Search This Blog

Monday, June 22, 2009

Five Canard Stud (taking down the Darwinist canard table and pulling out the chair)

In the comments thread of my last post a back and forth broke out between me and creeper which boiled down to accusations of deception and eventually I considered that creeper had thrown down the gauntlet with his false accusations and complete fabrications (from my point of view) and I needed to step up to the challenge. In the words of creeper, "Have at it." So I shall, in two posts that will first pull the foundations out from under Darwinism and then directly refute it.

Darwinists in present days remind me of President Clinton when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. First came dismissal, then denials, then vehement denials ("I did NOT have sex with that woman!") and then finally the lame admission of guilt. In terms of Darwinism and the evidence, they are up to the vehement denial stage. Their desperation was revealed by the IDA-is-the-missing-link hilarity, a specimen of Lemur that had been in hand for 26 years that suddenly was a magical missing link!!!!! Only, it wasn't anything of the sort. It was simply a Lemur, a particular species of Lemur that is now extinct. Like a Dodo Bird or a Passenger Pigeon. Just another animal that didn't make the final cut. Lately Darwinists have been pulling this kind of prank on the public but in the end their desperation is revealed as Don Batten mentioned in the above linked article:

"And just to cap it off, in this “year of Darwin”, they named the creature after the atheists’ hero, Charles Darwin: Darwinius masillae. (One wonders what Charles Darwin would say now, if only he could (cf. Luke 16:26–31).) As Richard Dawkins said, Darwin enabled him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. That is the reason for all the hoopla over Darwin, which seems to be at fever pitch in this “Year of Darwin”.

The claim that Darwinius ‘could finally confirm Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution’ tacitly admits that it has not yet been confirmed

I don’t think I have ever seen such blatantly over-stated claims on a fossil find, and I have seen a few, including one by a major co-author of this paper: Philip Gingerich’s claims for Pakicetus back in 1983. Gingerich had a couple of scraps of a skull of a mammal from Pakistan and claimed it as the evolutionary precursor of whales. He embellished the story with an artist’s drawing of what Pakicetus (“whale from Pakistan”) looked like, with legs becoming flippers, a tail fluke developing and the imaginary creature diving for fish. Cute. Gingerich claimed it was “perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales”. With such a strong, confident claim from the fossil expert, who could doubt that evolution was true? Seven years later, other paleontologists published a paper describing the rest of Pakicetus and the now almost complete fossil showed that Gingerich’s imagination had really run away with him and the animal was not the missing link he thought it was. See: Not at all like a whale.

Apparently many paleontologists appreciate this sort of over-the-top, publicity-seeking behaviour in support of evolutionary story-telling, because they recently elected Gingerich the president of the American Paleontological Association."

Darwinists are in trouble as it is, so this is kind of like shooting ducks in a barrel. Darwin Duck?

Uniformitarianism, which was a fundamental foundation for Darwinism, has been falsified by the nature of the hundreds and thousands of feet of sedimentary rock layers which have been shown to be associated with catastrophic events. The cell, once thought to be a simple mechanism, is rather remarkably complex, far beyond the complexity of any machine or device imaginable during the time of Darwin. Careful examination of DNA shows it to be a blueprint for life with more information in one strand than Darwin could find in the biggest library in London. Gene mapping has revealed that structures that appear to be similar in differing organisms often come from different locations on the gene, thus presenting yet another in a series of hurdles for Darwinism to surmount. I could go on and on but first we will take off the legs of the Darwinist table, which are the naturalistic materialistic assumptions that underpin Darwinism. Then we will pull out the chair. Then, in my next post, I will reveal why the meal Darwinists try to serve to the public is rotten to the point of being hazardous. But first let us take out the table legs and the chair.


1) The Universe has a natural cause. This is a fallacy according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that nothing is being either created or destroyed. If nothing gets created or destroyed in the natural world, how do you attribute the creation of all things to natural processes? In the world of today, this kind of logic is called "Epic Fail!" Naturalistic materialists say that by some chance...CHANCE? It somehow happened by some miraculous unobservable chance event. Despite the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Now, allowing for the supernatural one could conclude that a supernatural entity superior to the temporal and natural Universe created that Universe. It may require faith but it does not strain logic. It also does not violate the First Law. Nothing is being created or destroyed because God made all things and contained them within a boundary of logical and understandable laws, including a conservation of all things He created. Only God can create and only God can destroy.

2) Life came from non-life. This violates the Law of Abiogenesis. No one has ever observed life coming from non-life and no scientist has been able to even conceive of and express a scenario in which such a thing might occur. Science actually has no definition for what life itself consists of, for there is no structural or chemical difference between a living person and a person who has just exhaled his last breath. All structures and organisms and systems will be exactly the same, they just have no more spark of life...which science cannot define or segregate from the organism itself. Darwinists just say that somehow, by some chance, it just happened, okay?

God claims to have given life to creatures and within breathing animals the Bible says there is within them the "breath of life." A supernatural Creator capable of creating the entire Universe is not going to find the invention of life to be much harder.

3) More complex life came from simple life. This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything is moving from hot to cold, from organized to disorganized, from energy to entropy. (Technically these laws are stated by beginning with "It is impossible that..." and what follows is usually a bit more boring and less descriptive so I use more common phrases. But I am capable of dealing with the original language of any of these laws if you insist upon it, commenters.) Your hot soup cools off, your neat room gets messy, your smooth skin gets wrinkled, your deck needs to be stained again and so on and so forth. Darwinists claim that macroevolution is causing organisms to go in the opposite direction of the natural movement of all natural things. It is the water that runs uphill, it is the rock that unripples the pond, it is a canard. The Darwinist begins by saying that "by chance mutation..."

God the supernatural being capable of making simple life forms could have and did create complex life forms. It is logical and it fits what we observe in the world today. We can see no way for complex life to have just happened, we never see it happening, but if God created all animals then what we see today makes perfect sense.

4) Information entered into organisms by natural means. This violates the Law of the Conservation of Information.

Richard Dembski excerpt concerning Complex Specified Information: Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A.

The Law of Conservation of Information

Evolutionary biology has steadfastly resisted attributing CSI to intelligent causation. Although Manfred Eigen recognizes that the central problem of evolutionary biology is the origin of CSI, he has no thought of attributing CSI to intelligent causation. According to Eigen natural causes are adequate to explain the origin of CSI. The only question for Eigen is which natural causes explain the origin of CSI. The logically prior question of whether natural causes are even in-principle capable of explaining the origin of CSI he ignores. And yet it is a question that undermines Eigen's entire project. Natural causes are in-principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI. To be sure, natural causes can explain the flow of CSI, being ideally suited for transmitting already existing CSI. What natural causes cannot do, however, is originate CSI. This strong proscriptive claim, that natural causes can only transmit CSI but never originate it, I call the Law of Conservation of Information. It is this law that gives definite scientific content to the claim that CSI is intelligently caused. The aim of this last section is briefly to sketch the Law of Conservation of Information (a full treatment will be given in Uncommon Descent, a book I am jointly authoring with Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson).

To see that natural causes cannot account for CSI is straightforward. Natural causes comprise chance and necessity (cf. Jacques Monod's book by that title). Because information presupposes contingency, necessity is by definition incapable of producing information, much less complex specified information. For there to be information there must be a multiplicity of live possibilities, one of which is actualized, and the rest of which are excluded. This is contingency. But if some outcome B is necessary given antecedent conditions A, then the probability of B given A is one, and the information in B given A is zero. If B is necessary given A, Formula (*) reduces to I(A&B) = I(A), which is to say that B contributes no new information to A. It follows that necessity is incapable of generating new information. Observe that what Eigen calls "algorithms" and "natural laws" fall under necessity.

Since information presupposes contingency, let us take a closer look at contingency. Contingency can assume only one of two forms. Either the contingency is a blind, purposeless contingency-which is chance; or it is a guided, purposeful contingency-which is intelligent causation. Since we already know that intelligent causation is capable of generating CSI (cf. section 4), let us next consider whether chance might also be capable of generating CSI. First notice that pure chance, entirely unsupplemented and left to its own devices, is incapable of generating CSI. Chance can generate complex unspecified information, and chance can generate non-complex specified information. What chance cannot generate is information that is jointly complex and specified.

Biologists by and large do not dispute this claim. Most agree that pure chance-what Hume called the Epicurean hypothesis-does not adequately explain CSI. Jacques Monod (1972) is one of the few exceptions, arguing that the origin of life, though vastly improbable, can nonetheless be attributed to chance because of a selection effect. Just as the winner of a lottery is shocked at winning, so we are shocked to have evolved. But the lottery was bound to have a winner, and so too something was bound to have evolved. Something vastly improbable was bound to happen, and so, the fact that it happened to us (i.e., that we were selected-hence the name selection effect) does not preclude chance. This is Monod's argument and it is fallacious. It fails utterly to come to grips with specification. Moreover, it confuses a necessary condition for life's existence with its explanation. Monod's argument has been refuted by the philosophers John Leslie (1989), John Earman (1987), and Richard Swinburne (1979). It has also been refuted by the biologists Francis Crick (1981, ch. 7), Bernd-Olaf Küppers (1990, ch. 6), and Hubert Yockey (1992, ch. 9). Selection effects do nothing to render chance an adequate explanation of CSI.

Most biologists therefore reject pure chance as an adequate explanation of CSI. The problem here is not simply one of faulty statistical reasoning. Pure chance is also scientifically unsatisfying as an explanation of CSI. To explain CSI in terms of pure chance is no more instructive than pleading ignorance or proclaiming CSI a mystery. It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance. It is quite another, as Küppers (1990, p. 59) points out, to follow Monod and take the view that "the specific sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth." CSI cries out for explanation, and pure chance won't do. As Richard Dawkins (1987, p. 139) correctly notes, "We can accept a certain amount of luck in our [scientific] explanations, but not too much."

If chance and necessity left to themselves cannot generate CSI, is it possible that chance and necessity working together might generate CSI? The answer is No. Whenever chance and necessity work together, the respective contributions of chance and necessity can be arranged sequentially. But by arranging the respective contributions of chance and necessity sequentially, it becomes clear that at no point in the sequence is CSI generated. Consider the case of trial-and-error (trial corresponds to necessity and error to chance). Once considered a crude method of problem solving, trial-and-error has so risen in the estimation of scientists that it is now regarded as the ultimate source of wisdom and creativity in nature. The probabilistic algorithms of computer science (e.g., genetic algorithms-see Forrest, 1993) all depend on trial-and-error. So too, the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection is a trial-and-error combination in which mutation supplies the error and selection the trial. An error is committed after which a trial is made. But at no point is CSI generated.

Natural causes are therefore incapable of generating CSI. This broad conclusion I call the Law of Conservation of Information, or LCI for short. LCI has profound implications for science. Among its corollaries are the following: (1) The CSI in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases. (2) CSI cannot be generated spontaneously, originate endogenously, or organize itself (as these terms are used in origins-of-life research). (3) The CSI in a closed system of natural causes either has been in the system eternally or was at some point added exogenously (implying that the system though now closed was not always closed). (4) In particular, any closed system of natural causes that is also of finite duration received whatever CSI it contains before it became a closed system.

This last corollary is especially pertinent to the nature of science for it shows that scientific explanation is not coextensive with reductive explanation. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and many scientists are convinced that proper scientific explanations must be reductive, moving from the complex to the simple. Thus Dawkins (1987, p. 316) will write, "The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity." Thus Dennett (1995, p. 153) will view any scientific explanation that moves from simple to complex as "question-begging." Thus Dawkins (1987, p. 13) will explicitly equate proper scientific explanation with what he calls "hierarchical reductionism," according to which "a complex entity at any particular level in the hierarchy of organization" must properly be explained "in terms of entities only one level down the hierarchy." While no one will deny that reductive explanation is extremely effective within science, it is hardly the only type of explanation available to science. The divide-and-conquer mode of analysis behind reductive explanation has strictly limited applicability within science. In particular, this mode of analysis is utterly incapable of making headway with CSI. CSI demands an intelligent cause. Natural causes will not do.

Information must have an intelligent source that provides the content of the message. Chance the Evolution Fairy is a dismal failure here, because what we know about information is that it is not material although it can be transmitted by material means. Werner Gitt's fundamental law of Information - Information is intelligence transmitted for a specific purpose.

A million monkeys typing for a million years actually don't wind up writing Romeo and Juliet. Shannon's theory was an attempt to quantify amounts of information but it doesn't understand the content, only the volume. As Karl Steinbuch said, according to Shannon a "kilogram of gold has the same value as a kilogram of sand." As Jean Cocteau famously remarked, "The greatest literary work of art is nothing but a scrambled alphabet" if one only measures the amount of information. Life is packed with information and that information must have an intelligent source.

SETI is, as you know, the search for intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. What are all those ATA listening dishes aimed outward seeking? Information! The idea is that if information is found amongst the noise reaching the Earth, it had an intelligent source. Imagine if we turned our attention inwards towards the cell? We would find DNA, we would find information integrated within life and we would understand that an intelligence designed all living things. If our logic was consistent and we were not driven by assumptions that preclude the existence of God then we would expect to see evidence of an intelligent designer, the Creator God. And we do, from within the tiniest portions of the cell on outwards we see intricate design with redundancies and contingencies built in. We find creatures that depend upon each other for existence and it strains credulity to believe they just happened to develop by chance together. In fact, just trying to imagine a way in which RNA, let alone DNA, could happen by chance is beyond any reasonable scientist. No one has presented any hypothesis that has a chance of being possible.

5) Uniformitarianism. Darwinism in all of its forms relies upon millions and millions of years of death and mutation and natural selection and the constant intervention of Chance, the Evolution Fairy to take us from simple early life to the millions of varieties of life forms we have now. Once geologists and ordinary folks figured that the rock layers on Earth were left over from the Noahic Flood, but over time as scientists and common man drifted away from the concept of a Creator God there were people like James Hutton and Charles Lyell who proposed that the rock layers are actually laid down by long-term uniform processes and represented hundreds of millions of years of Earth time written in stone.

credited to Superpunch

This was a boon to Darwinists, for if the rock layers were evidence of many millions of years then there was an outside chance (there is that word again) that over multiple millions of years the unobserved process known as macroevolution would have happened! The fossils must therefore be a continuum of organisms evolving from simple to complex forms. It was epiphany!

It was greatly mistaken.

We now know that every sedimentary rock layer has evidence of catastrophism. We can see that most layering is obviously from some kind of major hydrological event. Some can be attributable to volcanic activities, mudslides, and avalanches but most involve water. All of these rock layers fit into the creationist scenario as part of the Noahic Flood and the events that followed the flood, including an ice age that may well have lasted a good 500 years past the end of the flood itself. Some rock layers stretch across multiple continents and are massive beyond measure. Many of them cross or alternate, as you would see in flood patterns but could not have in a uniformitarian hypothesis. There are also tree trunks that thrust through multiple layers, a phenomenon that produced some truly ludicrous suggestions from uniformitarians before they began to disperse and rethink.

We also understand that fossils are organisms that had to be buried very rapidly and then preserved away from the normal bacterial and insect population that would break them down as carrion and eventually to dust. Being buried under tons of mud and water away from direct oxygen sources during a world-wide catastrophic flood produces conditions that allow even Jellyfish to be fossilized! The idea that rock layers represent ages of time is outdated and must eventually be abandoned by honest and reasonable men.


There are bottom-dwelling ocean creatures found in rock formations at mountaintops around the globe. There are all sorts of extinct creatures found and very few look like the animals and plants we have now. On the other hand, some fossil creatures are EXACTLY as they are found in the rock records. How could it be that some creatures evolve like crazy and some stay just the same? How can it be that all fossils found are complete organisms and plants that in no way have transitional systems that are observable and yet Darwinism demands transitions?

In my companion post to this one, I will take the reader through macroevolution, microevolution and define and demonstrate precisely what speciation is. In the process I expect to hoist Darwinists on their own petard, so to speak.

In a preemptive strike, I can tell you that some may wish to comment in protest that Darwinism does not even discuss the advent of the Universe or how first life came to be or how information was input into life. My response is that, if you are a naturalistic materialist, you must have a world view. Your world view will require that all things have a natural explanation. So -

No Universe, no Darwinists. Do Darwinists wish to concede that God created the Universe?
No first life, no Darwinists. Do Darwinists wish to concede that God created life?
No Information, no Darwinists. Do Darwinists wish to concede that God created information?

IF Darwinists will concede all of that, who needs them to explain all living things today? If God is the answer to those other questions then He makes a logical answer to the fourth question, too. If not, Darwinists need explanations for the first three. Compris?

A consistent world view has an explanation for where the Universe came from, where life came from, where information came from and how such a great wealth of plant and animal life can flourish on this planet when we can see no signs whatever of life anywhere else in the Universe.

This post has destroyed the underpinnings of Darwinism. Next post takes out the rest of it to the trash heap where it belongs.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Father's Day and Darwin versus Genesis One verse Three

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."

That is the third verse of chapter one in Genesis.

Gen 1:3 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃


I do not know of any particular controversy concerning Genesis 1:3. This language is straightforward and uncontroversial. But it is nevertheless strange language were the Genesis account authored by shepards and priests as a part of a creation myth. Why would they even conceive of light being formed before any sources of light had been made? Man would have said that God created the Sun and the Moon and the stars. But God asserts that He made light before having created any stars or the Sun.

Now that we know that light appears to have traveled in space for millions of years and that God asserts a week of creation somewhere in the vicinity of 7,000 years ago, it is of great interest that God made light first. The fact that He made light first opens up possibilities for what was done with that light and, since a God capable of creating all things does not do things for no reason, this tells us that He deliberately created light first and therefore had specific purposes for that light. He created light aside from the source stars and Sun. This points us farther into the scripture but today this is where we end.

Because today is Father's Day I say Happy Father's Day to all dads everywhere! My biological father passed away, but my Father God still remains. I am blessed to have six children and three grandchildren. I have taught them that God is their ultimate Father and I am just the guy in between. They really belong to Him and not to me and to teach them and guide them and help them find their way is my responsibility as well as my pleasure.

Many of you claim that I do not understand evolution, but in fact I do. I just do not believe in evolution. I have often tried to get commenters to disprove my fundamental allegations concerning the paucity of evidence for evolution and they usually either try to take the conversation elsewhere, answer the question with a question or simply accuse me of not understanding or being too dumb to comprehend evolution. Students of logic cannot possibly be impressed.

Conversely, commenters make outlandish claims about God and I could simply tell them that they do not understand the Bible. But I am actually going to take this opportunity to present an overview and an umbrella response to many specific accusations rather than just tell you that you are ignorant or stupid as is often done to me. Here we go -

1) God created everything and everyone, therefore He has ownership of and responsibility for the Universe. He created a set of natural laws that are logical and can be studied and used by mankind. He put in place a law for man's behavior and man broke the law. God has the right to punish man as He see fit. If a painter buys a canvas, a brush, and a set of paints and produces a painting, he then has the right to display it or sell it or rip it to shreds as he sees fit. It belongs to him.

2) God loves everyone. We will see as we go through Genesis that at the end of creation God says that it was good. That includes mankind. God made a spectacular Universe that is fine-tuned to allow for an Earth upon which we live and from which we can observe the Universe and try to understand it and how things work.

3) God is just. God invented right and wrong. God Himself is love and truth and light, but He made a Universe for mankind in which wrong could be chosen so that man could choose to obey God or choose to disobey Him. Adam and Eve had only one rule but unfortunately they decided to break it. A just God therefore had to punish them and the punishment had to be just. No man has the right or the intellect or the information necessary to be able to claim that God's penalty for sin is unjust. If you are not capable of creating the Universe then you do not have the perspective to know what is right and what is wrong. God has that perspective and knowledge.

4) God is merciful. God knew that mankind, having sinned, would be passing on sin down through subsequent generations. So when Adam and Eve sinned, God made changes to all of his created beings both animal and plant so that the world would not be any longer a glorious garden of peace and joy, but all of creation would be in a struggle to survive. This struggle would be instructive to mankind so that if man would be wise he would realize his need for the Creator to eventually redeem him from the struggle and restore him to a joyful relationship in the company of God.

5) God is judge. As Judge of the Universe, which He created and owns, God has the right to make covenants (legal contracts) with any and all of His creatures. God has made several agreements with mankind, all of which they have broken. The first covenant with Adam was broken and sin and death came to the world. God then made a second covenant with Adam and Eve in which they were required to make sacrifices for sin and have belief in God and follow his ways. Undoubtedly Adam and Eve learned a code of behavior from God that they passed on to their descendants. But over the years most of mankind denied God and did as they pleased until mankind in general was so evil that God decided to destroy the world that was in existence and the civilization of man with a world-wide flood, saving basic kinds of animals plus the one remaining believing family, that of Noah.

God then made agreements with Noah, with Abraham, with Isaac, with Moses and the children of Israel and with Joshua. Many of these agreements were complex with laws that were specific to that culture and that time.

6) God's covenant with Israel was more than a belief system. Many commenters take a part of the Books of the Law and accuse God of being mean or inconsistent, But the fact is that the Law was given to the portion of mankind who was willing to follow God. Those who were against God were in rebellion and legally liable for any punishment God would choose. Nevertheless God made provision for unbelievers to change their minds and join His people.

Many of the provisions of the Law were actually the legal code for a nation. Some were instructions specific for warfare, some were moral and ethical codes, some were sanitary laws. In a time in which there were no means of refrigeration and that cooking methods were primitive, prohibitions against pork (prone to salmonella poisoning) and shellfish (that spoil in many seasons easily and threaten health) and various animals prone to be scavengers were provisions meant to protect the health of the people of that day and not God deciding to be arbitrary.

7) God's covenant with Israel was broken and replaced. The Jews did not keep the Law and for many centuries their tendency to defy or ignore God or to simply pay lip service to God is thematic in prophetic literature and led to their nation, once rich and powerful, to be split and conquered and almost eliminated. God warned His people that there would be an end to these days of rebellion and hypocrisy but that He would make a way through a new covenant to bring a new and lasting solution to mankind. God told the Jews they would be conquered and carried away to other lands, and they were. God allowed the devout among the captives to rebuild the walls and the temple in Jerusalem and be a nation again, but a nation prone to be ruled by others. He warned that the temple would be destroyed and the days of The Law would come to an end. These things did happen.

8) Jesus Christ is the New Covenant. Jesus was the Lamb of God, the sacrifice worthy to pay the ultimate price for all of mankind and enact a new covenant. God offers salvation through belief in Christ via faith. If accepted, a man is legally declared free from the Law, his sins are cleansed by the blood of Christ and furthermore there is a literal change in which the spirit within a man is joined with God's spirit. If you receive Christ, you are changed on the inside and not just a criminal with a pardon. You are declared righteous and made different. The old Judaism of sacrifices and offerings was replaced with one sacrifice and offering, Christ.

Jesus died on a cross in Jerusalem and, at that time, the sun was darkened unexpectedly, and some people who had died were reported to have risen from their graves. The massive veil, which surrounded the Holy of Holies in the Temple and separated the presence of God from those in the Temple, that veil ripped from the top down and the Holy of Holies was exposed. But there was no longer any presence of God there, He had abandoned the Temple for the old covenant was gone and a new one in place. As predicted, the Temple itself was completely destroyed within one generation of the crucifixion of Christ in 70 AD as the Romans burned and tore it down stone-by-stone as they killed almost the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem.

Judaism as established by the Mosaic covenant was ended when Christ died and rose again, and God made sure to put an exclamation point on this by having the Temple completely destroyed.
The old Law was no longer in effect. Today you will find no Jews who keep the Law and do the sacrifices and offerings as laid out in the Books of the Law. After Christ rose from the dead, some Jews followed the new Way of Christ and some adhered to the old ways...until the Temple was destroyed.

9) God's Law is Love. We are told in the New Testament that the old laws and ordinances were nailed to the cross with Christ. We are told that the Old Testament is "for our learning" but that our law now is that of love. If we follow the ways of Christ we will seek to obey God by loving others. Loving others means making the effort to not simply adhere to a set of instructions but to proactively seek to do good. Certainly knowing the Ten Commandments and the history of the human race as told in scripture helps us know and understand God and to define love. There are OT books that have much wisdom, such as the Book of Proverbs, and yet Christians do not seek to obey a written set of instructions, they seek to be led by God by a combination of God's leading within our spirits and the wisdom gained by reading and knowing the Bible and understanding which portions are written TO Christians and which are written FOR us.

10) The Bible must be studied and believed to be understood. You must understand the context of each book, sometimes a specific portion of the book. You need to know who wrote the book, to whom it was written and how it fits into the sum of the Bible. Yes, in one place the Bible may tell you to go to war and kill every man and woman and even animal in one area and, in another place, turn your cheek when you are struck. In context these are not confusing but to the outsider looking in it seems like God keeps changing His mind. But it is man and the legal agreements between man and God that have changed, not God.

Example: People are shocked to know that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other but God did not prohibit this behavior at that time and genetically it was not unwise. But by the time Moses was giving the Law to the Jews, relationships between brother and sister and aunts and uncles and so on were now prohibited and genetically this also makes sense, because degradation in the DNA of mankind meant that intermarriage of close relatives would be asking for mutations.

The most common marriage in the history of mankind is between cousins. Now we know enough about genetics to understand that in these times cousin marriage can present some inherent dangers to the offspring. But this was not so in Mosaic times nor was it so in the time of Christ.
The culture of man has also changed. In Mosaic times men were becoming more likely to gather together into bigger and bigger cities and the percentage of those devoted to agriculture and animal herding was beginning to shrink. Now very few of us do what virtually everyone did in the time of Abraham, which was either to plant crops, raise animals, or both.

11) Man has changed, God has adjusted. God has remained a loving father who has adjusted His relationship with mankind over the years just as human fathers do with their children. When my children were very young I had very few rules and allowed very few freedoms. When they got older I worked hard to add both rules and responsibilities as they became more sophisticated and capable. Over the years I relaxed rules and gave over responsibilities to them, having worked on "putting the box inside the kid instead of putting the kid inside a box" during their childhood days.

Now there are four kids that live with us, three of them 21 years old or older and one about to enter his senior year of high school. Needless to say if we had to have an involved set of rules for these kids to obey there would be lots of hassle and grief and conflict. But we have raised our kids to be in agreement with us fundamentally and they respect our position as parents and providers. My kids let me know where they are going and what they are doing and I have almost no rules or prohibitions, giving them free reign because I love them and trust them and they are old enough to be responsible in large measure for themselves. They live here in order to finish their schooling and Debbie and I are glad to provide a launching pad for their lives. We are now in a state of mutual respect and concern for one another.

Because of this, having adult kids living at home is a pleasure rather than a burden.

God has such a relationship with me. We have a trust and love relationship. He has not burdened me with long lists of laws but trusts my judgment and expects that I will make the effort to do as He would do. Like the relationship between me and my kids, my God has given me the foundational absolutes to live by and the freedom to live out my life without a boom hovering over me waiting to be lowered.

12) You can therefore understand in one of two ways. You can read all of this from the outside looking in, understand that God is a Father and a judge and the owner of the Universe and comprehend that He has made legal and binding contracts with man that mankind has broken. You can comprehend that God's mercy has led Him to continue to offer new contracts and new ways for mankind to be redeemed until such time as He could offer a final and all-inclusive one-size-fits-all agreement in which He does all the work and all we need to do is accept. You can understand that from the outside looking in. Or, you could accept the offer and be on the inside looking out.

I have got to tell you, the view is a LOT better from in here!!!!!

God, thank you for creating all things and giving me life and a chance to live and love and know my Creator God! I am thankful I had a human father who loved me and a Heavenly Father who loves me still. He is your Father, too. I hope that, if you do not know Him, that you someday take the opportunity to do so.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Not Evil, Just Wrong?

Before I go back to Genesis, this excerpt from the Wall Street Journal which is exceedingly topical:

Filmmaker vs. Hysterics

The economic consequences of Al Gore.

Irish documentary filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have stirred up trouble before by debunking smug liberal hypocrisy. Their latest film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" takes on the hysteria over global warming and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor.

[Al Gore]

The film reminds us that environmentalists have been wrong in the past, as when they convinced the world to ban the pesticide DDT, costing the lives of countless malaria victims. The ban was finally reversed by the World Health Organization only after decades of debate. The two Irish filmmakers argue that if Al Gore's advice to radically reduce carbon emissions is followed, it would condemn to poverty two billion people in the world who have yet to turn on their first light switch.

Mr. McAleer and Ms. McElhinney have put needles into the pincushions of self-satisfied environmentalists before. In 2007, they produced a documentary called "Mine Your Own Business," which told the story of a poor village in Romania where environmentalists fought plans for a new gold mine. The village, where unemployment tops 70%, desperately needed the $1 billion in new investment and 600 jobs the project would bring. But environmentalists have blocked it, claiming it would pollute a pristine environment.Mr. McAleer, then a journalist with the Financial Times, considers himself an environmentalist. But when he covered the story for his paper, he says, "I found that almost everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false."

The two filmmakers are skilled at using provocative publicity tactics. On April 22, they will hold a public showing of their film at the Rachel Carson Elementary School in the suburbs of Seattle. "Since it was Rachel Carson who touched off the campaign to ban DDT, we thought showing 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' there would be appropriate," says Mr. McAleer.

Local environmentalists will probably not appreciate the gesture and will be appalled that the school agreed to rent out its auditorium to the renegade skeptics. But somebody might point out that it's not evil, just appropriate, to hold a debate about the real-world consequences of acting on global warming fears.


"I found that almost everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false."

How do you know an environmentalist is lying? When his mouth is moving!

In truth, the Rachel Carson Silent Spring DDT hysteria has killed off millions, most of them the poorer peoples of the tropical and subtropical zones and most of them people of color. Abortion takes the lives of an inordinate number of potentially poor people of color away from the world before they get a chance to even take one breath. Eugenics, a philosophy based upon the concept of macroevolution, has sterilized poor people of color and was a component of the justification behind Jim Crow laws. The pure Darwinist believes that some races of people are superior to others and that the rich are, to borrow a line from Animal Farm, more equal than others.

Before you accuse me of lying, check out where the Planned Parenthood offices are located nationwide. Check out the history of Eugenics in this country. Think about all the deaths caused by Malaria since the DDT ban was put in effect. Think about where most of those deaths occurred.

Would it surprise you to learn that Al Gore and many other politicians have invested in companies that would be enriched by carbon offsets and cap-and-trade policies?

It's not really about global warming, it is about wallet fattening.

Yep, you can have that last line for free!

Monday, June 15, 2009

global cooling strikes again, throw another log in

Still believe in global warming? Lots of people in New Jersey? Maybe not!

What they called global warming, we called good weather...and it is going away! See below:

The lingering cool temperatures being experienced by much of North America has weather forecasters wondering it we are entering a new Little Ice Age—a reference to the prolonged period of cold weather that afflicted the world for centuries and didn't end until just prior to the American Civil War. From historical records, scientists have found a strong correlation between low sunspot activity and a cooling climate. At the end of May, an international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA released a new prediction for the next solar cycle: Solar Cycle 24 will be one of the weakest in recent memory. Are we about to start a new Little Ice Age?

According to the report, Solar Cycle 24 will peak in May 2013 with a sunspot count well below average. “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,” says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. This does not mean that we won't feel the results of renewed solar storm activity here on Earth.

“Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather,” points out Biesecker. “The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013.” A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a storm similar to the 1859 disturbance—known as the “Carrington Event” after astronomer Richard Carrington who observed the associated solar flare—occurred today, it could cause $1 to 2 trillion in damages to society's high-tech infrastructure and require four to ten years for complete recovery. Reportedly, the 1859 storm electrified transmission cables, set fires in telegraph offices, and produced Northern Lights so bright that people could read newspapers by their glow.

As we reported in Chapter 10 of The Resilient Earth, the most interesting feature of sunspots is that their number increases and decreases in a regular rhythm over about a decade. This regular cycle was first noticed by the German astronomer Samuel Heinrich Schwabe in 1843. This has become known as the solar magnetic activity cycle, or sunspot cycle. The number of sunspots in each cycle is not constant; there have been periods where many sunspots were observed, and others when sunspots seem to disappear altogether. Sightings from China, Korea and Japan between 28 BC and 1743 AD averaged only six sunspots per year. None were observed between 1639 and 1700, a period know as the Maunder Minimum.

The period from roughly 1300 to 1850 is known as the “Little Ice Age,” a period characterized by unusually long and cold winters. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century, but it is generally agreed that there were three temperature minima, occurring around 1650, 1770, and 1850. Each minima separated by slight warming intervals. These periods coincides closely with times of solar inactivity, with some of the worst weather occurring squarely during the Maunder Minimum.

The Maunder Minimum is named after the English astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851-1928). From studying historical records of sunspot counts, called the sunspot number, Maunder discovered that sunspots were virtually absent during this period, and disappeared altogether during the decade starting in 1670. Astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots during the 70 year period from 1645 to 1715. Normal sunspot activity would have produced 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots.

Already in the midst of the Little Ice Age's colder than average climate, Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland, sea ice crept south from the Arctic, and the famous canals in the Netherlands froze regularly—an event that is rare today. In London, ice festivals were held on the frozen Themes and in New York City people could walk to Manhattan and Staten Island on the ice. On the down side, crops failed and many died of the cold.

In 1991, a pair of Danish meteorologists published a paper in which they pointed out a remarkably strong correlation between the length of the solar activity cycle and the global mean temperature in the northern hemisphere. Not all activity cycles are the same length, with longer cycles of 12-14 years duration seeming to indicate cooler global temperatures than shorter 9-10 year cycles. It is difficult to assess the effect of recent solar cycles on global climate, let alone those from the Maunder minimum, because of the relatively short time span for which detailed observations exist. Climate data for the past 100 years are spotty enough, climate records become sparse to nonexistent when looking back more than a century.

The correlation between temperature and sunspot activity has been commented on before on this site (see “Scientists Discover The Sun Does Affect Earth's Climate”), so I will not go into great detail about it here. However, it is interesting to note that a comparison of sea surface temperature and the number of observed sunspots over the past 150 years or so yeilds an astoundingly close match—much closer than the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Scientists are not sure how solar activity and space weather are linked to climate here on Earth. They do know that the last time sunspots all but disappeared for an extended period of time our planet experienced a dramatic downswing in temperature. Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley—the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set modern records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance.

There are variations in the 11 year cycle and other cycles of longer duration also seem to be at work here. Naturally, scientists have tried to predict the changing activity of the sun by examining the historical records and, more recently, using computer models. This is not to say that the predictions are always correct, no one correctly predicted the current ebb in solar activity. “In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it,” said Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Cente. “Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007.”

“It turns out that none of our models were totally correct," admited Pesnell, NASA's lead representative on the prediction panel. “The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way.” Though the face of the sun is not as blemish free as it was a few months ago, the latest images from SOHO show sunspot activity is picking up a bit. But the current level of activity is still quite low. In fact, the sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare. What does this portend for the weather here on planet Earth?

According to expert long-range forecaster Joe Bastardi, areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a “year without a summer.” This is a reference to the year 1816, also known as the Poverty Year, during which severe and abnormally cold summer weather destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the American Northeast and eastern Canada. According to Bastardi the jet stream is displaced abnormally southward this spring, which is suppressing the number of thunderstorms that can form. The ones that do form in areas of the Ohio Valley and West are forming in places with very cold temperatures, which can lead to thunderstorms more electrically active than normal.

Despite claims by global warming activists that rising temperatures are extending growing seasons around the world, the opposite seems to be happening this year. Cool weather has pushed growth of Western Canada's wheat and barley crop at least 10 days behind schedule, according to the Canadian Wheat Board. “You're pushing development into a period with better likelihood of getting a frost,” said Bruce Burnett, director of weather and market analysis for the Canadian Wheat Board. “It's not particularly what we need at this moment. It's just too cool.”

Proving that this isn't only a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon, Brazil may cut this year’s corn output forecast for a third consecutive time, as a frost in several states caused more crop damage. According to Silvio Porto, agriculture policy director, corn growers may harvest less than the 49.9 million metric tons forecast previously announced as frost struck Parana and Mato Grosso do Sul states in the past two weeks. “It’s a worrying situation as corn has already suffered with a severe drought,” Porto said. “Still, it’s too early to know the size of the damage.”

New record cold temperatures have been seen in a number of locations around the world, marking this as one of the coldest springs in years. With reports of late season frost and snow falls, some are already forecasting a very cool summer. Not trying to sound alarmist or start any rumors but scientists' best conjecture regarding the conditions that signal the start of a new glacial period are cool, cloudy summers. Is this the beginning of Little Ice Age II, the sequel? If so, we will look back fondly on the time we were all so concerned about global warming. Remember, in the words of SF author Orson Scott Card, “'global warming' is just another term for 'good weather.'”

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Debbie Defends Marriage and Heterosexuality (Radar introduces our dogs)

Jack the Pointweiler says to be good to Debbie or share the same fate as the pillow!

Three out of every three dogs recommend Debbie. Pictured with Debbie are Chloe, the Bloodhound/German Shepard puppy and Faith, the Alaskan Husky. You can see the corner of Boggart's bird cage in the upper left of the photo.

Debbie is my wife, my best friend and lately also my co-blogger. We share many interests, including a love of people and a love of nature and a love of God. Probably much of the love we have for others flows from the love of God. Fortunately for me, Debbie has an inquisitive mind and is not satisfied with leaving difficult problems on the "back burner." Therefore she and I never find ourselves bored. There is always something to research, a book to read, a question to consider.

Debbie is a loving wife and mother/stepmother to six children (three boys, three girls), three of whom live at home going to college and one still at home attending high school. She is grandmother to three (two boys, one girl)
and responsible for the care and feeding of Radar.

Debbie formerly worked for Project Reality, as did 2003 Miss America Erika Harold.

Debbie has been a champion of the right of children and teenagers to have access to responsible rather than slanted sex education information and the right of a child to be born rather than murdered while still in the womb. Debbie works with the the Prime Time youth group while having a full-time job as a household engineer caring for five other humans, three dogs, two fish tanks and a bird.
Erika Harold Biography

Guest blogger Debbie, who as an NFL football fan knows that the best defense is a good offense:

Somehow on the thread that spun from the Debbie Disputes Deluded Dawkins blogpost the subject of homosexual marriage came up from the discussion of Dawkin's idea of the Zeitgeist. I guess the commenters preferred to talk about that rather than Dawkin's lame explanation of spider’s threads.

How dare I stand up for heterosexual marriage! How dare I say premarital sex is wrong! How dare I say that single women and lesbians should not be allowed to bring children into the world with artificial insemination! How dare I say homosexuality is an unnatural sexual obsession! How dare I believe in the Word of God! A tolerant Zeitgeist society is appalled at my insolence!

To the unbiased the harm the misuse of sex has caused on human society should be obvious. And homosexuality is one of the misuses of sex that is harmful, that is why God disapproves of it.

It is not hard to find statistics to show physical harm. The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) has loads of them. Here are a few dealing with homosexual men as an example:

(MSM means men that have sex with men)


Between 1999 and 2007 the number of gonorrhea tests for all anatomic sites combined increased in all eight cities. The trend in the number of positive gonorrhea tests for all anatomic sites varied by city. For all cities, the number of positive gonorrhea tests in symptomatic men accounted for the majority of the overall positive tests (Figure X).

In 2007, 79% (range: 58-90%) of MSM were tested for urethral gonorrhea, 37% (range: 5-51%) were tested for rectal gonorrhea, and 58% (range: 5-83%) were tested for pharyngeal gonorrhea.

In 2007, median clinic urethral gonorrhea positivity in MSM was 8% (range: 5-15%), median rectal gonorrhea positivity was 7% (range: 3-11%), and median pharyngeal gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 1-13%).


In 2007, a median of 79% (range: 59-90%) of MSM visiting participating STD clinics were tested for urethral Chlamydia, compared to 65% (range: 57-68%) in 1999. In 2007, the median urethral Chlamydia positivity was 7% (range: 5-9%).


In 2007, 79% (range: 60-96%) of MSM visiting participating STD clinics had a nontreponemal serologic test for syphilis (RPR or VDRL) performed, compared with 69% (range: 53-93%) in 1999 (Figure Y).

Overall, median seroreactivity among MSM tested for syphilis increased from 4% (range: 3-13%) in 1999 to 8% (range: 4-18%) in 2007.

Syphilis seroreactivity is used as a proxy for syphilis prevalence and has been correlated with prevalence of P&S syphilis in this population.14

HIV Infection

Overall, the percent of MSM tested for HIV in STD clinics increased between 1999 and 2007. In 2007, a median of 70% (range: 38-87%) of MSM visiting STD clinics who were not previously known to be HIV-positive were tested for HIV, while 44% (range: 23-55%) were tested in 1999. In 2007, median HIV positivity in MSM was 4% (range: 2-5%) (Figure Z).

In 2007, median HIV prevalence among MSM, including persons previously known to be HIV-positive and persons testing HIV-positive at their current visit, was 13% (range: 7-15%).

HIV/STDs by Race/Ethnicity

HIV positivity among persons tested for HIV during 2007 varied by race/ethnicity, but was highest in black MSM. HIV positivity was 2% (range: 2-3%) in whites, 8% (range: 2-10%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 2-7%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).

HIV positivity was 9% (range: 6-15%) in whites, 17% (range: 15-24%) in blacks, and 14% (range: 6-16%) in Hispanics.

In 2007, urethral gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 5-14%) in whites, 15% (range: 7-27) in blacks, and 6% (range: 4-14%) in Hispanics. Rectal gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 2-10%) in whites, 7% (range: 2-11%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 1-7%) in Hispanics. Pharyngeal gonorrhea positivity was 6% (range: 1-15%) in whites, 6% (range: 1-13%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 1-10%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).

Urethral Chlamydia positivity was 6% (range: 3-8%) in whites; 8% (range: 5-10%) in blacks, and 5% (range: 3-13%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).

Median syphilis seroreactivity was 7% (range: 4-12%) in whites; 14% (range: 8-30%) in blacks, and 11% (range: 3-22%) in Hispanics (Figure AA).

STDs by HIV Status, STD Clinics

In 2007, urethral gonorrhea positivity was 11% (range: 8-16%) in HIV-positive MSM and 7% (range: 5-15%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status; rectal gonorrhea positivity was 10% (range: 4-14%) in HIV-positive MSM and 4% (range: 3-10%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status; pharyngeal gonorrhea positivity was 4% (range: 2-12%) in HIV-positive MSM and 5% (range: 1-13%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status.

Median urethral Chlamydia positivity was 6% (range: 3-12%) in HIV-positive MSM and 7% (range: 4-9%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status.

Median syphilis seroreactivity was 32% (range: 19-42%) in HIV-positive MSM and 6% (range: 3-13%) in MSM who were HIV-negative or of unknown HIV status.

Nationally Notifiable Syphilis Surveillance Data

P&S syphilis increased in the United States between 2003 and 2007, with a 64.0% increase in the number of P&S syphilis cases among men and a 39.0% increase in the number of cases among women (Tables 26 and 27). In 2007, the rate of reported P&S syphilis among men (6.6 cases per 100,000 males) was 6.0 times greater than the rate among women (1.1 case per 100,000 females) (Tables 26 and 27). Higher rates in men are observed for all racial and ethnic groups.

In 2007, MSM accounted for 65% of P&S syphilis cases in the United States. MSM account for more cases than heterosexual men or women for all racial and ethnic groups. (Figure 38) Additional information on syphilis can be found in the Syphilis section (National Profile).

Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP)

GISP is a national sentinel surveillance system designed to monitor trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities of strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the United States.15,16

GISP also reports the percentage of N. gonorrhoeae isolates obtained from MSM. Overall, the proportion of isolates from MSM in selected STD clinics from GISP sentinel sites have increased steadily from 4% in 1988 to 22.4% in 2007 (Figure BB). Additionally, the proportion of isolates coming from MSM varies geographically with the largest percentage from the West Coast (Figure CC).

Additional information on GISP may be found in the Gonorrhea section (National Profile).

(all pictures and tables and graphs noted can be accessed at the original website, not posted here at the blog)

How can anyone pretend that this sexual activity is not harmful and we should have GLBT Pride month and encourage this activity? If you didn’t know, the President proclaimed, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.”
(Oops, I was mistaken, he had the L before the G). Should I worry about the government putting me on a “watch list”?

By the way, how come nobody says anything about bisexual marriage? They are always put together with gays and lesbians. If they aren’t sexually obsessed, who is? Maybe they should marry the transsexuals and all be happy?

I’m thinking that there is no evidence I could present that would satisfy those whose god is the Zeitgeist.



Could it be that biases are demonstrated by people who ignore or mislead the public about studies that have been done on these subjects? Here is a link and an excerpt from one of the many sources easily available to anyone who really wants to know if homosexuality and other non-heterosexual behaviors have any negative effect on humanity.

From the Family Research Institute

Pro-Gay Bias In Study of Pedophilia

Homosexuals are considerably more apt to involve themselves sexually with the underage. Anyone actually in contact with the phenomenon has to acknowledge this fact, perhaps most strongly explicated by the chairman of FRI in 1985.1 While homosexual spokesmen have disputed his conclusion, in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys…. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles” (p. 464). These figures are quite similar to those we at FRI have used since the early 1980s — figures that for which gay activists have roundly criticized us. So how do Blanchard, et al., most of whom are from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, handle this fact that seems so damaging to the homosexual cause? By telling people not to notice, or if they do, not to draw the obvious conclusions.

Here’s how they ended their article:

“Implications for Societal Attitudes

A few closing comments are necessary to preclude any misunderstanding or misuse of this study. First, the statistical association of homosexuality and pedophilia concerns development events in utero or in early childhood. Ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls. Second, the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant to whether it should be considered a psychopathology. That question has already been decided in the negative, on the grounds that homosexuality does not inherently cause distress to the individual or any disability in functioning as a productive member of society (Friedman, 1988; Spitzer, 1981).” (p. 476)

Really? “developmental events in utero or early childhood” — what is the evidence for this apparent attempt to exculpate those who engage in this behavior? Consider also “does not inherently cause distress to the individual.” Both citations are relatively ‘ancient’ in that the cited authors could not have availed themselves of the research in the 1990s — when a number of large, relatively unbiased studies on nonvolunteers were published. In 1994, the University of Chicago sex survey12 reported that homosexuals — both men and women — less frequently claimed to be happy and more frequently claimed to be unhappy than heterosexuals. More frequent mental disturbance by homosexuals of both sexes has been reported in every large, random-sample study on the issue published in the 1990s! (e.g., the Christchurch study; the NHANES study; the large military twins-registry study; the 1996 NHSDA). And in 2001, in the Archives of General Psychiatry, a large representative sample of the Dutch population3 yielded the same finding, with gays twice and lesbians two or three times more apt to have one or more disorders in either the past 12 months or lifetime .So even from the rather narrow perspective of “distress to the individual” the statement is, as near as can now be determined, decidedly false.

Likewise “any disability in functioning as a productive member of society.” Where have these scholars been living? AIDS has devastated homosexual men, and disproportionately affected homosexual women. A host of self-inflicted problems (e.g., higher rates of suicide, substance abuse) as well has higher rates of physical disease, mental disturbance, murder, and accidents contribute to a sharply reduced lifespan.4 And if as a class you die young, and you are disproportionately involved in substance abuse and corruption of youth, you cannot contribute as much to society as those who live normal lifespans and do not endanger their neighbors with their drug-use or their neighbors’ children with their sexual predilections....

Feel free to read the rest of the article available at the link. The sources are listed at the end of the article at that website.

Aberrant sexual behavior is dangerous for the individual and those who come in contact with the individual. It is a primary factor in the higher incidences of drug use, depression and disease among those who veer off the heterosexual path. Juveniles are endangered by the predatory sexual nature of adult homosexuals which has been statistically demonstrated.

As Debbie's post demonstrates, heterosexuality is better for society in terms of health and therefore a basis for a stronger, healthier nation.

It is not simply a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Let them eat...Lard? Paradigms that give no quarter

Note-all picture URLs will be credited at the end of this blog post.

You know, you can say pretty much anything you want to say. Advertisers have been inundating the consumer with ads via every media outlet imaginable and often do so without the awareness of the consumer. For instance, have you noticed that, while most people in the USA use PC laptops and notebooks, movie characters consistently have Apples and will often position the notebook so that the tell-tale little Apple logo is showing prominently? Have you ever seen a movie or television program where all the new cars are made by one company? Or even a situation in which every car is a new car (this happened more often in the past).

The advertisers are all around us - television, internet, magazines, radio, billboards, on packages and signs in stores - ubiquitous!

Maybe some don't mind the baseless and completely untrue nature of many ads. Once it was much worse - cocaine cough drops were being advertised for children and in fact quite a few drugs to quiet children once were advertised as a for instance. Remarkable and incredible claims could be made without verification and sometimes the ads were unintentionally hilarious.

About the same time this fine product was being advertised, we had the one below:

I don't suppose that using babies to sell cigarettes is in any way at all deceptive or blatantly crass, do you?

The advertisers of the orthodox paradigm are not necessarily overloaded with scruples, either. A recent example is the amazing and marvelous wejustfoundthemissinglinkthatohyeahwehaditinthecornerfortwentysixyears

Uhm, er, ah, it's just a Lemur, folks. A lemur.

As the owner of the photo above says:

Darwinists have never mentioned the following facts, out of a fear of the truth about this fossil they have speculated so much over eventually coming to light:

1. The fossil is 95% complete. It has therefore been possible to examine its every detail, including the animal’s internal organs. And apart from a few details pointing to variations unique to individual species, IT IS A PERFECT SPECIES OF LEMUR.

2. Darwinist publications have claimed that Ida has an opposable thumb, and that this feature is different to that in other mammals but the same as that in humans. The fact is that all living lemurs have thumbs of this kind.

3. In the same way, Darwinists have tried to point to Ida’s nails as evidence for their claims. But other primates also do have nails.

4. Darwinists maintain that Ida’s ankle bone “is the same as that in human beings.” But the other foot structure in this life form is entirely different to that in humans. Comparing one single bone in the feet while ignoring all the other differences is a familiar element of Darwinist propaganda.

5. Darwinists say that the fossil, different from present-day lemurs, does not have fused teeth in the middle of its bottom jaw or a grooming claw, and seek to use these as evidence for their claims. The fact is that the animal’s teeth resemble those of monkeys. The lack of a grooming claw, on the other hand, is a feature unique to the species. The absence of these characteristics from an extinct lemur exhibiting variations peculiar to the species is not evidence that the creature evolved. It is in no way evidence that this animal is “the imaginary ancestor of man.” Its teeth and toes are perfect. It exhibits no features that are in the process of evolving, semi-developed, deficient or abnormal.

6. The fossil was actually discovered in 1983. It has taken 26 years for this huge sensation to break. The reason for the long delay is probably that the fossil is being used as a vehicle for conjecture just when Darwinists need it the most, when they have been totally routed. From having been kept as an ordinary fossil lemur, it suddenly became the greatest discovery Darwinists had ever made.

All the Darwinist speculation around this fossil is based on the totally unscientific idea that “this characteristic resembles man.” Of course life forms resemble one another. But this is no proof of the lie of evolution. Instead of depicting similarities as evidence for the fiction that is evolution, Darwinists need to bring a real transitional fossil, and point to deficient but developing, semi-developed or abnormal structures in it. But it is impossible for them to do that. Because, like all other life forms, this lemur was created from nothing and in a perfect state by our Almighty Lord. And the fossils prove that.

Not only do the orthodox hate hearing from the other side as they blithely go about continuing the world wide indoctrination of the common man, they apparently are not too fond of hearing from my wife, Debbie, based on the outpouring of comments attached to her recent post!

Well guys, Debbie will be posting again anyway. In fact, a good healthy discussion with the opposition seems to get her going. My wife is a crusader, a true believer, and an expert in the field of sex education (and worked in that field before marrying me and becoming a household engineer) as well as a Bible brain and a political science enthusiast.

One day Darwinism will have gone the way of the Edsel and we will all sit around and wonder at how easily the world could and can be fooled.

"There's a sucker born every minute" Said PT Barnum or Mark Twain or Michael Cassius MacDonald or...well, whoever said it, they said it. Barnum may have also been the first to speak the line below, although we usually give credit to President Abraham Lincoln, who did know his way around a memorable phrase.

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Like Copernicus waiting for the world to understand that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, I am sure one day people will see that God created and that Darwin was just an amateur scientist with an aversion to God and a tenuous and frail hypothesis that does not stand up in the light of evidence. But, hey, Henry thought the Edsel was going to be the flagship of the industry and destined to be produced for decades to come.

There is no shame in being wrong, but it is indeed a shame if you refuse to even consider that you could be...those who do not investigate and test their own worldviews are puzzling to me. How can you so happily just drink the Kool Aid without checking out the ingredients first?

The below are links to the photos posted on this blog today -