience seminars
* Absolutely nothing is 100% certain, except Darwinian evolution, seminars
* Russian roulette with fully loaded guns
* Make up tips for that African ape in you
* Aliens seeded our planet, the Richard Dawkins theory, story time

bit.ly/Deathcamp

Homosexuality in the Bible

Stan gave me an article to read called "What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality"

To me, it appeared the article was a bunch of gripes and complaints about other people, without substance. Now, I agree people don't understand the Bible, as they should, but that has nothing to do with what the Bible says about gays.

The article claimed:

MARK 12:18-27
"If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir."

The whole passage was about the mistake just claimed here. 'He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err', and so does this article.

He said: "Actually, I'm not from Sodom. That city was buried beneath the Dead Sea centuries ago. I'm from California -- but perhaps that just confirms their suspicions!"

I am sure that Dani'El and I would disagree and Sodom is indeed in California.

This joker claims "Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom."

Pointless argument, because the Bible is clear about Sodom's wickedness as in Jude 1:7.

"But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing."

I guess it would be pointless to talk of the etymology of the word sodomy also. Whatever dude.

"You'll also note that Romans 2 begins with "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God's business, not ours."

That is not what the passage says at all. We are indeed to judge but not if we are doing the same things. You know "for thou that judgest doest the same things"

What's a malokois? ... Actually, ...Greek words have confused scholars to this very day.

No they haven't. First in Strong's its malakos and its clear that effeminate means 'of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness'. Again whatever.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

We have been down this road before in a past post. Of course we are to judge.

Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for truth, we are to "love one another."

Again, I have been down this road, but not in a posting, so I will say it again for this post. Do you believe that "Christian love" is to coddle people in their wickedness?

Do you remember what it says in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.

The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (emphasis added)

If you believe coddling is love then you are delusional. You must confront to show love to someone. Would I let you as a friend go and drink and drive? We will take the keys and get into your face if necessary to show that you are wrong. Get offended if you wish but I will not accept the evil wickedness of unrepentant sinning. God, nor I, condone sinning.

But the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created to protect an individual's right to disagree.

Good point. So I have the right to disagree that gay marriage should be allowed.

In this last premise, I'm asking you who disagree with my stand on homosexuality to support my stand on full civil rights for all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

From our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So yes our Creator gives us certain unalienable Rights and one of them is for a man to marry a woman as instructed in His Word, the ultimate authority for our Creator. (Gen. 2:18, 24, Ephesians 5:23-32,1 Corinthians 7:2)

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Update: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality.

I guess I also should reference a past post to show my agenda and intentions to gay people.