My Day of Team Building

I am providing this on my blog for people who do not follow me on Facebook, also because it’s just too many words. While on my blog read some of the articles I’ve written and comment!!!! Readers and comments motivate me.

Here is the saga of my work department’s day of “Team Building”

About a week ago my boss announced a half day of “team building”. No query of what we would be doing, the decision was made. We were going to play golf! Right away I thought to myself who would want to go back to work after a morning of golf? Silly me, we weren’t going to start first thing in the morning. Nooooo. Tee time? 1:00 pm in the afternoon….in July….in Texas. It’s been over 100 degrees practically every day for the last 3 weeks or so, and it aint a dry heat folks.

I raised my hand and said “I vote for bowling”. All the macho golfer blowhards looked at me like I just blasphemed. I didn’t know golf was so popular among my colleagues, so what could I do. I mean hey, being out of the office can’t be all that bad, right?

I’d like to pause to thank all those who followed my updates on Facebook, especially Sheri Coulter, you made it fun! Thanks.

So this morning I did some work from home and left the house at about 11:15. I needed to stop by Walmart and buy some golf balls and tees. I arrived at the course at about 12:00 noon. Some others were also just arriving so we milled around until everyone got there. I don’t have golf clubs so I had to rent them.

Doodaloo-doodaloo-doodaloo ----this is the going back in time sequence….In 1984 I played my last serious attempt at golf and ended up throwing my clubs in a pond. You might find them somewhere on the golf course in Portland, Maine.

Anyway, back to me going to get my club rentals which my boss graciously reserved for me. That is when I think the farce of this whole “team building” idea was revealed. Now my attempt at a Master Card commercial:

Golf balls and Tees at Walmart - $10.50
Club Rental - $27
Greens Fees and cart rental - $55
Finding out your cheap a$$ boss made you pay $92.50 for a mandatory day of “team building” in hell – PRICELESS.

Can you believe that? I thought this was a company sponsored day of “team building”!

The next big surprise was who I got teamed up with. One guy from our office, who I’ll call The Big-A (the A doesn’t stand for what you might be thinking. His name starts with A) and two other guys who work for one of our vendors. The Big-A happens to work daily with these guys so I was kinda the odd man out right from the start. But no biggie, right? Wrong. These guys are “serious” golfers, and the first thing they asked me after introductions was, “So, how often do you get out?” obviously meaning how often do I get out to play golf. I answered, “Well…on average….each month? I’d say zero point zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero-zero [pause for thinking] zero-zero-zero-zero…..zero-two times per month.”

At the first hole The Big-A tees up at the “Pro” tee. You see there are different spots to tee up your ball on each hole. The black tee is the pro tee, the blue is the standard tee the white is the women’s tee (I may have gotten the other two colors wrong so I’m admitting that now for all you “serious” golfers out there). I get ready to tee off second so I tee up on the black tee. The Big-A and the two other “serious” golfers, start convincing me to tee off from the blue tee, not the precious black tee. When I ask why, the Big-A answers, “Well I shoot in the 70s.” Is that actually an answer? Whatever, I go to the blue tee, and shank it. I could hear them grumbling behind me.

Holes 2 through 9 are pretty much the same and the heat, oh my! I am slathered with sun block, and by hole #9 I have drunk 2 liters of water and have not had any hint of needing to go pee. It’s like 178 degrees out, but I am determined.

Now to a couple of things The Big-A did.

#1 - As we were approaching the 9th hole, The Big-A called the boss who was a few holes behind us. Now understand I’m IN the golf cart with The Big-A. Here is the exchange:

The Big-A: Hi boss, how’s your game?
The Boss: Oh not too bad. What’s up?
The Big-A: Uh-huh. Hey if you want to skip a few holes meet us at the 9th and you and Ed can swap teams.
The Boss: No that’s ok.
The Big-A: Ok see you in the bar. (hangs up phone) [pause] The Big-A says nothing.
Ed: (looking right at The Big-A) Yah, none taken.

#2 – The “serious” golfers are getting upset with me because I insist on playing every hole and taking as many shots as it takes to get the ball to go in that little hole. The Big-A, in a moment of obvious compassion, tells the other two “serious” golfers (again with me standing right there among them!) that at the 14th hole he’s going to swing by the clubhouse and drop me off because obviously I am tired. That actually made me slightly mad. I responded by telling The Big-A to keep his yap shut because he doesn’t speak for me. I’m playing every hole and taking as many shots as I can get for my $93 of hell golf. Now hit the ball.

Funny things that happened:

A squirrel tried to hump my golf ball.

On the 12th hole I hit a drive and it ricocheted off a tree and landed on the green….the green of the 13th hole.

I hit a 350 yard drive! It went 328 yards straight up and landed 22 yards in front of me.

While the Big-A was taking a shot I poured some water on his seat in the golf cart. He didn’t know and I kept chuckling at the wet spot on his rump.

I took 7 shots to try and get out of one of those sand things that the “serious” golfers call bunkers or sand traps. I took big whacks with sand flying all over the place. The funny thing about it was that the Big-A told me how I could break a club by hitting the sand so hard. That’s when I told him I was using HIS sand wedge because my rentals didn’t come with one.

That’s about it. Golf isn’t my game, but life is. I love life and I love God. Thank you God for my life.



The Big-A (left) and The Boss (right)

Religion and the First Amendment

I'm yelling at the TV again. On this mornings news they are talking about an atheist group who has filed a law suit to keep an engraving of the words In God We Trust off of the entrance to the new Washington DC Capitol Visitors Center. The news casters talked about how they think this type of thing is ridiculous, which I am glad to hear. They also interviewed people on the street whose opinion varied; some for and some against.

The issue I have are the reasons people gave for wanting or not wanting it there. Some of the reasons given were 1) It's our national motto, 2) It's on our money, 3) America's history was clearly built on Judeo-Christian principles. All ok reasons, but none authoritative.

It's funny that the name of the Atheist group that has filed this law suit, along with other law suits seeking to ban the word God from the pledge of allegiance and banning the national day of prayer, is called The Freedom From Religion Foundation, emphasis on the word From.

I yelled at the TV asking someone to please quote the first amendment to our US Constitution!!! The first amendment guarantees us freedom OF religion, not freedom from it. What is wrong with this country? I've written about this in my post I Want Freedom Of Religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The news station I was watching had a visit by Holywood actor David Arquette. He was on the show to raise awareness in battling hunger in America; nice. The show's host asked him what he thought about the law suit and he said "It doesn't matter to him. He'd be ok with it saying "In Rainbows We Trust".

The Pit of Redefinition

It is amazing how people think. If we don't like what something stands for we simply think we can change it and yet call it the same thing. Marriage is one of the things in hot debate these days that fall into that category. As I've written about in my articles, I believe marriage is defined as something and that something cannot change simply because people want it to be something else. Once you change the definition of something, in this case marriage, it becomes something else. It ceases to be what it was.

I just read an article in Newsweek that is yet another example of how people think that is what they can do. The article titled "Why Barack Obama Represents American Catholics Better Than The Pope Does" should, I hope, anger Catholics. If not anger them, then I hope it at least makes them take a step back and assess what that says about them.

Think about it; who is the head of the Church? Not the pope, it is in fact Jesus Christ Himself. But, for Catholics, the Pope is the representative of Jesus here on earth. That is why the Pope is called the Vicar of Christ; Vicar means representative. Thus Catholics believe the Pope speaks to us for Christ; or at least they are supposed to think that.

So when American Catholics say they don't agree with the Pope's position on pro-life issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and birth control, on family issues such a same sex marriage, and on the various moral positions of the church, they are in fact defying the position of Christ Himself. (That is so long as the Pope's position aligns with Christ and is a very good reason all believers need to study the Bible. But that's another argument for another day.)

So what do people, in this case so-called Catholics, do? They redefine Catholicism to be what they want it to be, and at the same time keep calling themselves "catholic". Where is the Church leadership to say "No!". If the Pope says Catholicism mean standing up for A, B and C, and standing against X, Y and Z, then that is how it is. Anyone who does not profess to these things, as a majority of their belief system, at some point must cease to be a Catholic. It's not the other way around where right believing actual real Catholics have to put up with an altered version of the Truth! No!!

I completely understand if someone within the Church questions why the Church stands for some things and stands against other things. Constructive debate and education to determine the "why's and what for's" is reasonable and healthy. But to claim that Obama represents American Catholics better than the Pope, when the totality of Barack Obama's viewes stand in direct opposition to that of the Church is a heresy against Christ Himself! Church leaders should deny those who do not align themselves with the beliefs of the Church from taking part in the blessings of the Church.

Who is your Lord? Jesus Christ Himself or some idol who tickles your ears with what you want to hear? Do you love the things that Jesus loves or do you look to people like Barack Obama who make you feel less guilty for loving things that Christ Himself hates. Chose carefully because your decision has eternal consequences.

Sigh....Abortion Parties

I came across this article and honestly I am experiencing a range of emotions; disgust, sadness, a feeling of losing control of our senses. How far have we fallen? Can we ever recover from this?

The article was written to ask the question about what is the role of the male when deciding to have an abortion. But I read the article through the eyes of a person who values life and believes that abortion is the purposeful taking of a human life; in other words abortion is murder.

Below is a link to the entire article, but here is something to wet your whistle:

"What are you going to do?" Maggie, a 22-year-old college senior with no intention of bringing a child into the world yet, was going to have an abortion. She told us that she had already made up her mind; she had even determined the time, date and location. A better question might have been, "How are you going to pay for it?" She answered that one before we had a chance to ask. "We’re having a party Friday to raise money," Maggie said. "You guys are obviously invited."

Link to the article: My First Abortion Party

Dear God, Don't Let Us Divorce You.

As the systematic removal of God from our schools carries on, have the results been better schools or a worsening of the violence and death?

Now our country's military seems to be following in the same footsteps and I fear what the outcome will be on the battlefield and eventually in our own back yard.

Sorry I couldn't embed the video directly, but click here for the full story.

Happy Birthday America!

Teen Pride Day

Sounds innocuous. But reading the article I've linked to leaves me speechless..not in a dumbfounded way, but in a sad way. I just want to hang my head.

Caution: This article may contain material some find to be offensive and graphic
Kids Attend Prom from "Sexual Hell"

This indoctrination goes on in more places than we all know. I didn't write about it, but I've been reading articles about mandatory lessons in California public elementary schools that indoctrinate children to the homosexual lifestyle. It's too detailed to go into here, but you can find articles about it online.

Notice one thing in the article, the very last line where it says "....there are no boundaries". Remember what I've written before? The god of these people is called Autonomy. And this god says "It's all about me. I want to do what I want to do and you can't stop me and I will work to change the minds of more and more people everyday until one day what I am doing is no longer considered wrong; it will be welcomed and you'll be in the minority then."

More Scientific Backtracking

I remember back in the mid 80s I really became a paleontology buff and that is when I first read about the link between dinosaurs evolving into modern birds. I thought that was the coolest thing. I also can remember that being a theme throughout the 1993 movie Jurassic Park. The character of Dr. Grant, played by Sam Neil, was a leading expert on the subject. I remember how in the last scene in the movie, after all the chaos and excitement, as they flew off of the Island Dr. Neil looked out the window of the helicopter and saw a flock of pelicans flying along with them. OOOOoooo!

What a bunch of hooey. That was then. Now, if you've spent anytime reading some of the science related articles I've written, you know I am not in that camp any more.

I just read an article that, alas, has scientists rethinking that "theory". The article called Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links shows just how far from the truth scientists can be led all because they want the data to fit nicely into their preconceived agenda, and when it doesn't, who cares. A couple of notes:

• When you link over to the article notice the section that is called Related Stories, it's about half way down the page on the right. It lists past articles like Velociraptor Had Feathers and Dinosaur Smelling Skills Opens New Chapter on Bird Evolution.
• How many High School text books now need to be edited? In actuality, when it comes to biology, every year the data changes so much that the previous years text book is already outdated.

Good News. Take a Human Life for Free!

Abortion Business in Philadelphia Gives Away Free Abortions Honoring George Tiller

But there's a catch. It's Tuesday only so you better get there early and bring a snack.

Productivity of Nothing

Some articles say it better than I can:

Varieties of Nothing

I've determined that liberals worship a god of their own. That god's name is Autonomy. They will ignore all evidence, all outside criticism, all proof to the contrary. Autonomy is a liberals highest association.

Fudging Scientific Data?!

All you have to do is read some of the articles I've written filed under Science in my blog and you will see that I want science to follow the evidence where ever it leads. Isn't science defined as the search for truth?

Interestingly I just read an article that states One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data.

It comes as no surprise to me. I wrote an article called Go Where The Science Leads? Not In Science!, because I know that most scientists, at least the ones who are trying to get published, or get ahead, must be the one to make the next big discovery. So what they do is predetermine exactly what the next big discovery needs to be and then set out to prove it. If the data doesn't fit, who cares, make it fit. Why? Because these people are not interested in Truth, they are only interested in themselves. They long for notoriety, awards and accolades. This is true both at the individual level and at the institutional level. The more notoriety, the more money. Higher salaries, book deals, speaking tours. Universities that hire these people as professors can charge higher tuition, and on and on it goes.

And if someone comes along and challenges the system, forget it. You are black-listed. You will never get published, never be hired to speak, and you'll languish in a low level lab job while earning the condemnation of your peers. Academia is full of some of the most egotistical people I've ever met.

Read through some of the articles I've written which are filed in the Science category and see for yourself.

The Murder of George Tiller

It's been a few days since Dr. George Tiller was murdered and I held off writing anything right away so I can digest some of the news. In a sort of twist of fate another murder took place the very next day when Pvt. William Long was shot to death outside of a Little Rock, AK Army recruiting station.

First Dr. Tiller. He's been an enemy of pro-lifers for a long time. He was one of only three Doctors in the US who performed late term partial birth abortions, usually on pre-born babies over 21 weeks old, no medical issues and fully viable. To see how this practice is carries out, click this link to see my previous post called Here We Go. It is reported that Dr. Tiller had aborted some 63,000 babies in his career.

I got into an heated discussion on a Facebook group with Christians who said they felt that Dr. Tiller deserved to be killed and his killing was the judgment of God. I completely disagree with that thinking and believe it lowers those who think that to the level of an abortionist. I understand if someone is glad that Dr. Tiller can no longer perform abortions, but there is no way any Christian can justify the murder of Dr. Tiller as a good thing.

Now to Pvt. William Long, murdered in cold blood by a convert to Islam. Truly a tragedy. But I found it odd how our President commented on the two incidents. The President immediately issued a statement about Dr. Tiller, but took a three days before he issued a statement about Pvt. Long. Remember the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Notice the difference in language and tell me what he is most aligned with.

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.

In keeping with the Obama administration’s passive language, such as the euphemisms “overseas contingency operation” or “man-caused disaster”, Obama’s statement on the murder of Pvt. William A. Long is just as passive in voice and blame. He’s not outraged, he’s saddened. Not by someone who committed a “heinous act” but rather by a senseless violence. It might have been a bolt of lightning for all the pushback Obama has to share.

He waits three days and then the best he can muster is an abstract sadness at something that, judging by his statement, might well have been a mere accident of fate…

The Logic Cop Says It's a Human Baby

Back when the Presidential campaign was in full swing, both Barak Obama and John McCain took part in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. During that forum candidate Obama was asked “When does a baby get human rights?” His answer was:

Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

What does pay grade have to do with the facts?

President Obama stated during his speech at Notre Dame

I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.

He is right; this controversy should not be shoved aside. It is a life-and-death matter and someone is wrong about it. That is something everyone should think about, one side of this debate is wrong; but who?

Think about the logic pro-abortionists use to justify their position. That life doesn't start until the fetus is "viable". Early on it is just a mass of cells, not a human. They also hide behind the more socially acceptable title of "pro-choice", rather than calling them selves exactly what they are "pro-death". After all death is the opposite of life, so pro-death is a more accurate description.
I've stated very clearly in the past that if you consider yourself "pro-choice", you are in the same camp as a pro-abortionist, so lets start the debate there. If you are pro-choice, what are you choosing between? You are choosing between eliminating something or keeping something.

The next question is, eliminate what? Is this “thing” an inert globule of organic matter? Or is it a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus? These latter terms are employed to describe different stages of gestational development. But do they define whether the “it” is human or non-human? It must be one or the other. This is like using the words “baby,” “child,” “teen,” “adult,” and “senior.” Do these expressions refer to humans or non-humans?

Let’s think about this issue from a coldly logical vantage point. Upon what core issues can all sides agree? (1) When a male sperm and a female egg unite, something happens. Something is henceforth there. (2) That something either is living or non-living. Is there a third option? Clearly it is living. It takes nourishment and receives oxygen. It exhibits movement. It undergoes cell replication. This is undeniable. (3) This living thing either is human or non-human. DNA analysis will clearly identify it as human; 100% of the time, no matter the ideology of the scientist. If it were identified as non-human, say it were determined to be an avocado or a duck, then it may be eliminated at any time, at any stage, and for any purpose. We take the lives of plants and animals, to be used for a higher good, without hesitation. The assumption of civilized society always has been, however, that human life constitutes an entirely different category. Therefore by logical examination this "thing" that is being taken is a living human and one must agree that abortion can only be described as an action that is the taking of a human life.

The President clearly believes and supports the theory that the lives of pre-born infants are subject to the choices of society’s democratic process. He obviously chooses not to believe that a living human being is purposefully killed in the abortion procedure. Since this is the case, why does he call for us to “reduce the number of women seeking abortions”?

There is something wrong with this logic and I hope you understand it.

Somebody Explain This To Me

This is one I'll definitely follow, but I do not understand why it even happens. The city has no grounds for this, but I'll bet they will continue to pursue it no matter how much tax payer money is wasted on a defense or how much embarrassment it causes. Elitist, egotistical, loons.

Couple Ordered To Stop Holding Bible Study At Home Without Permit

How did this employee of San Diego county even know about the bible study. Not that it matters, but there is more here than meets the eye.

You cannot tell me Christianity is being targeted for extinction. What is this country becoming?

Same Story Different Day

It's funny, it's sad...no, it's funny. So many people educated beyond their intelligence. As I reported in a piece called "Ida" Don't Know, the latest fossil to be dubbed as the missing link is an ancient lemur like animal. The problem is that science is so focused on proving to the world that a missing link exists, they forget how many times in the past they made the same claim only to see it become a dead end, or worse, a fraud. Here is a list of sciences greatest misses:

1. Every argument used to validate evolution in the famous 1925 Scopes trial was later proven fallacious, and none of them are used today by knowledgeable people.
2. Remember vestigial organs? All supposedly “vestigial” organs are now known to be functional and useful.
3. The Piltdown man turned out to be a fraud.
   
4. Embryonic recapitulation—made popular by a series of manipulated drawings by Ernst Haeckel—has been thoroughly refuted by embryology.
5. Ramapithecus was once considered “the link,” but it was determined to be nothing more than an extinct orangutan-like creature.
6. Homo habilis has likewise outlived its celebrity status. The majority of paleontologists who recognize that it is really just a collection of both ape and human skull fragments are too uncomfortable to present it as a transitional form in textbooks.
7. Peppered moths and Darwin’s finches remain the same moths and finches.
8. Archaeopteryx was just a bird.
   

Ida is following the same as her predecessors. She has been promoted as a “missing link” with widespread media hype. After further study, however, this claim will be quietly rescinded. The most damaging result of this backward publish the story first and ask scientific questions later routine is that evolution is promoted whether or not the discovery provides any evidence to support it. This is not the way ideal science is conducted—it’s closer to propaganda.

Is The Abortion Debate Changing?

I read an article in the Denver Post by David Harsanyi titled "Harsanyi: Abortion Debate Changing". I've read some of his articles before because, as he states up front in this article, he's an atheist, is secular and practices moral relativism. So, he provide very good insight into the world view of a person like that and the logic they use to make their agrgument.

This article is very good because he uses very concrete real reasons for oposing abortion. Most pro-abortionists and pro-choicers if they would take the time to think their position through to it's logical end would see that what they support and why they support it has many contradictions.

I'll close with a quote from super model Kathy Ireland which I wrote about in an article called Abortion: Open Mindedness and Reasonable Thinking. In that article the pro-choice Ms. Ireland reversed her position and chose to be pro-life through careful examination of the issue. In her investigation she was confronted by the "is a fetus a human being?" question,

Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life. "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time.

"Ida" Don't Know

I've seen a lot of media hype about the fossil of an ancient monkey known as "Ida". The reports are that this is definitive proof of a transitional species showing that modern man evolved from earlier primates. As the link to an article states, we've heard this before. Wild hype about a historic discovery and then after further examination it turns out to nothing new. The news about the actual truth of the discovery gets buried. Ego.

I'll be looking for more on Ida, but in the mean time read this and this.

Hmmmmm...

Nuance.

Perspective? No, It's Yellow Journalism

Words fail me at the moment as to just how unfair this is. Watch the first video, a news report about how Christian soldiers (forgive the pun) are guilty of proselytizing Islamic Afghans.



After watching that I would bet that the military would punish those that the video clearly shows violating Army rules, and who also risk the delicate balance of relations we have worked so hard to achieve in that country.

But wait! Could it be that through creative editing the situation was actually something completely different? - Disgusting.

Obama's Speech at Notre Dame

So many thoughts...none make me feel less anxious.

I am really beginning to fear where our country will be in fours years, or perhaps after eight if he is elected to second term. He has commanded such a loyal following of the blind. It comes down to people not caring about right or wrong any more, but if Mr. Obama says it, it must be right.

I could write a lot about some of the things he said in his speech, but I'll restrict it to only two, plus a couple of links to two articles I've read so far today.

Two quotes with my comments:

"Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions" - Tell me Mr. President, exactly how much deciding, heart-wrenching or otherwise, does it take to make that which is wrong, right?

"So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions..." - Mr President, we are men of action; lies do not become us and you making it look like you are willing to reduce the number of women seeking abortions is an outright lie. You have had numerous opportunities in your political career to do just that and every time, 100%, you have always voted against any kind of restrictions and voted for removing restriction. You vowed to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which does just that; it removes all state imposed restrictions on abortion, things like parental notification (wouldn't that stand to reduce some abortions?). You voted against the Infant Born Alive Act which would require doctors to administer life saving medical attention to a baby born alive due to a botched abortion. Sir, you are a liar and a deceiver.


Links to articles:

US News & World Report - Obama's Notre Dame Speech Was an Alarming Violation of Church-State Separation

National Review Online - Obama and the 'Real Catholics'

To Get Jello You Need a Cook

I post this stuff, but honestly am amazed by how it defies logic. Honestly.

The article Chemists see first building blocks to life on Earth, is yet another glimpse at how science works so hard to 'wrench' data to fit an already pre-decided result. In the article US molecular biologist Jack Szostak hailed the research saying

It will stand for years as one of the great advances in prebiotic chemistry

Read the article and see if you think what they are doing deserves this praise. Speaking of the three base chemicals that form an RNA strand, one very good objection written in the article states

...doubters have been comforted by the failure to find any feasible chain of chemical events to explain how the three components all came together.

I just found another article on this same subject, but the title is much better: Molecules of Life Emerges From Laboratory Slime.

Review what I've written in the past about this in an article called Upside-Down and Backwards and then tell me if all of this experimenting of trying to recreate the primordial soup and zapping it with electricity, then heating it and cooling it and finding some chemicals joined together can account for THE VOLUMES OF GENETIC INFORMATION CONTAINED IN OUR RNA AND DNA!!!

Honestly, if take some chemicals and zap it with electricity, heat it and then cool it I get lime flavored Jello. When you see Jello do you think it got on the cafeteria line by way of the blind forces of chance? It just appeared there without the assistance of the cook?

Follow The Evidence

I wrote a number of weeks back about how a hiker in Australia came upon grove of trees that were thought to be extinct. It was likened to finding a living dinosaur.

Today I read about yet another discovery of a dinosaur fossil found with soft tissue intact. Two T-Rex fossils had been found previously, this time it's a Hadrosaur and the tissue includes blood cells and collagen.

While I find it amazing, especially because these discoveries are being made by typically pro-evolution scientists; for me it begs another question. Strict creationists, like myself, believe the earth is only several thousand years old. Evolutionists state that the earth is 4.5 billion of years old and the first microbial life appeared some 3.5 billion years ago. My question is why such a large delta between the two camps conclusion in the age of earth and of the first life? I'm going to start reading........

Hartache: Abortions Based on Gender

I came across this article: Sweden Allows Sex-Selective Abortions

For the life of me I cannot understand the rational behind being pro-abortion or even pro-choice. I know my saying that seems odd. I understand how odd it sounds because I used to be pro-choice. So, in an attempt to provide understanding, I honestly believe one can only be pro-abortion if you have elevated yourself to be a god. And I think you can only be pro-choice if you have your head in the sand and refuse to really understand what this is all about.

I Am a Recovering Pro-Choice Liberal Democrat

I turned 18 in 1978 and honestly I can’t remember what election year was my first time to vote. I can tell you that when I did begin to vote it was for Democrats. Why was that? I’m not sure other than my parents were generally politically uninformed, so that carried over I suppose. If asked what party I align myself with I would have told you (with nose raised in the air) that I don’t (didn't) vote along party lines, I “vote for the person not the party”. When in reality if you looked at the actual “persons” I voted for…they were all Democrats.

In 1999 the presidential campaign was well underway and the leading Democrats in the race were Al Gore and Howard Dean. I started souring on Dean because he seemed extraordinarily arrogant, so Gore was my man. Time for Confession: If you had asked me why I liked Al Gore over all other candidates and including why I thought he was better that George Bush, I would have answered because I thought he was smarter. Yup, that was my reason for voting for Al Gore. There was no substance behind my choice, I didn't choose because I determined what issues were most important to me. Nope, I liked him because he was “smarter”. Not my proudest moment.

I voted for Gore in that election and, well, Bush became President after a historic set of events in Florida. You remember the hanging chads and all. But this was my political involvement. Basically to not know anything about real issues and then vote Democrat. But, I also have to say that even though I was completely uniformed I did have opinions; most importantly an opinion on abortion. I was completely pro-choice and was one of those people who would say "Well I would never suggest a women should get an abortion, but who am I to tell another person what they can or cannot do with their body."

In late 1999 and early 2000 I was struggling in life, and while this is not the topic of this post, I have to say I had a spiritual awakening and committed my life to Jesus Christ in February of 2000. After that conversion I began questioning my thoughts and actions, and asking "who am I?"

Then in 2002 came the Governor’s race in Massachusetts, where I was living at the time. It was Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket and State Treasurer Shannon O'Brien on the Democrat ticket. Now 42 years old I decided for the first time to actually pay attention to what the issues were and decide on a candidate who best matches what I most strongly believe in. What I found was a Democratic candidate that didn't care to have a substantive debate. She had an attitude that oozed elitism and well, made me want to take a shower after hearing her speak. The attitude that came across from Ms. O'Brien was if you align with my thoughts you are a progressive thinker, and if you disagree with me I will simply tear you down while never actually debating you on the merits of my position. I didn't like it at all. I actually hadn't made up my mind until the very last debate they had. Mitt Romney gave clear and concise answers to why he stands where he stands on the issues. Ms. O'Brien was a condescending, nasty person who had no clue what she was about. The final straw for me was when the topic of abortion came up. Mr. Romney stated he was pro-life, but honestly stated that since the Massachusetts state house is a vast majority Democrat, he was not planning on attempting to challenge current law in Massachusetts. Ms. O'Brien on the other hand stated she did want to change to current abortion laws to make them easier to get an abortion at anytime during pregnancy and for any reason, INCLUDING for minors WITHOUT parental consent. It was like a dagger in my heart. Was this what I was supporting all those years?

I voted for Mitt Romney. And I did so on the issues.

In every election since then I have voted for pro-life candidates because I have seen that liberals have taken on a personality of arrogant elitism, and has continued to move more and more left so that they cease to recognize any standard of what is right and wrong. All is permissible and if you give us your money we’ll make it happen for you. Thanks, but no thanks.

I am so glad that I started paying attention. One last word; many so-called republicans want us to move more to the left as a way to achieve better election results. Thanks, but no thanks.

I was reading an article about the malicious attacks made on the character of Miss California Carrie Prejean by the self-righteous liberals and a really good point was made that goes along with my conversion from liberal to conservative. Here is the quote from an Anne Coulter article that describes exactly where I came from (liberal view of religion) and actually becoming a Christian:

Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve. This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.

Pray On!

Triangular Triads

I said that this was inevitable. The debate over "same sex" marriage is not a gay-lesbian issue. It has nothing to do with gays or lesbians but rather the definition of something. Marriage is defined as something and once you change the definition of that something, it ceases to be that something anymore. It becomes nothing for everybody.

Read Threesome Marriages

If you can think up a relational combination, then you can bet that those who want to include that into the definition of marriage will be lining up very soon.

Creation vs. Evolution: Know Why!

Watch the videos.

Why does the congressman not just come out and say what he believes? Because he has not prepared himself to debate why he believes what he believes.

As for Chris Matthews, listen to the way he phrases his argument. His questions are ripe with the preconception that, as he stated evolution is fact. He asked "Do you believe in science or creation?", clearly showing the creationism is not a scientific endeavor. He asks, "Do you believe in the scientific method?", clearly to show that the scientific method proves the truth of evolution.

Congressman Pence missed a great opportunity because he wasn't prepared to give a defense, which by the way we are instructed to do in God's Word.




If Chris Matthews had asked me if I believe in creation I would have said yes. When asked if I believe in the scientific method I would have answered yes. Mr. Matthews' next step would have been to question me on how I can believe in the scientific method when it clearly proves evolution is fact. That would have been my spring board into showing how the theory of evolution actually breaks apart under the scrutiny of the scientific method, starting with how do you get something from nothing?

Follow Up: Here is another video with Chris Matthews on the same subject. You've got to listen carefully. Problem one, his CATHOLIC school taught, or allowed the possibility, that men descended from apes. This stuff just drives me crazy....

A Great Man With A Great Message

Watching this video is a must. Yes, it's nearly 30 minutes long, but it is eye opening; like discovering a time capsule.

How we need this man and his message today.



By the way, I don't think this is the Republican National Convention as the video is titled. I've read elsewhere that it is actually the 1964 CPAC Conference, but I could be wrong.

I've Got A Funny Feeling (Funny-Bad)

It's been building for awhile and it looks like it's coming together. Ultra liberal congress, super-liberal President, soon to be liberal supreme court, and right around the corner legislating "Hate speech".

I'll be keeping an eye on a few things, but most importantly whether or not S.909 and HR1913 the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passes congress. The ambiguous wording of this bill would allow for special prosecution of people who commit crimes that are

..motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Ttribal hate crime laws.

This means that someone convicted of a crime against a person who is considered a member of a special "protected" group of people will receive a stiffer penalty than if the same crime is committed against a person who is NOT in that group of specially protected people. Who are some other these specially protected groups of people? Some 30 groups of sexually perverse people! Read the list right here.

On the ACLU website you'll find this as the opening of their information concerning hate speech:

In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States.

I just happen to read an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that described a meeting in Fort Worth where the motives of American Muslims was being discussed. The article started with:

What are the intentions of Muslims in America? A local activist told a Republican club Monday night that Muslims are intent on overthrowing America. But the Tarrant County medical examiner, who is Muslim, denounced such remarks as hate speech.

I'm getting a real bad feeling about this. Anyone who "feels" like what I say is hateful can sue me or have me arrested? What if the preacher at Church speaks out against homosexuality? What if I write on my blog that I think Asians can't drive worth a crap, all Italians are crooks, women are notorious liars or all Jews are money grubbers. I don't really think that, but I'm making a point. Is not my speech free under the first amendment?

Again, the first amendment provides me the freedom OF speech, NOT freedom FROM IT. The first amendment provides me with freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM IT.

I don't think we'll have these freedoms for much longer. I'm not saying...I'm just saying.

Case in point, I've written a little about the fall out from Miss California simply stating her opinion on same sex marriage. The liberals and the gay-lesbian community are tearing her apart and doing everything they can to destroy her reputation. In the very near future they will have laws on their side to prosecute!

I could go on and on. I read another article today that described how over 30 colleges and universities in the US have adopted same room co-ed living arrangements and the reason for this is "to create a more welcoming atmosphere for transgender and homosexual students". Don't believe me? Here is the article and you can read many more just like it with a simple web-search.

Relativism in the Highest

The article I just read is so pregnant with quotable quotes I decided to just post a link to it below.

What’s at issue here is the same thing I’ve been writing about for awhile; the relativistic world view of liberal “progressive” people. To anyone who subscribes to that world view there is nothing concrete. No objective Truth, no idea that stays True for all time, for all people in all places. The liberal thinkers in our country apply that same ideology to our US constitution. Our constitution was written as a model for government that was to withstand the test of time.
President Obama’s view and the view of liberals is that the constitution is a changeable document that should be molded to fit our time. And this is exactly what we will get with the Presidents upcoming pick for the US Supreme Court.

It is destroying our country; LORD have mercy on us.

Here is the link to the article. Just think about what this potential Supreme Court Justice stands for.

Top 10 Tips For a Better Community Garden

#10 - If no rototiller is available, just do donuts with your car to loosen the soil.
#9 - Obtain "starter plants" by raiding outdoor cafe flower pots.
#8 - For residents that aren't into gardening, try installing vending machines.
#7 - Don't allow local pot heads to plant pizza slices as there is no such thing as a pizza tree.
#6 - If someone plants a flesh-eating plant, kill it before it has babies and takes over the neighborhood.
#5 - Allot adjacent spaces, one to a working class immigrant family who actually need the food they grow and the other to an affluent organic gardener opposed to non-native plant species; sit back and watch the class conflict grow and flourish.
#4 - Ignore the "fruitcake" and "fairy" comments being yelled at you.
#3 - Let the ugly dowdy people take the lead on the project.
#2 - Never eat the vegetables grown in your community garden. Are you kidding? That plot of dirt used to be the parking lot for the public works truck fleet.

...and the #1 tip for a better community garden...

Although bobcat urine is a good method to repel rodents that eat vegetables, it will also turn your garden into a place overrun with volatile, dangerous bobcats.

You're welcome.

The New Direction of Science Under President Obama

During his April 27, 2009, address at the National Academy of Sciences’ annual meeting, President Barack Obama called for focused scientific research aimed to improve the daily lives of American citizens. Among the advances that Mr. Obama said he would love to see come to fruition are “solar cells as cheap as paint; green buildings that produce all the energy they consume; learning software as effective as a personal tutor; prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again; [and] an expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves and world the around us.”

Some of the loudest applause Mr. Obama received occurred when he said,

Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place. On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.

While the president refrained from commenting on any issues where people have used science’s ability to alter or destroy life as the justification for doing so, does Mr. Obama really believe that science is not influenced by the ideology of atheistic and evolution-only researchers? His decision to use federal funds to destroy human embryos for research made plain his scientific ideology, which is robustly supported by the scientific elite.

The closest science gets to operating free from ideological sanction is in the focused, experiment-based research and development that is doggedly fixed on producing the kinds of useful items the president appropriately detailed in his speech. Mr. Obama should redirect his influence to fully promote scientific achievement that really does foster good stewardship of this earth.

Progressive?!!!!!!!!

I have to admit I am writing this in anger.

I can only assume that by now you know what went down at this years 2009 Miss USA pageant. Miss California was asked about her view on same sex marriage and she gave an answer that was based on her opinion. I wrote about it a week or so ago and you can see the video by clicking here.

Below I've posted two other videos that show the tactics of the supposed "progressives". They either cannot or will not engage in substantive debate. They hate you if you have a different opinion and will stop at nothing to get you to shut up. They bully you with insults and personal attacks and scream to the world how you are a hypocrite and hateful, close-minded, etc.

Frankly it pisses me off. I have no problem with opinions other than mind. I enjoy good debate; I am not afraid of it. I hate bullies and hypocrites.

Note the factual and substantive argument in support of their point of view. That was sarcasm. They are hateful and call those who think differently from them hateful.

A Side Track

OK, again this is not my usual topic, but sometimes I can't resist. I am convinced that our nation is slowly but surely becoming a socialistic society and our citizenry is OK with that and wants it to be that way. In this video we can see the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Do you want the socialist method in which the government taxes you more and then provides us with a poorer quality product for less (or even free), or do you want the capitalist method where there is open competition and the customer decides with our purchasing power who will survive?

Abortion: Open Mindedness and Responsible Learning

I read an article about how Kathy Ireland has come out in support of being pro-life. While I am glad she is doing this, what impressed me most is how she came to be of this mindset. I've pasted the article I read below.

A few points to consider before you read the article:

1. Although was once pro-choice she approached the argument with an open mind. She investigated that facts asking experts on both sides for honest information. She allowed her decision to be based on facts.
2. Pay close attention to the quote they included from the pro-choice actress at the very end of the article.

I have a few closing points after the article, so read all the way through (please).

Supermodel Kathy Ireland Speaks Out Against Pro Choice

It’s no secret that the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, however former "Sports Illustrated" supermodel-turned-entrepreneur-turned-author Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.

"My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science," Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book "Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity."

"What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there."

However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life. "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time," Ireland argued. "I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but
this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue." Ireland also asserted that she believes "no justification is adequate" (for an abortion) unless the mother's life is in danger.

"In that instant, your intention is not to kill but to save the life of another. If we’re about to demolish a building we make absolute certain there are no human beings in there before we take a wrecking ball to it, but the unborn doesn’t have a voice so it's up to us to speak for them," she added passionately. "If I see someone abusing a child I am going to stand up against that, and that’s how I feel about abortion. Women are not given all the facts, they’re told it is a harmless procedure and now it has turned into such a political football."

The committed Christian and devoted mother even dedicated the chapter "Faith & Your Family" in her new book to her foundations in Christianity and believes that this is what’s missing from so many American families today. "You have to figure out your own values and why you have them. People are going to try and push and pull at your convictions, so you have to have boundaries and put them in place," she said.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum, "Judging Amy" star Amy Brenneman has been busy voicing her views as a strong advocate of pro-choice over recent years. "My involvement is really through this feminist majority that I work with and it is
a very important issue that’s close to my heart. Unless a woman really has sovereignty over her own body we really haven’t come that far."

I believe the facts about abortion are the same no matter who considers them. We all approach this issue confronted with the same facts and we are left to make a decision regarding this issue based on those same facts. Some make a decision to be pro-life (aka anti-abortion), and other choose to support abortion. I think it all comes down to the question Amy Brenneman raised; who's sovereign? Is it me or is it God?

This is why I absolutely reject any person who claims to be Christian and yet supports abortion. The two are mutually exclusive world views. This even includes those in the so-called "pro-choice" camp. It is no excuse for you to say "I am against abortion but believe it is a personal choice" - NO! By being pro-choice and voting pro-choice you enable abortion activity. You have blood on your hands just the same as the most avid pro-abortion person out there.

By definition being a Christian means you have made God sovereign over your life. You have given your life over to Christ and asked Him to be your LORD! There is no doubt God hates abortion. The only position a Christian can have is pro-life, and being pro-choice is not being pro-life.

The Poor Will Be Made Rich

I love this article I just read. Beyond the obvious topic, it encapsulates exactly what the Love and Forgiveness of God is all about.

Jesus said that in the kingdom of God the poor will be made rich and the rich will be made poor. He also said the last will be first and the first will be last. What does He mean by that? Basically if you are full of yourself, if your pride is so great it will be impossible for you to ever see or accept the Love of God. It's only when you are broken and are sorry for the sin you've committed that you can see. Yes, God's Love and Forgiveness is available to everyone, but some are so full of themselves that they think they don't need it.

The poor will be made rich and you can see a great example of it in the story of that woman in the article.

The "Roose" of Christianity

I found this article to be fascinating. A must read: Ivy Leaguer `infiltrates' Falwell's university

It is about how a Brown University student named Kevin Roose transferred to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in an attempt to perform research for a book he planned to write about fundamentalist Christians called "The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University"

On one hand I have to chuckle a bit that Mr. Roose felt that Christians are a group worthy of some kind of anthropological study. But, I do have to give him credit for his approach to the project. He seemed to be fairly open minded even though he came to the university with a certain amount of negative preconceptions toward Christians.

IMPORTANT! This is all I ask of anyone and it is a rule I apply to myself. We all have preconceptions and assumptions. But are we brave enough to NOT allow our preconceptions and assumptions to affect the results? Too often this is what happens. In science and in journalism the truth is compromised because the results of research differ from what I want the result to be prior to beginning the research.

All Hail Mother Earth: Kill The Humans #2

I'm not sure this stuff will ever stop, but I remain hopeful that something or someone will stand up and stop this madness. A number of things I've read today are prompting this post.

First - The Spanish Parliament’s environmental committee approved a resolution to grant legal rights to great apes and is expected to enact it into law by June 2009. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University states:

Like humans, great apes are entitled to life, liberty, and protection from torture.

OK; no argument from me. My argument does not stem from protection of animals, I love animals. Rather my argument is that at the same time as these worshipers of "Mother Earth" hate humans. They promote and even celebrate abortion as a method to control population in order to "save the planet".

Second - Switzerland has declared that individual plants have “intrinsic dignity”; that “decapitating” wildflowers is a great moral wrong and when food crop research is performed, one should consider the plants dignity.

Third - Today (April 22, 2009) members of the EPA are on capitol hill discussing why American businesses should pay premiums to the government based on how they use energy. Everyone knows that energy is required to do everything we do in this country. Food production, transportation, even energy producers will be charged huge fees for using energy that emits carbon pollution. Everyone knows these fees will be passed right on to the consumer!

My argument here is two fold.

1) What good does it do even if the U.S. takes a radical approach to [supposed] global warming if no other nations contribute? It's called "Global Warming" for a reason!

2) Again, the preference is given to plants and animals while our nation could care less about human dignity and the unborn.

(Updated) Free Speech. It Comes At A Cost

I was shocked to read this morning that one of the Miss America pageant contestants was asked a politically charged question during the pageant. The normally politics-free pageant was asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger:

Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answered:

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

I am going to be curious to see how this plays out. Many think her answer may have cost her the crown, as she was awarded first runner up. My initial research shows that she was the only one asked that question.

Personally I think her answer is reasonable. I am not going to call her a hate monger or publish her address on a web site so that those who might disagree with her will terrorize her. But let's wait and see what the gay and lesbian activists do.

After Prop 8 passed in California, the gay lesbian activists did just what I mentioned. Using access to public records they obtained a list of people who donated money to pre-prop 8 causes. They then created a web site that showed a google map with the addresses overlaid onto the map. This way the so-called "people of tolerance" could (and have) terrorize those that supported prop 8. Hypocrites!

We are free to say what we want, but it always comes at a cost when hypocrites are involved.

Read the entire article and you'll also be able to see some of the reaction from those in attendance and a reply by the pageant's director. It's chock full of secular relativism (aka comedy gold).

Update: Perez Hilton, the judge that asked the question went on his video blog this morning. First, watch the actual event from last night and pay attention to the crowds response:





***Content Warning****

Here is the judges response on his video blog. Real classy. This is what I am talking about. The left's idea of free speach, "Believe what I believe otherwise SHUT UP".

Side Note: Did you hear the contestant get boo'd? I heard much more applause than I did a booing. Selective hearing.

Science Is The Answer To Our Prayers

I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that Nancy Pelosi will stay the course in regards to supporting and funding embryonic stem cell research.

In the article she states that how under the Bush administration it was either faith or science:

We've had a situation where it's faith or science - take your pick. We're saying science is an answer to our prayers. We are going forth with science ... and we will defend that investment. We need science, science, science, science, science.

In some situations science IS the answer to our prayers; no argument there. I firmly believe that all Truth meets at the top, meaning if the science is True and Good, then it is from God. But, God never sanctions any science that goes against His will. There are many things I do not know about God, but I am 100% sure God hates sin and He hates abortion and the killing of His greatest gift; Life.

iPS Cells - Oops - Killing Embryos Not Really Needed

I just came across an article that talks about iPS, or Induced Pluripotent Stem cells. How I have never heard of this before escapes me. Not only is it promising, but I am going to be interested in seeing how the Democrats will allow this to shape their thinking. I contend that the very liberal Democrat party of the 21st century is hell bent on promoting a culture of death rather than life, so let's see how this plays out.

First a quick definition courtesy of Wikipedia:

Induced pluripotent stem cells, commonly abbreviated as iPS cells or iPSCs, are a type of pluripotent stem cell artificially derived from a non-pluripotent cell, typically an adult somatic cell, by inducing a "forced" expression of certain genes. iPS cells are believed to be identical to natural pluripotent stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells.

Translation:

1. iPS cells are identical to stem cells derived from embryos.
2. Pluripotent means the cell has the capability of becoming any number of tissue types.
3. iPS cells have been created from non-pluripotent cells, most successfully from adult skin cells.

This is very good news. I was surprised to learn that this technology was successfully accomplished using mice skin cells in 2006 and on human skin cells in 2007.

Why then all the debate on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? As I've written about in the past, I personally am against killing an embryo on moral grounds, so naturally I am also against using federal tax dollars to fund this research. However, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. No matter what you think of the morality of embryonic stem cell research, the entire national debate has been over federal funding, not the morality.

I'll be interested to see exactly where this ends up. Will the liberal, secular congress begin to move towards funding iPS cell research over embryonic stem cell research?

Living Dinosaur?

I came across this article and found it very interesting. The article tells of the discovery of a Wollemi tree in 1994 near Sydney Australia, which was previously believed to have been extinct since the "time of the dinosaurs". Speaking of the person that discovered the tree, a hiker named David Nobles:

He discovered a small grove of bizarre looking trees. Their leaves were shaped like a stegosaur’s tail and the bark looked like it was covered with bubbling chocolate. His discovery caused quite a stir when he brought it to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. Professor Carrick Chambers declared “This is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur alive on Earth.” This conifer was thought to be extinct for millions of years. How did it survive the climate changes that have occurred through history? How did this small grove of conifers survive the bush fires?

Those are all good questions. Remember; the botanist said that this was thought to have been extinct for millions of years because, although it's not mentioned in the article, this tree had been previously identified through fossils. Science determines the age of fossils by a process of measuring where they are found within rock layers. These layer are thought to have been laid down over very long periods of time. The further down in the rock layer, the older it is. Thus, based on the fossils of this tree previously found in rock layers it was believed to have been millions of years old and extinct.

How could this living "fossil" be explained? The only way it becomes a mystery is when you apply preconceived ideas to the problem. What preconceived ideas? One is the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life spontaneously self generated 3.5 billion years ago. If you assume that to be true then how this tree survived that long is hard to explain and quite remarkable. Another issue is the assumption of evolution. IF you assume that evolution is true and this species of tree reproduced and was alive over millions of years, why didn't it change? All very challenging to answer IF the preconceived ideas of very old earth and evolution are true.

What if the earth isn't millions of years old, rather only several thousand years old? Isn't it more feasible that a tree species, although rare, could survive over that periods of time? I say yes. But what about the fossils of this very same species of tree in rock layers dated to millions of years old? Could it be that the science is wrong? Yes they could be wrong. It's not a mystery if those layers are not millions of years old, but rather only thousands of years old and in fact fossilization doesn't take as long as main stream science says. I am just asking which is more logical? Which solves the problem with less effort?

If you dig your heels in and say whatever the evidence is, my answer has to support my preconceived truth about an earth that is billions of years old and evolution, then that is how you work yourself into a corner. Most scientists that do this then have to fall back on the old soft pillow of science to explain the data; chance. It occurred by chance.

That is poor science!

One last thing to think about. Do you know that scientists have discovered Tyrannosaurus fossils with soft tissue still in place. I just gave you a link to one of many articles you can find on this discovery. How could soft tissue survive 70 million of years? Scientists agree that if an animal dies, soft tissue is either eaten by scavengers or rots away rather quickly. Unless the body is covered by sediment quickly so to avoid the previous two situations from happening. But if covered by succeeding layers of sediment over 70 million years that is more than enough time for all soft tissue to be fossilized. Fossilization is the process of replacing organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism. Scientists all agree that they are stymied by this discovery. Of course they are! Because they are trying to force the data to fit their preconceived truths about the age of the earth, life and the dating techniques.

Again, which is more logical? I say a young earth, fossilization that occurs faster than scientists say, rock layers laid down quickly rather than millions and billions of years.

Repeat After Me: Abortion Is An Honorable and Loving Choice

I've written quite a few articles arguing against the sin of abortion. I've also stated my disgust at how abortion "rights" are celebrated in the U.S. I read this article titled We Already Have An Abortion Pride Movement, which puts the pro-abortion mind set on full display.

Just a few quotes from the article:

The importance of abortion as a human right integral to women's dignity, the destigmatization and normalization of the experience as common for women.

Yes, normalization of this horrible practise is what they need. It's like anything else; the more people I convince to agree with me and my values, the less wrong it becomes until everyone changes their definition of right and wrong on this issue. That's the world view of the relativist.

one in three U.S. women will have an abortion by the age of 45 - and ending the silence and shame that women may still feel cannot be underestimated in the global struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality.

HUH!? Reproductive justice!? Hey you fetus. I didn't really plan on having you and this whole idea of bringing you into the world is bad timing so I am charging you with the crime of disrupting my plans. I sentence you to death. And what is the gender equality part all about?

I want you to see the ideology of a secular relativist being presented here. It's very important you see this. From the last quote, let's break down each part:

"one in three U.S. women will have an abortion by the age of 45" - Secular meaning: Since the abortion rate is currently at 33.3% of the population and rising, we now consider this normal behavior and therefore not wrong.

"and ending the silence and shame that woman may still feel" - Secular meaning: since were telling you that abortion is normal and not wrong, we're here to help you get over those misguided feelings of shame.

(Note: Why did they have feelings of shame in the first place? Because deep down they know it's really wrong!)

"cannot be underestimated in the global struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality" - Secular meaning: Don't feel ashamed, abortion is a right and you are part of a struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality. Aren't those worthy causes?

We continue.....

When we normalize abortion as a fact of women's lives, and discuss abortion as an honorable and loving choice that helps women to become better mothers in the future, we are showing respect, understanding, and support for the complexity of women's choices.

Double HUH!?Having an abortion will make you a better mother? And Oh, OK; it's a fact that women will get abortions so lets just normalize it and discuss it as an honorable and loving choice..blah blah blah blah. And all this needs to be honored because, hey, women are faced with complex choices.

The article is chock full of this language and ends with a proclamation of abortion pride. I pity this person. God forbid she should die and come before the all consuming fire with this on her head.

It's so sad. In the time it took you to read this post (not even the link to the actual article) 6 abortions were performed in the U.S.

Follow Up: Public Education = Humanist Indoctrination

I wrote my last post at 10:00am this morning. It is now 9:45pm and came across this article which reports exactly what I am talking about. While my focus is on the humanist world view and the article I linked to is about leftist ideology; they are pretty much one in the same.

The point being that these so-called "free thinking progressives" are some of the most closed minded people ever. Just recently the Texas Board of Education made a decision requiring examination of "all sides of scientific evidence" in new science standards, but rejected language requiring teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. The science in question was evolution. WHAT!? Teaching that there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution!? Pro-evolutionists wouldn't hear of it. Why? On the surface it's because they reject any notion that they might be wrong. Deep down it's because they are insecure, academic snobs. They refuse to recognize anything or anybody who tries to present alternative theories.

Public Education = Humanist Indoctrination

Here is another unconstitutional and illegal attempt by a college to try and punish students for free exercises of religion; in this case praying for a sick teacher.

As the article points out, it's one thing for an institution to make decisions based on ignorance of the law, but why do they have to dig their heels in once they learn what the law really allows? I'll admit that most school administrators have been scared into a state of ignorance by what they see the UCLU doing. But once law suits are brought against them and they are advised of what the law is, why do they fail to reverse course?

My theory: Because the public education system; that's K right on up to the college and universities, is under control of humanists. Teachers, professors and administrators alike have aligned their thinking and have set the doctrine of humanism to be the new "truth". Humanists don't care what the constitution says or what is actually legal. To them if it goes against the humanist world view, then they don't recognize it as being authoritative.

Parents be aware that when you send you kids to public school they will be indoctrinated with the humanist world view. If you are a humanist, then you should be happy. However, for you parents that teach values at home different than what humanism ascribes to and chose to include Christian values in that teaching, the school will be setting them on a course opposite of yours.

Why I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus

As a Christian I see no good reason to reverse my assessment of the general reliability of the Gospel's when it comes to the narratives regarding supernatural events. And this applies also to their Resurrection accounts. If someone is going to deny the reliability of these accounts, then the burden of proof is on him to say why. But this, I think, is very difficult to do. So for you out there who say, "Well your the one who believes in this resurrection, what's your proof it DID happen?" I say hold on to your hat!

The evidence for the histerocity of the Resurrection is, in my estimation, stronger than any other event in Jesus' life - and stronger than the evidence for the histerocity of many other historical events we take for granted.

Here are 8 reasons why I believe the Resurrection did occur:

1. The Resurrection event is testified to by five independent sources. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul who also refer to numerous other sources as well, such as Peter and James (in 1 Cor. 15). This plurality of sources greatly enhances the credibility of each. One might hold that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark here as they did in some of their other material. But what's interesting is that their individual narratives of the resurrection completely differ from Mark and from each other. In fact, each of the testimonies has more unique material than it has material in common with each other. This creates a problem with harmonizing the accounts. But that problem is nothing compared to the problem of explaining how each independently testifies to the Resurrection in the first place - if, in fact, the Resurrection never occurred.

2. The location of Jesus' tomb was well known by all, so if Jesus had not risen from the dead, if His body were yet in the tomb, this could have been easily checked out. Both Jesus' followers (who would suffer persecution for their faith) and the opponents of Jesus (who would want to falsify the Christian claim) would have a motive for checking this out. But, all agreed, the tomb WAS empty. How is this agreement explained?

3. Related to #2, no one disputes the Christian church began in Jerusalem just a few weeks after Jesus' crucifixtion. It exploded in growth. And the content of the message that caused this explosion was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord of all, as was evidenced by His miracles and resurrection from the dead (see Acts 2:16ff). They do not present to their audience some unknown figure in the distant past. They are talking about their audiences contemporaries! How is this growth to be explained?

4. There is no way of accounting for the transformation of the disciples except on the basis of the Resurrection, the very basis themselves give. If you compare the disciples before the death of Jesus with the disciples after the Resurrection appearances, you will see a world of difference. One day they are fearful and hiding; the next day they are facing hostile audiences preaching (what else?) the Resurrection!

5. The Resurrection narratives lack the characteristics common to late legendary narratives, and embody many of the characteristics common to early eyewitness-based reports. There is, for example, much detail, much of it being irrelevant to the story line. To give one illustration, Mark mentions the name of a well known member of the Sanhedrin (a Jewish councilman) who donated a tomb for Jesus - Joseph of Arimathea. Now if one is going to fabricate an account, one doesn't create this sort of detail. One certainly doesn't drop names of such prominent people, people who can easily be cross examined.

There is also a great deal of counter-productive material. Legends lack this. The role of women in the story, for example, could, in the first century context, do nothing but damage the testimony of the authors. Women were, as I said in first century context, regarded as being incurable liars. Why would the authors add the testimony of women if it could only hurt them unless they were just giving a truthful account of the events?

6. The conversion of Paul is unexplainable except on the basis he himself gives. He confronted the risen Lord (see Acts 9 and 1 Cor. 15). Here was a man who was at the onset dead set against Christianity, even overseeing the stoning of one of its preachers, and then in one moment he's converted. Similarly James, the brother of Jesus, was also a nonbeliever in Jesus until the Lord appeared to him (1 Cor. 5:7). What explains this conversion if not the actual resurrection.

7. Paul gives us an early list of the resurrection appearances. It's found in 1 Corinthians 15, written 15-20 years after the resurrection. he is attempting to convince some Corinthians the the Resurrection of Jesus did in fact occur, and to do this he lists Christ's appearance to the apostles, and to James, and "to more than 500 at the same time, most of whom are still living" (1Cor. 15:6). The thrust of noting the large number of living people who saw Christ resurrected is to say "if you don't believe me, the evidence is still around. Go and ask those who saw it." By the standards of any law court, this must be taken as strong evidence.

8. Finally, there is no motive for the disciples to fabricate this story. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Nor is there anything to lead us to believe that they were disposed to fabricate such a story, or had the sort of characters which would be capable of such an incredible fabrication. Nor is there anything to suggest that they could have successfully pulled such an incredible fabrication off, even if they had wanted to.

In short, the denial of the Resurrection has nothing to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis, while the admittance of the Resurrection has everything to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis.