Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Do creationists/ID'ers publish peer-reviewed papers?

Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

"Editors's Note:: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”

Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design."


Those of you who have asked whether there are peer-reviewed materials available, the above site gives you a few dozen examples if you really wish to know. Go, read and learn if you really do want to know.

Darwin is Dead-Living the Lie



Many Darwinists like to claim that creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are liars, idiots or fools. This tends to deflect a debate on the actual issues. Such Darwinists are unfortunately very common in our school systems, busily indoctrinating the young. Allow me to present exhibit one, your honor....

SURVIVAL OF THE FAKEST:

"SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS?"-- JONATHAN WELLS

"It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell
and development biology, however, that I noticed what at
first I took to be a strange anomaly. The textbook I was
using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos
– fish, chickens, humans, etc. – where similarities were presented
as evidence for descent from a common ancestor.
Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I’d been
studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a
microscope. And I knew that the drawings were just plain
wrong."


Notice the Haeckel drawings above left and some actual embryos above right. Haeckel's embryos are still being used in textbooks today in a blatant attempt to use fake information to brainwash students. The author continues:

"We all remember them from biology class: the
experiment that created the “building blocks of life” in a
tube; the evolutionary “tree,” rooted in the primordial slime
and branching out into animal and plant life. Then there
were the similar bone structures of, say, a bird’s wing and
a man’s hand, the peppered moths, and Darwin’s finches.
And, of course, the Haeckel embryos.

As it happens, all of these examples, as well as
many others purportedly standing as evidence of evolution,
turn out to be incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just
slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution,
the texts contained massive distortions and even some faked
evidence. Nor are we only talking about high-school textbooks
that some might excuse (but shouldn’t) for adhering
to a lower standard. Also guilty are some of the most prestigious
and widely used college texts, such as Douglas Futuyma’s
Evolutionary Biology, and the latest edition of the
graduate-level textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell, coauthored
by the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
Bruce Alberts. In fact, when the false “evidence” is
taken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks
at least, is so thin it’s almost invisible."


The article was first published in The American Spectator - December 2000 / January 2001

But why would Darwinists do this? Aren't scientists supposed to be seekers of truth and knowledge? How could they possibly either produce or abide the dissemination of deliberately false information?

Because it is a matter of faith!

I appreciated a commenter in a previous post who directed me to a site where I found this quote: "Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." - Dan Barker

I completely disagree with that statement. I have faith in God and you cannot prove that God exists. However, I have found that Darwinists are in the same boat as myself in a way. You cannot prove macroevolution, and the evidence is less than shaky, leaving them with faith. But they must have this faith, many of them, because.....

Darwinism is one of the doctrines of the faith of Atheistic Humanism.

Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually- fulfilled atheist."

“[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” - Julian Huxley, British biologist. (See full post here.)

Dictionary.com defines Humanism as, "A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." Taken to the level of a religion, Atheistic Humanism is the worship of man and his abilities and capacities. Man is believed to be evolving into Superman:

"Since God is dead Neitzsche sees the necessity for the emergence of the √úbermensch, the Superman or overman, who is to replace God.

The first of the quotes attributed to Zarathustra is:-

"I teach you the Superman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
All creatures hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and do you want to be the ebb of the great tide, and return to the animals rather than overcome man?
What is the ape to men? A laughing stock or a painful embarassment. And just so shall man be to the Superman: a laughing stock or a painful embarassment".

The context in which Supermen are to be judged to be such is implied by Neitzsche's previous works. He maintained that all human behavior is motivated by the will to power. In its positive sense, the will to power is not simply power over others, but the power over oneself that is necessary for creativity. Supermen are those who have overcome man - i.e. the individual self - and subliminated the will to power into a momentous creativity.

Supermen are creators of a "master morality" that reflects the strength and independence of one who is liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid. Such power is manifested in independence, creativity, and originality."
(text highlighted by me)

Neitzsche saying "God is dead" meant that the concept of God was dead and that is echoed by Darwinist scientists. In order for the concept of God to be killed off, macroevolution must then be, for there must be an explanation for life in all of it's amazing variety other than "In the beginning God created..." whether true or false.

Atheistic Humanism is a religion! The overwhelming evidence aligned against Evolution in the fossil record, geological record and other sciences would logically convince the scientific community at large to abandon Darwinism. Why has it not? Conceptual Bias. There are a large percentage of scientists who belong to the ABG club, “Anything But God!” For them, Macroevolution is part of their belief systems, a part that allows them to throw God aside in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Ironically, Darwinist Scientists today find themselves in the same position as the Catholic Church of the 1600’s, who defended the idea that the earth was the center of the solar system from the teachings of Copernicus. Galileo was imprisoned for spreading that word and Bruno was tortured and killed. Now it is the immense body of evidence that cries out for Creationism and the growing number of scientists who proclaim that fact who are, like the followers of Copernicus, being vilified and ridiculed for speaking truth. Creation scientists often face an inquisition of words because they are not, in the minds of Darwinists, debating scientific evidence. They are attacking the very faith of the Darwinist!

As a Christian, I welcome debate concerning my faith. I am confident in the evidence that I have and the faith that I have in my God. But Darwinists want to cut off debate and shut the mouths of the creationists and ID'ers because they are not confident in their evidence and uncomfortable with the debate. This is why comment sections on this subject are full of ad hominem attacks and ridicule. Fear of losing one's religion, a religion that allows man to make his own moral judgements.

"...liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid." The Atheistic Humanist wants to live by his own creed and be responsible to no one other than himself. Being beholden to a Creator God who would have the right to set moral standards is anathema to him. So he will fight using any means necessary to avoid that thought. Including, as this posting began, indoctrinating the young with knowingly faked evidence for Darwinism.

"God is dead!" - Neitzsche

"Neitzsche is dead!" - God

Monday, February 27, 2006

Darwin is Dead - Scientific Signatories

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The list of 514 signatories includes 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists.

Read the story at IDtheFuture. Go to The Center for Science and Culture to download the 13 page (so far) pdf document with the names of the scientists, their titles and degrees.

David Berlinski, a signer of the statement and a mathematician and philosopher with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, said: "Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless and the object of superstitious awe." From Physorg.com

Institute for Creation Research has lists of associated creation scientists here.

Here is a similar list from Answers in Genesis.

The next time someone tells you that there are hundreds of scientists who don't believe in Darwinism, you will know they are telling the truth.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Darwin is Dead-The Carnival!!!

Boy, have we got a carnival for you! Each entry will be linked on this page. I will publish an exerpt and also give you that link to go to the author's blog so you can read the remainder of the article. Click each title to read the whole thing!

So, in order of submission.....drum roll....

Mark of Mark My Words is our first submitter with Yes, there is a God.

"Because the universe is either eternal or came from nothing.

I hope no one seriously considers something from nothing in this day and age.

An eternal universe is not possible either. You cannot count to infinity. No matter how long you count you will always have a finite set of numbers. Likewise, you cannot have an infinite series of events into the past. You would never reach a beginning, because no matter how long you traveled, you would only traverse a finite set of events. Even worse though, for the universe to reach the present. There being no beginning at all, there is no hope of reaching the present as it is preceded by an infinite series of events and there is no starting point to begin to try and cross this series."


Next in line is Ohio Board Of Education Eliminates Critical Thinking Standard In Science Classes submitted by Greg of Rhymes with Right:

"No more will students in Ohio science classes be taught to think critically or use the scientific method to examine evidence for and against scientific theories. instead, they are to be presented only evidence in support of scientific theories, but not any evidence that may call such theories into doubt.

Why the change from good science education to indoctrination? because some fear that teaching kids to think might lead them to draw conclusions that contradict scientific orthodoxy."


Next up is Tim from Christ Matters (we think so, too) in Creation Vs. Evolution :

"I'm always up for a good debate in regards to evolution and its veracity. But the real debate is not between Creation and evolution, its Creationism and cosmology, or origins. The age of the earth is the crux of the matter. Now I for one, do not care how long it took God to create the Earth. It could have been a literal 24/7 day progression, or it could have taken millenia. I just don't care. But what I do care about is the public education system shoving an equally unprovable theory down my throat with the demand that I accept it.

So here goes. To the evolutionists: First, evolution claims that humans and apes have a common ancestor. But since apes are not still evolving into man that notion is debunked without performing a single experiment. Science is the study of things obervable, and man evolving from apes has not been observed. Since both creatures still co-exist, something such as this WOULD be obervable if it were true."


Rod Martin of Answers in Genesis gave me permission to pick an article from the site to publish. It was like being a kid in a candy store, but I finally chose Shining light on the evolution of photosynthesis by Rick Swindell:

"If we define science as the assumption of naturalism, that matter and energy are all that ever has been or will be, then photosynthesis must of course have evolved, since the only reasonable alternative, that it was designed by intelligence, falls outside our definition of ‘science’. So, by definition, the fabulously complex systems of photosynthesis have arisen by accident. But man’s way of defining words has no jurisdiction in the dominion of objective reality. Truth is sublimely indifferent to our definition of words, even to our definition of science. The thesis of this paper is that evolution would not have been capable of generating the process of photosynthesis as it exists in cyanobacteria, green algae and higher plants, and that it must therefore have been intelligently designed."

Hawkeye (Jim) in his Testimonium blog also got in on the carnival with an appropriately named entry; Darwin Is Dead:

"Indeed, "Darwin is Dead". His spirit ("breath" in the Hebrew) passed from his mortal flesh on April 19,1882. Various accounts of his death can be found Here. But Darwin's legacy -- the religion known as Evolution -- lives on. You may scoff at my choice of words, but Evolution is in fact nothing more than a "religion". It could hardly be called a "science", except perhaps in the most oblique of fashions. For starters, let us consider the definition of "science" as put forth by Merriam-Webster..."

I am truly grateful to all who participated and I urge you to read each of these submissons. I will announce the winner of the Carnival soon, but if any commenters wish to vote I will consider their opinion when I make the decision.

Remember, Darwin is dead but our God is alive!!!

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Never Old

can you find a spot within the cold
and crawl up all inside?
can you find a spot within the cold
a place where you can hide?

can you wander through your memories
and never change a thing?
though with regret could you let it be
and want what dawn will bring?

can you look out on the ocean's rage
and feel yourself the first?
the first entry on the newest page
scrawled on the universe?

can you find a spot within the cold
all nice and warm inside?
can you find a spot within the cold
knowing you are never old?

Kimbal Ross All Rights Reserved

Friday, February 24, 2006

"Gay Marriage", Christianity and the ACLU

Tim at Christ Matters was a participant in the lengthy and fascinating comment thread on "gay marriage" which is found here. He has been inspired to write his own excellent posting. Here is an excerpt:

"The heterosexual union of a man and a woman in monogamous marriage is the rightful context for procreation. When reproduction is severed from marriage, the society reaps the breakdown of both kinship and parental responsibility. Put most simply, even secular historians are aware that marriage is what explains why a father remains committed to the care of his own children. Societies that devalue marriage provide an automatic incentive for young males to act irresponsibly, fathering children without ever assuming responsibility as father."

Read the entire post here.

The original post on Radaractive, "Why Gay Marriage is Dangerous" is here in case you missed it. Between that thread and the one at Christ Matters there should be plenty of discussion to sink your teeth into.

At issue in the discussion was whether the 14th amendment guaranteed the "rights" of homosexuals to establish "gay marriage". I hold that it does not. Nevertheless I contend that if the 14th were to be applied to this issue and a rational reason to discriminate against homosexuals was required, it was obvious that a rational reason was at hand. Three of them, in fact:

"IF the current marriage laws are discriminatory (I don't believe that they are) there are nevertheless good reasons that this is so:

First: It is beneficial to society to encourage loving unions that produce and nurture offspring. - It requires extraordinary means for homosexual couples to bring children into the world and no matter what is said, a man and woman are both required. Homosexual unions tend not to produce children. When a society doesn't produce offspring it dies from the inside out.

(Side note: Watch what happens in China in one more generation. All these years of forcing couples to either have one or no children will result in a work force that reaches retirement age without enough younger workers to support them and keep the country productive.)

So, heterosexual marriage benefits society while a homosexual union does not. In fact, it is detrimental because it would decrease populations.

Second point. Homosexuality is generally considered an aberrant behavior. Nothing personal, but it is true. Note that early in the discussion, bostongaydad accused me of being a closet gay. Why? Because he knew I would associate shame with that. There remains a stigma on gay behavior in society. It is true (look it up!) that violence, drug use, and STD occurence is higher statistically among homosexuals (Yes, Tucker that is more because of the men than the women). For society to approve of homosexual relationships makes those relationships more likely to occur and therefore increases the likelihood of increased violence, drug use and STDs in the general population.

Third: Although some of you won't like this, the homosexual population is more likely to be involved in pedophilia. The Catholic Church has massive problems with this, as homosexual men found a refuge in "the cloth" and then preyed on young boys. It has happened in every good sized parish you can think of in this country and overseas as well."


STOPTHEACLU chimes in with point four: Once you allow begin to allow changes to marriage, almost anything goes - "Here in America there is a saying, which is

“As California goes, so goes the nation”

and the reason this saying has come about is because California has a long history of passing legislation that the rest of the country seems to follow. A scary thought since California is home to San Francisco and Berkeley, both hotbeds of non-sensical liberalism.

People that have stood against gay marriage have stated, among many other arguments against it, that first it will be gay marriage, then polygamy.

Well, perhaps the new saying should be

“As go the Dutch, so goes the world”

as the Dutch government has granted a civil union to a man and two women.

As Ric over at RTH so succinctly puts it,

“if two people love each other and want to have their commitment recognized through marriage, society has no compelling reason to prevent them from doing so, on what basis could you prevent adult siblings, parents and children or three of more persons from “marrying” each other.”


Read the whole post here, and also another related posting here.

Yes, Virginia, there IS a slippery slope.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Autistic Teen = Basketball Hero

You will love this story: An autistic teenager who has been a team manager for his Rochester, NY high school basketball team is finally allowed to suit up and play by his coach, in the last four minutes of a game. What happens after that is magic!

"They may never stop talking about what they witnessed Wednesday at Greece Athena's final home boys varsity basketball game of the season.

And that would be a good thing.

Some in attendance at Athena's game against Spencerport will say it played out like a Hollywood script; like "Rudy," or "Radio;" stories about a long-shot and a waterboy who inspired their teams by not letting their shortcomings stop them from giving their all.

In what Jason McElwain did during the waning moments of the "Senior Night" at Athena, there may be much more."


Read the rest of the story here.

Hey, coach? Think that Jason McElwain might have been good enough to play all along???

Thanks to KATU.com for the video and the alert "Wolfpack" from Fantasy Kings who first alerted me to the video.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Who Should Christians Hate?

Look at the world today. We have abortion clinics operating in every single state of the union in the USA. Homosexuals are trying to push for "gay marriage". Islamofascists are terrorizing and murdering women, children and babies along with anyone else who happens to be in the way.

The Reverend Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church have made headlines in the last few months for their activities. Barking Moonbat has a great post reporting on their recent activities.

"What we’re talking about here is the polar opposite of the Liberals’ embracing of the homosexual lifestyle and ramming it down everyone’s throat. Phelps thinks homosexuals are evil and God is punishing us by killing US troops overseas because there are so many homosexuals in our country."

So what Phelps and his followers do is go to military funerals and picket, and shout, and try to disrupt the proceedings and further grieve the loved ones of slain troops. They loudly thank IED's for eliminating another soldier, wrap themselves in upside-down flags and sing songs that horrify funeral-goers. This is supposed to be in protest of and in punishment for a US Army that the group believes is encouraging homosexual activity. They succeeded in bringing distress to families at several military funerals. Until...The Patriot Guard Riders came along.


More from Barking: "I kid you not. I have never felt so alone, stuck in between these two groups of insane people. I object to the Liberals’ homosexual agenda but I positively detest Phelps.

I am glad to see there are decent people like the Patriot Guard Riders who are willing to stand up to Phelps and his miserable minions and shield the families of fallen heros from these madmen. I sometimes wonder if freedom of speech is worth having to put up with people like Phelps. There has to be a way to silence madmen like him without giving up our freedom to say what we want. In the good ol’ days there was. It was called “tar and feathers” and usually sufficed to keep the noise from jerks like Phelps down to a minimum."


The Patriot Guard Riders volunteer to demonstrate against and hopefully keep the Westboro kooks far enough away from the funeral to avoid the families being dealt more pain and suffering. Read the whole article here.

As a result of reading the Barking Moonbat post, some comments made in the "gay marriage" post and confirmed by something a fellow Youth worker said this evening, I feel the need to address this issue.

CHRISTIANS SHOULD HATE
evil. Abortion is worth hating. We should hate sin of all kinds, beginning with our own. We should hate murder, theft, abuse, on and on. Yes, Christians should hate...and Christians should love.

Romans 12:9
- "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."

Luke 10:27 - " ...'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Christians should hate sin but never, never hate people. We see that Islam has a different message, with Imams issuing fatwas calling for murder in the name of pride, revenge, Mohammed. Islam is fueled by judgement and hatred. It is a religion of domination and the abuse and control of women and children. They are taught to hate.

Christians must be different. Jesus never hated anyone, even the men who were tormenting him and the ones that crucified him.

Luke 23:34a - "Then said Jesus, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.' "

The best movie I have seen this year was "The End Of The Spear." It is a movie about many things, including men willing to give their life to advance the cause of Christ and the families of those men being willing to both forgive and work with the very same people that murdered their loved ones. This is what Christianity is.

Yes, I will work to end abortion, put a stop to "gay marriage" and keep the liberal moonbats from turning our country into a larger Netherlands.

But I don't want to hate. I don't hate the homosexuals who have written in to this blog to debate or even diss me. I don't hate the men who perform abortions. If it is possible, I want them to know Christ in all of his loving glory the way I have come to know Christ. I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I have known the life of drug addiction. I have prepared my solutions in tablespoons over candles, sucked the stuff into hypodermic needles and injected into my body and the bodies of others. I know what "milk blood" means, for I would shoot the stuff in and then draw it back out with the blood to try to make sure I got every bit I could into my blood stream. I ran out of easy places to stick myself because you scar veins and cause them to become impossible to shoot over time. I took LSD and smoked marijuana constantly. I drank large quantities of beer and whiskey and at work, gin and vodka so I could drink it in pop without detection.

I met Jesus and at first He said nothing about my drugs. I sat in my front room the first few days after I prayed and asked Him to forgive my sins and come into my life and read the Bible voraciously while drinking beers and smoking joints and cigarettes. I would get high on the drugs but I was getting high on the message in the Bible because I found Truth!

In time, God put it in my heart to give up the drugs, which were illegal, and then the drinking because I couldn't control it, and finally even the cigarettes which were harmful to the health of me and my loved ones. But here is the point:

He didn't hate me because I did drugs and also sold them to others. He didn't hate me for having illicit sex with women I wasn't married to or pushing drugs to teens. He didn't wait for me to change before He would allow Himself to be known to me. He wanted me no matter what, however and whoever I was.

God changed me from the inside out. I wasn't a homosexual, but I was a sinner in other ways, sexual and criminal. But He wanted me no matter what. He took me just as I was. His influence in me caused me to voluntarily change. I serve out of choice, not demand. I obey because I desire to obey God and I don't do it perfectly.

I cannot judge another man or woman. I can hate sin and I won't back away from calling it sin. But my job isn't to identify sin in anyone else, it is to say that God is awesome.

So I say to my blog friends who are homosexual, or atheist, or involved in any pursuits that are sinful, I don't hate you but to the best of my ability I love you. But the important thing is that God loves you!

So there is no person on this earth a Christian should hate. Not Osama. Not even Al Gore (chuckle)! I know, because I was a very dedicated sinner engaged in plenty of stuff I should not have been doing and God loved me right through all of that. May we Christians be careful to be sure we don't let our hatred of sin ever turn into hate of any one person. Our God is better than that!

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Christians are inconsistent and confusing?

A recent controversial post spurred a tempest of comments on both sides of the "gay marriage" issue. During that posting flurry, a commenter named Tucker asked some very interesting questions concerning the Christian faith. In fact, there were a lot of interesting questions, comments and answers that directly or indirectly touched on Christian beliefs.

As a Christian I feel compelled to post something regarding questions Tucker had raised. For instance, she said:

"if you will allow me i would just like to ask an honest question (it is somewhat off topic)...please dont feel that i am attacking any of you...i have posed this question only to people of my like-mind and we just can't figure it out: as you may have noticed i am not a christian and am not as knowledgeable as i would like to be about the christian faith...what i want to know is how the many facets of christianity are justified? i said it before: if marriage is indeed a religious institution then it should not be changed just because gay people want to fit it...but how then is it justified that there are so many different takes on christianity? are the protestants right, or the catholics? the baptists or the methodists or the anglicans etc...surely if the word of god is so true and all encompassing, christianity should be composed of a very definite set of beliefs, values, morals and laws...why is it that so many christians feel that they can interpret the faith the way they like and in whatever they choose? how do you know what segment of christian society is actually right? every christian thinks he is right and i have yet to find 2 christians who can agree on all aspects of the bible and gods word..."

Commenters like Simon and Highboy made excellent posts in an attempt to address this but now I wish to add my two cents worth.

THE BIBLE is God's Word to mankind. There are all sorts of translations out there in all sorts of languages. In almost every case the translations agree and there is very little controversy about the actual text of the Bible itself, Old Testament and New. It is how the Bible is interpreted that is at issue.

Denominational Churches have come to conclusions about the major doctrinal issues and made statements of faith to nail those down. Strictly speaking, if you are a Catholic you supposedly both agree to and adhere to the Catholic teachings. If you are a Lutheran, same thing. Of course, there is more than one faction within the Catholic Church and more than one Lutheran group and so on. So the outsider will hear more than one opinion on many doctrinal issues.

Non-Denominational Churches. My family belongs to such a church. The leadership of our church set up some doctrinal guidelines in a statement of faith that are pretty general and leave most issues up to the individual believer and God. There are churches that dispense with a statement of faith entirely and others have much larger and more inclusive ones than ours.

Then there are believers that meet in homes and so on that reject the idea of an organized church at all. Yes, to the outsider looking in it looks pretty disorganized. Why can't Christians get it together??!!

Fact is, if you don't believe that Jesus came to save you and that you must trust in Him and His sacrifice to repair your relationship with God you actually aren't a Christian. The Apostles main job was to preach Christ, crucified and risen again and help spread the faith around. No Christ, no Chistianity.

The point is that man should have a real and individual relationship with God. This is what I understand from the Bible. This is both the beauty and the confusing aspect of Christianity, that it is not a large group of Stepford believers all saying the exact same things.

But here are two things from the Bible that really help. First, the Bible itself is the source for understanding doctrine:

"2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

The entire Bible is useful and authoritative as to how a Christian should live out his life on this earth and to help us know the nature of God.

"Romans 15:4 - For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

The Old Testament, written in the past to the Jews who were under the law, is now for our learning but is no longer law. Christ brought about redemption through His blood and thereby salvation. We believers are now "new creatures", bought by the blood of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

There are several additional principles Bible students use to study and understand the Bible, including understanding context, previous Bible teachings and audience,etc. Become a Christian and begin the journey, I say!

As to a Christian's standing with God and hope of heaven, Tucker wrote:

"apologies...i am being sarcastic and somewhat pedantic...but only to prove a point...the rules for acceptance are so finicky and interpreted differently by almost every christian or at least every christian church or subgroup...surely god would have laid it out in clear, straightforward english...surely he wants his people to be aware of the prerequisites for entry into heaven...isnt is kind of perverted of him to leave it so open ended so all of you christians are left constantly wondering if you have done enough and fulfilled all the criteria?"

I say, salvation? Romans 5:1 begins: "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ..."
and the thought continues in Romans 5:9 - "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"

Salvation and also right standing with God...

And then Ephesians 2:8-10: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

And Titus 3:5 - "..he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,"

As a Christian, I give God credit for saving and preserving my salvation. I do the best I can to live as He would have me live and much of that is by yielding myself to the leading of His Spirit and following the teachings in the Bible as I understand them and helped to understand by the Spirit within. I don't justify myself by what I say or do, but I do seek to give God a good reputation by what I say or do. Christianity may, from the outside, appear to be inconsistent. The goal of every believer, though, is to be as consistently like Christ as possible.

(Thanks to Bible Gateway for the quotes from the Bible.)

Are Afro-Americans Black or black?

The USA is known as a melting pot. We were inhabited by Native Americans and they apparently arrived from Asia long before. Then came the Spanish and the French and the British. Of course, there is evidence that Eric the Red made a Scandinavian presence on North American soil long before Chris Columbus began bopping around in the Caribbean.

Later, refugees and emigrants from Europe began filling the inner cities of the American East while still later Orientals were imported to work on the West coast and build railroads. Slaves, predominantly black and from Africa, were imported in large numbers. Natives of South and Central America settled largely in the Southwest. Here is a link for those who find the subject fascinating.

Prejudice has always been involved in the influx of emigrants. People had bad names for Irish, Italians, Hispanics, on and on. But no group suffered as much through slavery and prejudice than the Negro. Not even the most populous minority group in the USA now (Hispanics now hold that title), people of largely African descent would have to be the group that had the farthest to go and had to work the hardest to get to the place that they would be accepted by all.

Naturally there is always the idiot factor, and many people still hold prejudice against those of other skin tones or countries of origin. For society in general, however, the playing field has been largely leveled. To me, no one color or creed should have an advantage in the job market or in any other way.

Everyone knows not to use the "N-word" when talking to or referring to a person of dark hue. Yet amongst themselves they do refer to each other in that manner. I was close to a few darker friends when I lived in Washington, DC, and one of them actually would greet me with "What's up, N______?" Sometimes I would say that to him. It was clowning, it was friendly and it was only something done between friends. Even today I am aware that this word is sometimes used, but I would never use it. It has too many degrading connotations.

Fine. I do want to know what is safe to say if wishing to describe a person of color now? (Or should I even say it that way???)

Black: You can order a T-shirt that says "Please Don't Call Me Black" There was a time in the 1960's and 70's when many of those of darker hue rejected the word, "black" and opted for Afro-American. That is kind of a mouthful but, okay, why not?

Afro-American? A blogger I admire and whose link is on my friends blogroll is of darker hue. She says:

"One of the many reasons I don’t like the term “African American” is that I’m not African, and I doubt any African — black or white — would claim me as such.

Being of African descent doesn’t make one African. It’s strange that we use the word “African” as a nationality when I suspect that true Africans refer to their countries when referring to their nationality, and not the continent."


So, anyway, I will soon do a posting about Black or black or Afro-Americans in politics and government and I sure would like to know which adjective to use. Because I am just a white guy and I haven't spend a lot of time thinking about it until now.

By the way, I am part German and Austrian and English and Scot and Irish and American Indian. I am a mongrel. But society calls me white so there you go. I tend to use the term "black" for now, until someone says otherwise. To me, Condi Rice is a great American, very accomplished, and I would say that she is a black woman. But if it is important to say it another way, so be it.

Yes, I know, it would likely be better if we were all to the point that skin tones and origins were never used. Maybe. Of course, that means we'd have to cut out all the blonde jokes.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Why Gay Marriage is Dangerous

There is a push in this country to legalize "gay marriage" and a push back to institute laws banning the same. What is the deal here?

Okay, first of all the phrase sounds a lot like "dry" water to me. There is no such animal. A marriage is a union between a male and a female. This has been the way of marriage for hundreds, indeed, thousands of years. The entire idea of a "gay marriage" sounds to me like a cat that barks or sweltering hot ice. It doesn't make any sense. The idea of marriage was to cement a hopefully permanent union of a man and a woman and create a protective union within which any children might be nurtured. Obviously a gay union won't be producing any children any time soon.

Yet it is a hot button item. Homosexuals are trying and in some cases succeeding in co-opting a heterosexual tradition and getting some measure of legal status. They claim it is a right that is being denied them.

Thomas Sowell rather eloquently argues to the contrary.

"Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football."


Now I hear the voices rising in protest. "But without marriage, gays in committed relationships have no rights to visit each other in hospitals, have joint ownership of land and so on!" Not true, actually, for people have been entering into various partnerships since the beginning of recorded time. Nevertheless, there are other ways to address this issue.

Ramesh Ponnuru writes on this subject in the National Reviw Online. Concerning recent legislation proposed by Colorado state senator Shawn Mitchell:

"Mitchell’s idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming “reciprocal beneficiaries.” But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such."

In truth, such legislation would not please "gay marriage" advocates because they don't really want what they say they want. The issue is not really about getting married, it is about other agendas.

Agenda # One: Acquiring society's official imprimateur of respectability on homosexual relationships. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in this country but the majority of citizens still consider it an aberrant behavior. Making "gay marriage" legal goes a long way towards erasing the stigma of homosexual relationships.

Agenda # Two: Partner benefits. Many companies give medical coverage to spouses and children, but not to co-habiting couples. Homosexuals want a benefit not usually given to other co-habiting-but-not-married couples by having the option of marriage available to them.

Agenda # Three: Advance the cause of the continued breakdown of sexual mores in society.

To agenda one, I say that society has no interest in encouraging homosexuality. In a normal, free country we would neither shoot gays on sight nor pass them a marriage license. It is aberrant activity but if it is not prohibited by law then it becomes a choice left up to the people involved. Just don't come to the rest of us and ask us to tie a ribbon on it.

To agenda two, I say it is up to the individual company whether to offer "partner benefits" to people living together whether of opposite or same sex. Some companies do this already and some don't. A same sex couple can seek employment with a company that does, or seek to get the rules changed at that company. I don't believe that we should legislate on this issue either way. Let companies and their employees come to the decisions they prefer. Trust me, employees have a say, because a company needs to attract the right people (not talking about MacDonalds here, okay?) and the market or needs of a few key employees can drive this decision one way or the other.

Now to agenda three. I have been accused of setting up a "straw man" with this argument but I will argue strongly that I do not. I believe that much of the radical element of homosexual advocates seek to push the envelope farther than most people realize. Homosexual advocates, in association with the ACLU and NAMBLA, are seeking to change other laws.

Consider this exerpt from an article found at traditionalvalues.org:

"According to David Thorstad, in "The State Of Gay Liberation," homosexuals must get back to a "radical vision of sexual freedom for all. We need to reaffirm our place in the great variety of same-sex behaviors that exist-have always existed-in human societies. We dare not allow our homosexual gift to be alienated from us by the limited vision, stifling political correctness, and erotophobic provincialism." In short, homosexuals should openly support the promotion of adult/child sex!

Professor Mohr argues that the use of "gay youth" is a key to gaining political and cultural victories in the U.S. He writes: "...these brave youth are key to culture's change on gay issues. Thanks to them, increasingly people know someone for whom being gay is an issue. Thanks to them the gay movement is achieving critical mass." Bruce Mirken claims that radical AIDS activism is what will save the homosexual movement from decline.

The effort to push adult/child sex isn't limited to these three homosexual activists. It is part of the overall homosexual movement. As author Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic: Reconsidered" in The Weekly Standard, (Jan. 1, 2001): "The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement." Eberstadt notes that as the homosexual movement becomes more mainstream, this "question" about adult/child sex will become more prominent. Homosexuals who desire sex with children will do exactly what the ACLU is doing in Kansas: Destroy all laws banning sex between adults and children."


The homosexual will argue on logical grounds that he is seeking to fulfill his sexual orientation. Then comes the pedophile asking for the same. This is an avowed goal of NAMBLA and also many in the homosexual advocacy movement. So then here comes the necrophile demanding the right to have sex with corpses and now comes the sado-masochist and so on. You say straw man, I say I see forces aligned in hopes of eliminating any restraint on sexuality in our society.

Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight published a 32-page paper on the linkage between the homosexual agenda and pedophilian which you can peruse here. It is not a matter of a bunch of conservatives running around yelling that "the sky is falling" but a recognition that evil is on the move and it has a plan.

Go ahead and reject the notion that "gay marriage" brings on the legalization of necrophilia. Fine, but it is a fact that advocates of "gay marriage" are trying to bring about pedophilia. One only has to go to the NAMBLA site and read what they say and keep in mind this is what they are willing to admit to the general public. I quote from the site:

"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -- David Thorstad

Sounds like a nightmare to me!

Happy President's Day! Trivia edition

I believe Ronald Reagan was the greatest post-WWII President we have had. Perhaps he was the best of the 20th century. ChristMatters begins a post with Ben Franklin but ends up with President Reagan at this link here.

Farmer President Trivia was here...

Remember to submit an entry for "name that acronym", or "Enemas of the State." Contest ends Wednesday evening. You simply need to come up with words for the letters "ACLU."

Also, the Darwin is Dead Carnival is going until Saturday evening. In fact, entries submitted early on Sunday should make the cut. The results will be posted by midnight CST on Sunday the 26th of February.

Now, more Presidential trivia. See how many clues you need before you know the answer:

When he was 22, his business failed. - When he was 23, he lost a bid for U.S. Congress. - When he was 24, he failed in business again. - The following year, he was elected to the state legislature. - When he was 26, his sweetheart died. - At age 27, he had a nervous breakdown. - When he was 29, he was defeated for the post of Speaker of the House in the state legislature. - When he was 31, he was defeated as Elector. - When he was 34, he ran for Congress again and lost. - At the age of 37, he ran for Congress yet again and finally won - Two years later he lost his re-election campaign. - At the age of 46, he ran for a U.S. Senate seat and lost. - The following year he ran for Vice President and lost. - Finally, at the age of 51, he was elected President of the United States.

He was...? Answer here.

I founded the NCAA - I won a Nobel Peace Prize while in office -I was once a deputy sheriff in the Dakota Territory - I was the youngest President ever when elected - I was a Colonel in the Army - I was elected to local, state and federal offices and served as an appointee in all three areas as well - I authored 35 books - I once belonged to the Mugwumps and also the Bullmoose parties although I was longest a Republican - The most popular stuffed animal is named for me

I was, of course...? Name here.

For more interesting factoids about Presidents, go to Freaky Secrets of the Presidency.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Abortion73.com

If you are a proponent of abortion, I dare you to watch the first two videos presented on this site.

I am sick in my heart and soul over the numbers:

In 2002, 1,082 American children died from violent assault.
2,347 died from an automobile accident in the USA..
32,867 died from disease in the USA.

And, in 2002, in the land of the free and the home of the brave
1,310,000 American children died from legal abortions!

Today, nearly 4,000 children are killed at the hands of abortionists every day.
25,000 per week.
109,000 per month.
1.3 million a year.

Warning: The second video on this site presents pictures of fetuses that have just been aborted. It is amazing the detail even a very tiny baby has, with feet much smaller than a dime but having the features of a baby, not some organic blob.

One of my children was born prematurely, weighing just over four pounds when born. She is now about 5'6" tall and has blessed me with two grandchildren. Babies as large or larger than her are being aborted every single day because the abortion rights proponents have even managed to keep third trimester abortions legal.

It isn't abortion. It is even beyond murder. It is SLAUGHTER. HOLOCAUST.

America, I am ashamed for us.

Sunday Blog Spotlight

Some may dare call it humor. To others it is truth in the shape of a paper airplane soaring on the winds of changing minds? Whatever...

~

4-Block World: Simple, effective and addictive. Tom McMahon manages to be unique, as in this post, The Courage Of The Fearless Crew! In case you wondered, Mary Anne > Ginger.

~

The Peoples Cube: Bush Fails To Prevent East Coast Blizzard is an example of TPC's tireless Broom of Truth that relentlessly sweeps the correct progressive thoughts into the heads of the proletariat. Yeah, I said it before you got a chance to think it.

~

ihillary: Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, and sometimes it comes with words included. Try Media Brats for yourself, hold the mustard.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Hunt with Cheney or ride with Kennedy?



Before being shot, 78-year-old attorney Harry Whittington was an acquaintance of Vice President Dick Cheney.



After being shot, 78-year-old attorney Harry Whittington was an acquaintance of Vice President Dick Cheney.




Before being drowned in Senator Ted Kennedy's car, Mary Jo Kopechne was an acquaintance of Senator Kennedy.



After being drowned in Senator Ted Kennedy's car, Mary Jo Kopechne was very tragically dead.

Go here if you don't believe that Ted Kennedy has been allowed to get away with, at the very least, vehicular homicide/manslaughter and yet the left considers him an elder statesman and suitable spokesman for the party. Okay, Democrats, if you want him you got him!

HOWEVER

Enough idiocy from the left about the "Cheney shooting"! He didn't notify the Washington Press Corps, big deal! He and his cohorts got medical care for the victim and Whittington is now out of the hospital. Furthermore, Whittington was likely more at fault for the accident in that he put himself in between other hunters and the game without notifying them.

All in all, I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy. (Bumper sticker available!)

Speaking of Dhimmis

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs has this can't miss post that addresses the cartoon controversy strongly:

"Speaking of dhimmis; Clinton says cartoons 'a mistake'
Atlas says Clinton 'a mistake' "

No shrinking violet, that Pamela!

Randomly poetic moment...

Nightfalls

all we give
shines like a star
all we deny
lies black and bloated

the echoes of the day
fill the mind and pass
nightfall pours like oil
to the bottom of your looking-glass

Kimbal Ross all rights reserved

Friday, February 17, 2006

StoptheACLU appeal

"Please join us, and direct your readers in appealing to the Attorney General of the United States to call a Special Counsel to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those responsible within the ACLU for any damage to top secret programs that have been enacted in furtherance of National Security and the war on terror; any funding directly or indirectly aiding a terrorist organization; giving representation, aid and comfort to admitted terrorists; invading the privacy of their own members; hindering the ability of the government to protect the citizens of the Untied States of America; and any attempt to destroy evidence of any of these acts.

I have compiled an extensive list of reasons why they should be investigated at this link."

We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Faith or Superstition?

Superstition is breaking mirrors and immediately feeling cursed.

Faith is believing in that which is greater than oneself and being blessed.

Superstition is what inspired Halloween.

Faith is Easter, minus the bunnies and eggs.

Superstition is reading the same astrologer’s prediction for you that everyone else gets and believing it applies to you.

Faith is reading the same Bible that Martin Luther read and believing that it applies to you.

Superstition requires no special effort nor does it need to be grounded in reality. Faith requires a dependence upon a greater reality and that does take some effort. Some people see the awesome grandeur of the universe and wonder at how amazing it is that it all happened by chance to occur. Others view the universe and are awestruck at the concept of an even greater Being that had to have created it.

It really is not a matter of intellect, for men both brilliant and simple can be found in camps pitched either in faith or not. Reasonable men choose to either believe in God or not. It takes no special IQ to be an atheist any more than it does to be a Christian. However, faith is as far from superstition as an atheist is from a Christian. It is intellectually dishonest to equate the two. For superstition is unreasonable and Christianity is as reasonable as a philosophy of life can be. It is not that Christianity is unreasonable but that it allows for the supernatural that separates it from humanistic philosophies like atheism.

I enjoy dialogue with those who disagree with me. Those who seek to “poison the well” by deriding my Christian faith as superstition miss the boat entirely. There is no substance to such an argument. It then makes me wonder, do you call a belief in God a superstition so that you don’t have to consider it, because it makes you uncomfortable? Would a careful consideration of the possible existence of a Creator God complicate your life or cause you to miss sleep?

A Christian myself, I don’t wish to see others miss the boat and take leave of this life without God. It is because I care about you who do not believe that I write something such as this. It is my hope that when a man or woman seriously thinks about God, that God takes that opportunity to help them realize that He is.

Everyone has the right (at least in my country) to believe as he chooses. This is as it should be. Be an atheist, be an agnostic, I will continue to respect your right to that belief. Shout it from the top of your lungs, wave a sign, do your thing….and I will do mine. It is great living in the good old USA where we are free to worship, heck, a flying spaghetti monster if we so choose. Eh, I wouldn’t recommend it, though!

The Carpenter

It is fitting that Jesus was a carpenter, for He laid the foundations of the world and with His own hands built a man. A master carpenter, He builds our faith and rest assured that it is He, not we, who is doing the work. He sees that the body of Christ is perfectly joined and held together. His specialty is renovation, changing old men into new. He is a rehabber of careworn souls. Jesus Christ, expert at home repair. Let Him install his siding around your exterior: a robe of righteousness. He’ll rewire you with His Spirit and neatly knock down the partition that had separated God from man.

Reasonable rates (always free)! No one can beat those rates. Jesus does the work and absorbs the cost Himself. No hidden charges, a “without spot or blemish” guarantee included. No, you are not allowed to help. Jesus doesn’t need you to hold the ladder or pound in the nails. He only needs you to allow him to begin. He is the only one capable of doing the job to perfection, Let Him work in you!

Added bonus. Everyone who gives Jesus an opportunity to rebuild their lives wins a free trip! He will transport you in your very own glorified body right off of the face of the earth. Your final destination? The mansions of glory resort, where you will stay with Him in perfect love, joy and peace for all eternity.

Then there is pest control. Jesus rids your home of unwanted pests like fear, unbelief, anger, strife and so on. Is this a deal or what? All Free!

Jesus was a carpenter, cutting wood to fit, smoothing it to beauty. Can you see the sweat beading on His forehead as he saws away at a new piece of wood? Can you hear him grunt as he muscles a new beam into place? Imagine him smoothing off the rough edges of your emotions. Picture him setting new faith within you, a strong faith that fits just exactly right and stands strong against the storms of the world. Let him roof you over with His love!

By Kimbal Ross all rights reserved.

Darwin is Dead Carnival

Radaractive will be hosting the Darwin is Dead Carnival (so why does his hypothesis linger on???) this month. Submissions are due by Saturday the 25th of February and will be posted by midnight on Sunday, the 26th.

Are you a Darwinist/evolutionist?
Are you a Creationist?
Are you a proponent of Intelligent Design?

Don't be afraid to come and get some!

Scroll down on the sidebar at left to view the Carnival Submission Links...


x

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Danish cartoon for your perusal



Yeah, something like this is worth killing and rioting over.....if you are an absolute maniacal idiot!

Warning!!! I am Iranian I am a mosleme...


"I am Iranian I am a mosleme .
We will kill you( every )
down with you( Crectian & jowe.)
world is mine."


With these words the Islamofascists have gone to war against bloggers who post their cartoons. Michelle Malkin received an email with those words above. Other sites like Zombie Time are under attack.

Naturally, I am going to post some of those cartoons myself out of respect for freedom of speech and contempt for murderous wretches who use some form of allegiance to some form of god as an excuse to abuse and even butcher their fellow men, women and children.

Name the ACLU contest...Enemas of the State.

Thanks for all who participated in the Moonbat slogan contest and to the winner, Debbie, for "Enemas of the State". One of the most prominent "enemas" has proven to be the ACLU.

Today we are announcing a week-long contest to put words to the acronym ACLU. Nothing blasphemous or profane, please, make it suitable for a general audience, One has to be a bit more clever to do it right. The winner will be invited to submit a guest posting to Radaractive. Contest ends at midnight on February 22nd.

Now here is some material to work with.....

StoptheACLU gives us the top ten myths about the ACLU.

StoptheACLU also has this post concerning what they are up to right now...excerpted:

"It may be the photos that America doesn’t want to be seen, but that doesn’t stop the MSM from showing them. It looks like more photos of the same incident, yet the media are immediately publishing them, and the ACLU are excited!"

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs makes a case for the ACLU to be named a terrorist organization.

RightWingDuck and IMAO make the Al Queda- ACLU connection here.

One thing for sure, if you aren't an enema of the state, the ACLU will ignore you. Just as they have ignored the plight of the two brave University of Illinois student editors who Michele tells us have now been suspended!

Also see ACLU-sers

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

More News from Algoria

Algoria (formerly known as San Francisco) Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval was interviewed on cable news program Hannity & Colmes on Tuesday evening (February 14th). His Valentine's Day message was clear: He doesn't want the USS Iowa docked (at no expense to the city-state) in the harbor and they doesn't believe in the US Troops. Sandoval stated that the military of the United States should be disarmed.

Expose The Left manages to, er, expose the left in this posting.

In other news, Algoria has invited the ACLU to change their name to the, erm, ACLU and move their headquarters to San Francisco. Since the ACLU is recently flush with US funds, some have called Algoria's motives into question. But there are those who believe that the City by the Bay and the ACLU truly are birds of a feather.

Iowa Rocks!



Ray "Bubba" Sorensen has painted a rock...Boy, has he ever!



There is a huge rock near a gravel pit on Hwy 25 in rural Iowa. For generations, kids have painted slogans, names, and obscenities on this rock, changing it's character many times. A few months back, the rock received it's latest paint job, and since then it has been left completely undisturbed. It's quite an impressive sight.



The author himself stands alongside the rock.


Be sure to scroll down and check out the multiple photos (all angles) of the rock. I thought the flag was draped over the rock, but it's not. It's actually painted on the rock too.



There are three additional views that space does not permit me to publish at this time. But Ray, thanks very very much!!!!!

Monday, February 13, 2006

Welcome to Algorica

Travelers entering San Francisco on California 101 and Interstate 5 will soon be greeted by new signs: Welcome to Algorica!

Press Secretary Yeta Nother Alioto announced today that San Francisco has indeed seceded from the United States and is now an independent entity.

"San Francisco has seceded today from the United States of America. We will henceforth be known as the Progressive Republic of Algorica. At the present time our national boundaries coincide with the city limits of the City of San Francisco but we expect to include Marin county within a few days and further expansion may be expected.

The President in situ, The honorable Al Gore, will be arriving from Saudi Arabia shortly where he has been establishing diplomatic relations. Regular elections are scheduled for the year 2008, the year that President Gore would have been expecting to relinquish another office that was denied him by a radical conservative court.

President Jimmy Carter has agreed to be our Supreme Court Chief Justice. We will begin with one justice and expand as the need arises. We are confident that President Carter's good judgement and bold integrity will suffice for us at present.

We the people of Algorica have grown weary of being attached to a nation of warlike inconsiderate flyover backwards hayseed religious nutso neocon stupid illiterate smelly Americans! We no longer wish to contribute to your World Police, nor your BushchimpHitler totalitarian government. Once our offer to help begin the impeachment process against the Evil Bush was turned aside, we knew we had passed the point of no return.

We can ease the housing shortage and spiraling birth rates by encouraging our breeder population to emulate a gay/lesbian lifestyle. We can increase cash flow by being a foreign government. This means we keep our money and the United States sends millions of dollars our way. The vast majority of San Franciscans can adopt a work-free lifestyle and receive a stipend for living with the money received from the US Government. Crime will drop precipitously when we decriminalize the legal codes. This means we can fire most of our radically right-wing police force.

Diplomatic relations with China have already been established and both North Korea and France have sent emissaries today. The Republic of NAMBLA has already recognized us as a nation. We are awaiting word as to either Gary Busey or Billy Zane will consent to the post of Secretary of Defense. The head of the State Department will, of course, be former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark as soon as his notice is received and accepted by his current employer."

In other news.....
Blue Star Chronicles has Monday Linkfest

Photo views of Algorica residents....

Spread the Word!

Atlas Shrugs posts Cartoon Dhimmitude In America and in this must-read posting is a link to an editorial dissent you will want to read. Here is an excerpt:

"We are proud not to take the route of the New York Times, Washington Post or other major newspapers which have not published the cartoons. Their decision to leave their readership uninformed on an issue causing riots, death and damage is irresponsible.

Free speech is all about more speech. We will not allow a hastily written, knee-jerk editorial to undo the work we have done for our readers or intimidate us from carrying that mission out from here.

We will not resign. We will not issue an apology."


Go, read the entire post and take appropriate action!!!

Dems can tapdance backwards!!!

John at Stop the ACLU (and we certainly want to stop 'em!) shares this link.

Excerpt: "Daschle said he wants the program to continue but maintained that the warrantless wiretapping of calls that came into the United States or calls made overseas, even those involving suspected terrorist sources, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Harman noted that the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed last week on domestic wiretapping. "We're only 36 members total that we're talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program."

So what do we have here? They say we need this program, and if it is illegal, then we should change the laws to make it legal. It definitely sounds like a retreat to me."

The Enemas of the State strike again, only to discover they have wounded only themselves!

No liberal agendas were advanced in the making of this movie

Being a man, I don't generally like to either cry or admit to have been crying. In this case, I will freely admit that tears came to my eyes during a crucial scene in the movie End of the Spear. For those not in the know, End of the Spear is a movie about the five missionaries who went to find the Waodani Tribe in rural Ecuador and were subsequently murdered by them. Yet it is also about the tribe itself, and the families of the murdered missionaries, and the God of those missionaries who would also become the God of the Waodani. It is truly the most powerful movie I have seen in the last year or more, certainly the best I have seen for some time.

Go to see it! The main characters are real, for the story is based on true events. In fact, near the end of the movie a few of the actual people show up in a funeral scene. End of the Spear is a story of love and hate, revenge and forgiveness, gain and loss, courage and fear, ancient traditions and new challenges all wrapped in a wonderful cast and presented as a cinematically pleasing package. It would be hard to imagine anyone but the most hard-hearted who could view this movie without being very glad that they did.

We went to see this movie on a Sunday afternoon and found that several people from our church had also shown up to see it at that time, including the Pastor and his wife. The theatre was perhaps half-full at the most. Some may have been wary of encountering a religious theme but the name of Jesus is never spoken and the story centers around the actions and reactions of the various characters rather than preaching at the audience. The movie is not getting much publicity largely because the film company is not wealthy and also half the proceeds of the movie are being funneled back to benefit people such as the Waodani rather than pay for advertising. But that is only one reason the publicity is minimal.

The publicity for EOTS is minimal because this is exactly the kind of movie that Hollywood hates. It has heart, it has good versus evil, it has men and women facing hard decisions and great challenges. There is no sexual innuendo, no gratuitous nudity or foul language and no cartoonish caricatures of human relationships. No liberal agendas were advanced in the making of this movie.

Hollywood hates traditional American values, preferring to not only make movies such as "Brokeback Mountain" and "Underworld" and promoting them as the best entertainment available. Hollywood loves sex, loves young skinny girls that kick everyone's butt, loves gays and lesbians and loves to present to us the same ridiculous comic stereotypes over and over - the elderly person who makes wildly innapropriate comments, the foul-mouthed child, the hypocritical-but-soon-to-be-skewered church-goer and so on. These are the movies that get free publicity from a multitude of reviews and articles before and during their release cycles.

The two top revenue producers among all movies in the last few months were the latest Harry Potter movie and Narnia. These are the movies that people flocked to see and see again - movies with plots, battles of good versus evil, movies without sex scenes or gallons of gushing blood, movies that were able to appeal to both children and adults. The movies that Hollywood ignores as they reward the Brokebacks and Syriannas with awards and glowing reviews are the movies that the public prefers.

Hollywood wonders why they keep losing their audience. Clue: It isn't because of television so much as the product being presented. Hollywood, you make bad movies! You make plenty of uncouth movies. You make movies that are pornographic by yesterday's standards. You glorify sinful and inappropriate lifestyles. You make the same stupid movies over and over again. Give us variety, give us stories that inspire rather than offend, give us characters we care about and then we will flock back to the theatres in bunches. But keep giving us garbage and your profits will continue to shrink. I think it is that simple.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Democratic Underground Moonbat contest winner (s)

Okay, here are the results from our contest:

Enemas of the State

Overall winner: "Enemas of the State" by Debbie, but she doesn't have a blog so I cannot add her to the blogroll. But she says she will have one soon, so it is coming...Anyway, that made me laugh out loud!

Runner-up: Tough call, but Mark with "Ignore reality - it begins with an R like religion" comes in second by a nose. He is already on the blogroll. Hey, Mark? Republican begins with an "R" as well, is it a trend?

Honorable mention to the other camp: Oriolebird, who has a kind of a live journal webpage rather than a classic blog. Oriolebird is a great fantasy sports player, a teenager with a very sharp mind, and yet both a Democrat and a Dodger fan! His entry was "Working hard since 1999 to destroy everything good that FDR had accomplished!"

Editor's note: Oriolebird wishes us to know that he is a liberal and NOT a Democrat. We hereby retract the previous statement!

Check out the original post and comments again, some good stuff. All entries were greatly appreciated!

Top Secret! MSA intercept transcript...

Here is a transcript of a conversation monitored by the MSA shortly after an article in the San Jose Mercury News concerning Senator Reid and disgraced lobbyist Abramoff was released. The participants are thought to be Senator Harry Reid (Reid), DNC Chairman Howard Dean (Dean) and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff (JA).

-beginning of transcript-

(JA) "Hello, is that you, Harry?"
(Reid) "Yes, it's me and I have Howard conferenced in as well."
(JA) "You there too, Howard?"
(Dean) "indecipherable Yeah! Woooo!"
(JA) "Alright, so what is this all about?"
(Reid) "You didn't see that article in the Mercury? They are going for my throat!"
(Dean) "Yeargghhhhhh!"
(JA) "Senator, I did exactly as you and Howard said....I gave kickbacks and gifts to Republicans but laundered money to Democrats through the Indian tribes. That way, if it all came out the Republicans look dirty, but the Democrats still get their money.
(Reid) "That was before the mainstream news media had to deal with.....with.... those bloggers!"
(Dean) "Grahgleragh!"
(JA) "The blogworld is not my problem, Senator. I did just as you suggested and now I am having to deal with the fallout. You will just have to do the same."
(Reid) "But we can't afford to be linked with you, the whole idea was to make the Republicans look like crooks, not us!"
(Dean) "They are crooks in Texas, in Ohio, all the way to the White House!"
(Reid) "Howard, shut it!"
(JA) "Harry, you took the money. We thought we had a good thing going and now it's gone. Maybe you can make it into a song."
(Reid) "For that matter, what is it with the black trenchcoat and the hat? Did you forget your violin case? Are you trying to look like a crook?"
(JA) "Sorry, Senator, I'll have to learn how to wear the same two outfits everywhere I go just like you. Is it always blue shirt with black coat and white shirt with gray coat or have you ever tried anything new?"
(Reid) "Let's not get personal! What are we going to do?"
(JA) "Howard is your attack dog, ask him. He's acting like he's afraid to say anything about it."
(Dean) "We are NOT safer under this administration..."
(Reid) "Howard, pay attention, we are talking about this lobbyist kickback scandal. Are you going to do anything about this or are you afraid to wade in?"
(Dean) "Yeaygerowl! I'm not afraid of anything..."
(Reid) "Good!"
(Dean) "..but Bolton's mustache..."
(Reid) "Howard..."
(Dean) "...and Rove's mind-control waves."
(Reid) "Please!"
(JA) "Well, you two figure it out, I have my own problems. But there is something you really SHOULD be afraid of..."
(Reid) "And that would be???"
(JA) "If Hilary ever decides that you ARE the problem!"
(Reid) "(hushed tones) Don't EVER say that name over the phone!"
(Dean) "Uuurugghhhhheaeeeeek!"

-end of transcript-

Official Moonbat Security Agency transcript. Not for distribution.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

The Bible and science

In the dialogue between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation there are often misconceptions. Before the discussion goes any farther it is time to address some of those.

Theory - Neither evolution nor creation rises to the level of a theory. A theory must be testable and test results that support the theory must be reproducible. Independent test results must agree, and then the scientific community will accept a hypothesis as a theory. Every time someone says "theory of evolution" they are unwittingly furthering a lie. There is no "theory of evolution" just as there is no "theory of creation."

Macroevolution has been proposed by Darwinists as the means by which life developed into the various forms we see today, a process requiring many millions of years and countless mutations fueling the natural selection process by which organisms advance towards becoming more complex and/or better suited creatures to their environment.

Creationists and evolutionists alike point to the life now found on the planet and the fossil records in order to support their respective cases. One thing that creationists will bring into the discussion that often angers and frustrates evolutionists is the Bible. They will proclaim that the Bible is not nor was it meant to be a scientific textbook and should not have any part in the discussion of the origin of life nor of the present state of life on the planet today.

I freely admit that there is a segment of Christianity that goes overboard with their application of the Bible, proclaiming that the Bible is indeed a scientific reference book. But the Bible itself does not make that claim.

II Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

The Bible claims to be two things here. First, it is inspired by God and therefore must be true. Second, that the purpose is to teach doctrine, etc, for the purpose of instructing man how to be righteous. Nothing about being a scientific textbook.

Narrative - Now we get to whether the Bible is applicable to the creation versus evolution debate and I say that it is applicable because it is inspired by God and therefore must be true. The book of Genesis is a narrative inspired by God, a narrative that relates the beginning of all things and then also specifically the people of God from Adam up to the death of Joseph. The beginning of Genesis is an account of the beginnings of all things from the point of view of the Beginner Himself.

The creation narrative in Genesis tells a story that agrees remarkably well with the evidence found in the earth's rock layers and fossils. Creation scientists use the account in Genesis as a guide as they study the earth and the cosmos. They don't depend on the Bible for their evidence, just a guidebook to help them accumulate the evidence. So the Bible is useful to scientists but is not in any way a scientific text.

Some creationists have come to that position from outside of Christianity and the Bible but have simply concluded that the evidence found in the real world demands a Creator. Some are believers who see that a Biblical viewpoint fits the evidence better than that of a Darwinist. Some are believers first who then begin to fit the evidence into their viewpoint. Then there are the Intelligent Design proponents who are not willing to accept the idea of a God but do acknowledge the need for a Designer of some sort whose nature they cannot define. There are many flavors of non-evolutionists and not all use the Bible as a resource at all.

My personal journey was that of an agnostic seeker of truth, a believer in evolution who found that both his spiritual and his scientific presuppositions just didn't hold water in the real world. I have come to the place of believer and creationist by being willing to learn, be wrong when I'm wrong and to keep an open mind about things.

Darwinists have accused me of being "childish" or a "believer in fairy tales" because I believe in creation and the God of the Bible. These are people who really don't understand faith, for one, and usually they are also the people who cannot bring themselves to consider the evidence presented to them with an open mind because they cannot allow themselves to even consider the supernatural as being real. They cannot readily conceive of God and prefer that God just not exist. Oddly, some of these same people will read astrologer's forecasts and scan the sky for UFO's.

People trust in things that they can neither see nor explain every day. How many travelers can explain the forces that allow a heavier-than-air 747 to rise into the sky and carry them to Chicago? Baseball fans blithely discuss curveballs. These two groups wouldn't know Bernoulli's Principle from the Coanda Effect but they believe the curveball curves and the plane flies. The workings of computers and the internet might as well be magic as it is technology to the average web surfer. I cannot put God on a microscope's slide nor define him in the form of an equation but I do still believe He is.

From my perspective, many believers in evolution appear to be like children who cover their ears whenever they hear the word "God" and simply refuse to allow the idea of God to reside in their heads. They cannot see Him or explain Him and therefore can simply put the idea of Him aside. There is trouble ahead, for I truly believe that the advance of scientific discovery continually uncovers evidence that makes the entire idea of evolution more and more an impossible position to defend. At what point will they see the bankruptcy of evolution as an explanation for the life around them and then at what straw will they then grasp? I wonder...

Malcom Muggeridge gets the last word: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

In a related post, Mark talks about the reliability of the New Testament and relates that to the China-Google controversy. Or is it the other way around?

Friday, February 10, 2006

Moonbat naming contest ends Sunday!

Don't forget to enter the Slogan for Moonbats contest that ends Sunday!!!

ACLU-sers show their true colors

Big surprise, there are secret hearings concerning the NSA conversation intercept policies that have saved us from at least four major terrorist attacks since 9/11, including one on the tallest US building west of the Mississippi River and the ACLU is whining because the hearings are not being made public!!!!

It's bad enough that Patrick Leahy takes it upon himself to leak classified information. Should we open the hearings so that everyone, including Osama himself, can get the details on our anti-terrorist programs??!!!

Jay at StoptheACLU weighs in here with more details.

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs more or less lumps the BBC and the liberal MSM in with the American Communist Loser Union here for your perusal.

For dessert, John Hawkins carries Pamela's concerns to their logical conclusion in "Should The Media Face Legal Repercussions For Publishing Classified Info?".