Search This Blog

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Radar Hospitalized...stubbornly refuses to croak

I have been flat on my back since Sunday evening. I had a MRSA infection. It is a medicine-resistant strain of Staph that it highly dangerous if left unchecked. I was in danger of possibly losing my leg. My doctor under-diagnosed the infection and I merrily took my meds and ignored the leg while it became swollen, blistered, red as a lobster and covered with open sores, thinking the meds would fix it. Then I got so sick I got delerious for awhile and finally realized that my wife's admonition to go to the hospital was correct. Then came multiple bags of IV antibiotics. Now I have arrived home on bedrest only because I am a good salesman and convinced the infection specialist that my wife would make a great nurse and taking the oral version of the meds now with her care and supervision would be sufficient. One of the meds costs sixty bucks a pop, can you believe it? One pill, sisty bucks...man.

Anyway, looks like lots of comments have been made in my absence. I am putting energy into making this post and frankly I am still pretty whipped. Got up at the crack of noon. Will be on bedrest all the rest of the week at least. May be a day or two before I take on answering the comments on the last couple of posts, kindly have mercy on me for that, trying to get healthy and right now any energy goes into doing a bit of work (I work via email and phone, primarily) to keep the roof over the head...feed the Bulldog, as they say.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

What is your basis for morality?

There are many times that someone suggests that something is wrong. I have made a wrong post, one of my links leads to something wrong, somebody lied, someone is hiding something...

I thought I would ask a pertinent question...

WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR MORALITY?

What is your touchstone? What is the reason for the things you do. How do you know something is right or wrong in general? How do you know what is right or wrong for you personally? How do you determine that what someone else has done is wrong. In fact, is there a "right" and a "wrong?"

I can answer that question pretty easily. I am believer in God and I believe that he has the answers and the basis for moral behavior within the pages of the Bible. Once, when the Nation of Israel were a nomadic people, God established strict laws for them, laws too difficult to keep. They would then need to sacrifice animals and make offerings to symbolize the seriousness of sin and the need to find a means of atonement to God. Jesus Christ came to live and die and live again, freeing us from those specific laws concerning diet and sacrifices and so on and yet establishing the original ten commandments. Jesus also told us to treat others as we would have ourselves treated and many, many other admonitions. In short, I have absolutes. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Words directly from the Creator of the Universe to me. I didn't make them up and I follow in the footsteps of millions before me who adhere to the Biblical standard as the means of establishing what is right and what is wrong.

My question is, if you are not a believer and do not accept the Bible, do you have any absolutes? Do you have some means of establishing what is good and bad, right and wrong? What would that be?

I am especially curious as to what an atheist would answer?

Friday, July 11, 2008

Blogger in need

John Stephenson wrote me:

"Please keep my co-blogger, his wife, and un-born child in your prayers. Gribbit, my snarky co-blogger, has been going through a lot lately. He explains it extensively at STACLU and his own blog. His family needs lots of prayers. Please let others know about this, and keep him and his in your own prayers as well.

Link one



Link two



14 weeks ago we found out through a blood screen that she had an abnormal protein level in her blood. This abnormality indicated a possibility that our child COULD have a birth defect called Spina Bifida. This was confirmed as being so at 21 weeks through ultrasound.

Our baby has a lesion on her back where the neural tube (which develops within 12 days of conception) failed to close around the spinal cord. The lesion begins at the L2 vertebrae, which indicates potential damage below that point. The extent of the damage to her spinal cord will not be known until after she is born in approximately 6-8 weeks.

The next step for us is our Daughter's delivery in late August via C-section at University Hospital in Cincinnati (we hope). The surgery to close her neural tube and the lesion will take place within 48 hours of delivery at Cincinnati Children's Hospital by a Neurosurgeon (we're sure). If needed at that time, a shunt will be implanted to drain spinal fluid from the ventricles in her brain due to Hydrocephalus which is a result of Chiari Malformation. This is where the cerebellum sits too low on the spinal column. So far, there is no indication that any fluids have begun to accumulate and let us pray that none do as it can lead to cognitive problems for our daughter in her future. She will remain in Cincinnati Children's for 10 days to 2 weeks for recovery.

This was originally written over a week ago and we've since had some bad news. There is now evidence of substantial hydrocephalus. Also, her head and tummy measurements are about 2 weeks behind which has raised some other questions. She is scheduled for an Amnio on Monday. More info about that as soon as we know.

Barring any additional complications or defects discovered by the Amnio or worsening of the hydrocephalus, we expect delivery on August 20th and closure surgery on the 21st. I'll be periodically be updating this info."

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Physician, heal thyself!


Evoutionists believe that Haekel's obviously forged embroyo drawings aren't still being presented as fact. But it is still being presented as fact even today. The likelihood is that most people in America today have had these drawings presented to them at some time in their school experience and could well think they represent evidence. One popular textbook being used today is "Biology" by Miller & Levine. Propaganda in place of science, in my opinion.

You think that Miller-Urey is either still relevant or not being taught? Heck, I saw a National Geographic program on cable this year that referenced that failed experiment! This pdf illustrates several lies being presented in school textbooks, including Miller-Urey as being a proof for realistic abiogenesis, as recently as 2000.

You want to accuse me of making a blog post without scrupulously checking every assertion and formula? How about you evolutionists getting the textbooks right before you worry about me! I let you comment about everything I post and I don't erase disagreements. But in schools, the creationist side of things is censored before it ever even gets started.

An evolutionist is like a man walking along the beach that finds a replica of the Statue of Liberty and comments on how amazing it is that the random workings of wind and water could have produced a thing that looks so obviously designed. Then he goes back to his evolutionist buddies with the thing and they begin thinking up just so stories for how the torch happened to be formed and by what means the proportions seem to have come out just right - by random chance.

You realize that the eye must have, by current neo-darwinist thought, had to have evolved in ten separate lines of beings? How ridiculous is that? How much more absurd than the idea that someone would use an integral as a constant.

I will tell you evolutionists what I really think. The rock layers of the world have all the earmarks of being formed by one or more catastrophic hydrological events. Life itself is so complex that the more we find out, the more obvious it is to the neutral observer that it had to have been designed. Both the Universe and the Solar System are remarkably fine-tuned to allow for life and, as it happens, the criteria to allow for life are quite specific. There are thousands of systems and behaviors found in living beings that evolutionists cannot even begin to plausibly explain. Let me give you one example-The Cuttlefish! (From Apologetics Press).


Apologetics Press :: Decisive Designs
The Cause of Cuttlefish by
Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Two colorful, eight-legged cephalopods, known as cuttlefish, recently graced the cover of the journal New Scientist. With bluish-green blood, iridescent skin color, feeding tentacles that shoot from their mouths like birthday party blowers, and eyes like something from a Batman movie, it is no surprise that the editors of New Scientist used the term “alien” in its description of the cuttlefish; the animals do look bizarre—plain and simple. Make no mistake, however, these creatures are anything but simple. In fact, just above the cuttlefish was the cover title, “Alien Intelligence: Secret Code of an Eight-Legged Genius” (Brooks, 2008, emp. added). Michael Brooks, author of the feature article, declared that the cuttlefish is “the world’s most inventive mollusk” (2008, 198[2653]:31, emp. added) with a “sophisticated system for talking to one another” (p. 28, emp. added). Scientists have documented “around 40 different cuttlefish body patterns, many of which are used to communicate with other cuttlefish” (p. 29). At other times, cuttlefish send “tailor-made” signals to predators (p. 29, emp. added).



Even more incredible than their communication skills, is the cuttlefishes’ ability to blend in to their surroundings. Brooks described them as having “the world’s best camouflage skills” (p. 29). Similar to how these mollusks (cuttlefish have an internal shell called a cuttlebone, thus, scientists classify them as mollusks) communicate with other animals via a variety of body patterns, they also move their bodies into a variety of positions in hopes of staying hidden. For example, while swimming next to large seaweed, a cuttlefish can mimic the grass’s motion by positioning and waving its eight arms in a similar way that the seaweed sways in the water. This makes it very difficult for both attackers and possible prey to locate the cuttlefish. In a recent study, scientists placed either horizontal or vertical stripes on the walls of cuttlefish tanks. How did the cuttlefish react? According to Dr. Roger Hanlon, “If the stripes were vertical they would raise an arm. If the stripes were horizontal they would stretch their bodies out horizontally” (as quoted in Brooks, p. 31). Amazing! Cuttlefish can even change the texture of their skin to mimic the shape of certain barnacle-encrusted rocks or corals.

Finally, what must give other sea life more problems than anything is the cuttlefish’s ability to change color—and to do it so quickly. A cuttlefish can change the color of its entire body in the blink of an eye. If this mollusk wants to change to red, it sends signals from its brain to its “pigment” sacs (called chromatophores) to change to red. Cuttlefish can hide from other sea life by changing to the color of sand or seaweed. They can also appear as a strobe lights, blinking “on an off” very quickly. So extraordinary are these “masters of camouflage” (p. 28) that government researchers are even “looking into the possibility of copying cuttlefish camouflage for use in the military” (p. 31). Researchers are enamored with “how cuttlefish achieve their quick and convincing camouflage” (p. 30). Nevertheless, “[i]t’s highly unlikely that anyone could achieve that same level of camouflage” (p. 30). Scientists admittedly find it difficult “mimicking the colour-matching abilities of the cuttlefish...and its texture-matching ability, which utilizes the muscles beneath it” (p. 30). In fact, “[n]o one knows exactly” how cuttlefish match their backgrounds so effectively, especially since “[e]xperiments have shown that cuttlefish don’t look at their skin to check how well it matches the background” (p. 31, emp. added). What’s more, if, as scientists believe, this animal is colorblind, only seeing in shades of green (p. 31), how does it always choose the color most helpful (like changing to the color of sand when on the ocean floor)?



Cuttlefish are remarkable creatures. Evolutionists have called the animal a “genius.” Scientists admit that cuttlefish are “sophisticated,” “intelligent,” “tailor-made” creatures with a “secret code.” Yet the very first word Michael Brooks used in his New Scientist article to explain the existence of cuttlefish is “evolution” (p. 29). But how can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? How can something “tailor-made” have no tailor? No one would suggest that Morse code is the product of time and chance, yet Brooks and other evolutionists would have us believe that the cuttlefish’s “secret code” is the product of millions of years of mindless evolution (p. 31)? Preposterous! Nature cannot explain the cuttlefish. The real Code-Giver, the Intelligent Designer Who “tailor-made” the cuttlefish, is God. He “created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21).

REFERENCES

Brooks, Michael (2008), “Do You Speak Cuttlefish?” New Scientist, 198[2653]:28-31, April 26.

Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Decisive Designs" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.