Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

A Jewish woman helps an Islamic girl remain a Christian and alive!

Pamela Geller, Newsmax: Media Bears False Witness Against Rifqa Bary

You have to read it to believe it, really. Or this one. Some very big organizations are working in concert to try to get this girl killed and paint the scenario as anti-Islam bias rather than what is actually happening.

Jewish Oddysseus has more to say about it. One young girl against CAIR and a conspiracy but so far America is still free enough to keep her from harm.

Photo and political cartoon courtesy Muslims Against Sharia

Have we forgotten what Islamic Fascism intends to do to us? Just check out what recently took place in Pakistan!

"Gojra, Pakistan. Hundreds of Muslims burned and looted Christian homes, killing seven Christians. Five, including three women and two children, were burnt alive. Gojra, a village about 100 miles west of Lahore, was the scene of an angry Muslim mob determined to avenge what they believed was the desecration of a Koran, the Muslim holy book, one week earlier.

That's right, hundreds of religious zealots, burning women and children alive because they thought someone had mistreated a book. When it was over, dozens of houses were torched and Faith Bible Pentecostal Church lay in ruins. Two villagers were shot dead, residents said. Five others, including two children, burned alive.

Christians make up about 2 percent of the Punjab population and are becoming frequent targets. In June, a mob attacked Christian homes in the Kasur district of Punjab for allegedly dishonoring the prophet Mohammed. In Pakistan, which has strict laws against blasphemy, people can be imprisoned for life or put to death for insulting Islam.

The riots prompted angry protests by Christians and human rights activists in Lahore, the Punjab's provincial capital. Rights groups accused the police of failing to respond quickly enough to prevent the violence from escalating."

Islamic Nations Slaughter and Enslave Christians
By Tom Barrett

THERE IS NOT ONE CHRISTIAN NATION ON EARTH WHERE MUSLIMS ARE PERSECUTED. Yet in 83% of nations where the majority of the population are Muslims, there is systematic government persecution of Christians. (See "Religious Freedom in the Majority Islamic Countries" in the Resources section below.) This persecution includes imposing the death penalty for sharing the Christian faith with a Muslim; national laws prohibiting conversion from Islam to Christianity; destruction of churches; and murder or expulsion of Christian missionaries. Even in the few predominantly Muslim countries where the government does not openly participate in the persecution, it ignores and even encourages illegal persecution by Muslims against Christians.

Remember this one?

February 19, 2006

Nigerian Muslims Slaughter Christians, Torch 11 Churches

From the BBC - sixteen people have been killed in northern Nigeria during protests by Muslims over cartoons!. A Catholic Priest and 3 children are among the dead!

The AP is reporting that 15 churches were burned in the mainly Muslim region. One group threw a tyre around one man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze," and the rioting Muslims stormed through the streets for three hours before police restored order.

Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters

Islam, the religion of peace, and Terrorism

"Truthfully your condeming of our faith would probably have you warned, and if you persisted, would have consequences, of which i am not sure. But there have been cases where people have been put to death for MALICIOUSLY harming the image of our noble master Muhammad, the best creation of God. But you fail to see that islam means peace, just as when we meet each other and say 'assalamu alaikum' 'peace be upon you' to our brothers. We are a tolerant religion, and our communities have and still have many faiths still practicing their own religions in islamic land. From the time of the prophet up until today."

The preceding quote was received via e-mail from a Muslim. Notice that he says Islam is a religion of peace, yet that there would be "consequences" for me in my condemnation of Islam. He then mentions how people have been killed for harming the image of Mohammed. Quite frankly, Mohammed damages his own image when he marries multiple women, advocates lying, 1 and spreads his religion by the sword.

Nevertheless, is Islam a religion of peace? Many of its advocates say that it is. Let's see what the Qur'an actually says.

  1. The Qur'an tells muslims to kill and go to war to fight for Islam: Quran, chapters (Surahs) 9:5; 2:191; 2:193; 3:118; 4:75,76; 5:33, 8:12; 8:65; 9:73,123; 33:60-62.
  2. Fight for Allah: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).
  3. Muslims are to battle for Allah: "Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak," (Quran 4:76).
  4. Kill those against Islam: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter," (Quran 5:33).
  5. Beheading: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 13That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12).
  6. Allah urges war: "O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand," (Quran 8:65).
  7. Slay non-muslims: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5).
  8. Allah urges war: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination," (Quran 9:73).
  9. Allah urges war: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)," (Quran 9:123).
  10. Allah urges killing: "...the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist... 61Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 62(Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah, (Quran 33:60-62).
  11. Beheading: "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens..." (Quran 47:4).
  12. Allah loves those who fight for him: "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Quran 61:4).

As you can see, the Qur'an definitely teaches that it's people are to fight for the cause of Islam. This list of verses is important because they are within the holy book of Islam. What are we to conclude if a Muslim is to take the Quran seriously? Is he not obligated to slay non-Muslims, to go to war, to kill those against Islam, etc.? Isn't this what the verses are teaching? Yes, they are and this is the source of Islamic Terrorism.


In Islam, there is no guarantee of salvation except in one instance, dying in Jihad. Jihad is the struggle, the battle against those who would oppose Islam and what Islam stands for. This is very important because in the Muslim religion, there is no guarantee of salvation. Please consider the following verses:

Then, he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) heavy, 7Will be in a life of good pleasure and satisfaction. 8 But he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) light,- 9Will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit. (Surah 101:6-9)

In Islam, there is no assurance that the Muslim will be forgiven of his sins. As you can see, the Quran teaches a system of works righteousness. Therefore, no Muslim can ever know whether or not he has done enough good in order to please Allah. This is a burden that many Muslims do not like to bear.


If we can see that the Islamic system of salvation based upon works cannot guarantee salvation, but fighting in jihad can, and we could see why Muslims terrorists would be eager to die (and take others with them) for the cause of their religion. It is the only way they can be guaranteed paradise. It is this fundamental principle in Islam that encourages terrorism.

  • "Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value)." (4:74, Yusifali).
  • "Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (to the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out," (Hadith Vol. 9, Book 93, # 555).

Do Muslims practice the Qur'an principle of killing non Muslims? Yes they do. Following is a list of some articles that you can read a demonstrate some of the actions taken by Moslems in different parts of the world.

Since Islam teaches that the entire world is to be subjected to its laws, we need to prepare ourselves to withstand the future attacks motivated from the Quran that teaches killing in subjection of the unbelievers. We Christians need to be in prayer for the Muslims so that they would come to know the truth of who Jesus is and follow his peaceful ways, instead of promoting Islam by the sword.

  1. 1. Muhammad advocates lying: "Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf]?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it," (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369). Go here to check this for yourself:


President Obama lied to us and Dick Cheney is willing to tell the truth.

What is happening to us? The Democrats in association with ACORN have destroyed the banking industry and the mortgage system and have begun bankrupting and taking control of the auto industry. They want to add several layers of bureaucracy to the medical system and give everyone "free" healthcare that would probably destroy the economy that even now is barely scuffling along.

Democrats seem intent upon destroying our nation and RINOs exist that have helped them in the process.

Look around you, what do you see? Neighbors losing their jobs. Stocks losing value, retirement funds drying up, houses abandoned, for sale signs in unmowed yards.

Cash for Clunkers???!!! A system to remove good vehicles that poorer families could afford from the marketplace while selling new cars to the small percentage of well-off folks who can buy them.

I checked. My 2000 Chrysler Town and Country van would have maxed out the "cash for clunkers" trade-in allowance. But I have kept it in top shape and probably will get another 100,000 miles out of it. I could probably sell it for four thousand dollars to someone right now at a minimum. It has real value to a family with the need for good transportation. But cash for clunkers would have destroyed the vehicle in a very stupid way (first you destroy the engine, so then you cannot even drive it into a car carrier to move it to a junk yard so then it must be individually towed!) and basically thrown the value of the vehicle away. And where did that money come from, that $4,500 cash for clunker allowance? You and me.

The old 1994 van I traded in when I bought the 2000 van would also have qualifed for cash for clunkers, despite the fact that it would not really be worth even one grand!

Read below for what may be the "dumbest government program ever!"

Cash for Clunkers, RIP: A waste of money and assets

  • A few billion dollars worth of wealth was destroyed. About 750,000 cars, many of which could have provided consumer value for many years, were thrown in the trash. Suppose each clunker was worth $3,000 at a guess, that would mean that the government destroyed $2.25 billion of value.
  • Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.

But the real reason it’s the dumbest program ever:

  • The auto industry received a short-term “sugar high” at the expense of lower future sales when the program is over. The program apparently boosted sales by about 750,000 cars this year, but that probably means that sales over the next few years will be about 750,000 lower. The program probably further damaged the longer-term prospects of auto dealers and automakers by diverting their attention from market fundamentals in the scramble for federal cash.

How many people bought cars that would have bought them soon anyway as they tired of their gas guzzlers? The better question will be how many didn’t. Whether Obama realizes it or not, people have economic and style incentive to trade up on a regular basis. In this case, Obama may have distorted the curve to entice people to do so now, but that just means that those consumers will not be in the market for a vehicle in the near-to-midterm future. It didn’t create sales; it just speeded them up.

Cash for Clunkers illustrates how the Obama administration does things - big, expensive, causing no pain to rich people, hurting the poor.

When the bottom of the economy drops out, the poor suffer and the middle class begins to join their ranks. But the rich (like Obama) just keep on keeping on.

Meanwhile I am waiting for the administration to rename the White House The Politiburo. They proposed and voted in a racist to the Supreme Court. They have a "Diversity Czar" who wants to stifle free speech by bringing back the (un)fairness doctrine.

The Science Czar is a nutcase!

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

By: Cao, Filed under: Environmentalism @ 7:57 pm

Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population - Zombietime

This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise since the lefty “science” people cling to whatever propganda is popular. Today it’s “global warming” which should put an end to human progress and will control what kind of cars we drive, etc. - until we can barely afford to eat.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

Both. It’s the Messiah’s ObamaEnviroNazi, John Holdren; the Science Czar, who could theoretically be one of the Science blog loons. Read the rest here.


Free speech and after that just plain freedom is at stake in America!

The Obama Administration ran on HOPE and CHANGE. Well, they have succeeding in CHANGING HOPE INTO DESPAIR!

Want to see a chick in a bikini?

Obama's Hope and Change are as hot and inviting as this one:

You know?

Of course, the Obamites are still threatening the poor and hungry with Cap and Trade but the Washington Post is not on the bandwagon:

One Cheer for WaPo’s Abandonment of Cap and Trade

By E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

Put simply, Waxman-Markey is a mess. The longer Americans examine the cap-and-trade bill before Congress, the worse it looks. It picks winners and losers. It’s filled with special favors doled out, on the one hand, to rent-seeking corporations who sought competitive edges not through better service to the public but through political favors, and, on the other hand, to politicians whose votes were, quite frankly, for sale.

Will cap and trade even work? The European experience suggests it won’t work. It fails to yield a stable and predictable price for carbon, which is essential if businesses are to make long-term investments relative to it. It hasn’t brought European emissions down.

The Washington Post’s call to switch from cap and trade to a straightforward carbon tax is therefore, so far as it goes, welcome. It makes much better economic sense than cap and trade.

But this isn’t the time for opponents of cap and trade to fold their hands in smug relief and say, “Okay, bring on the carbon tax instead.”

Why not? Because the best reason to oppose cap and trade was not that it was economically inefficient and riddled with pitfalls, but that its purported rationale (lost sight of in the Washington sausage making) was to fight global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Scientific study after study after study after study after study after study has confirmed that carbon dioxide’s effect on global temperature is only about one-sixth that claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (let alone by extremists like Al Gore and James Hansen) and that solar cycles, cosmic cycles, and planetary oceanic and atmospheric cycles, not human emissions of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gases, control global climate.

That means we have nothing to fear from carbon dioxide emissions and much to gain from their enhancement of plant growth (and hence crop yields) all over the world. It also means reducing emissions will have no significant effect on future global temperature. Even the 0.09 degree C reduction (itself undetectable and with no biological/ecological effect) calculated from successful implementation of Waxman-Markey must be cut to one-sixth: 0.015 degree C.

Reducing emissions won’t work. It won’t help us. It will hurt us.

Environmental lobbies and others committed to growing government have repeatedly used the tactic of first trying for extreme legislation and then settling for something less extreme--but still a step in the preferred direction. Now is not the time--if it ever was--to cave in to such incrementalism. The problem with CO2 emission reduction legislation isn’t just that it’s extreme. It’s that it’s wrong. It doesn’t just go too far in a good direction. It goes in the wrong direction.

Other than that, everything is just fine...

PS -

ACLU lose! Free speech wins! Please share with your readers! thanks, Jay

Santa Rosa County School District clerical assistant Michelle Winkler has had her day and court and has come out victorious. Winkler was accused of violating a court order that banned school officials from participating in religious activities on campus before, during, and after school hours when she asked her husband who is not employed by the school district to offer prayer at an event.

Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver seems surprised why the matter even made it to court. “And in fact in this case, Michelle Winkler was at an event after school at a Naval facility, off site, that was privately sponsored,” he explains.

Staver, whose firm represented Winkler, says the American Civil Liberties Union told the media going into the hearing that they had a rock-solid case. But after seven-and-a-half hours, the judge found that Winkler was not in violation of the court order — and that the court order was vague and did not specify as to what constituted a school-sponsored religious activity.

As the Christian attorney puts it: “The wheels came off the ACLU’s steamroller.”

Monday, August 03, 2009

Do good dogs go to heaven?

The Bible makes mention of animals in paradise = lion, lamb, asp for instance. We believe that only human beings have immortal spirits while animals such as dogs have souls that expire when they die. But perhaps because Heaven is for us and for God, He keeps our favorite animals with Him waiting for us? I cannot prove it by scripture, but I would love it to be true. Because Jack is dead.

Before Y2k, before 9/11, I was a single dad with full custody of three teen/tweens. We were hurting emotionally and we had no idea what was coming. I was our sole support, I had already been in two major accidents and was used to living with pain and two of my three kids also had needed surgeries. We learned that a young dog needed a good home from a friend and I took my kids to see him. He was maybe nine months old, a big puppy and my children were surprised at how big he was, but soon he was the fourth child...well, with all the other kids who half-lived at my house he was somewhere in the top seven or eight!

Jackson Dogson was his official name, he had been kept outside most of the time. But we immediately house broke him by showing him the door to go outside in the back yard and never did he ever go in the house. Not even when we got stuck and were gone once for over thirty hours. Boy, did he EVER want to go outside when we got home.

Jack grew up to about 120 pounds in his prime, half pointer but taller than a pointer and half rottweiler. He would talk to us in grumbles and grunts and growls and whines and whimpers. He learned silent commands and he was able to communicate things to us. He was a smart dog, but better still a gentleman. He would not steal your food even if you put it on the coffee table under his nose. He would not bark and bug you when you ate, he would just sit quietly and patiently wait to see if you would give him a taste. He was dog royalty but he loved to play and wrestle with us.

Most of all, Jack loved. He dearly loved his family and particularly my son, Rob. Rob let Jack sleep in his bed with him most nights. Jack hated it when Rob went away to the Army but every time Rob called Jack would get to hear Rob's voice on the phone and would bark for him. Jack loved me probably second. I called him my dog-boy. But then he dearly loved my son Dave and daughter Shelly and their friends Joy and Cecil and Chuck and Smooth. I guess Chuck and Smooth were his favorites amongst my godsons.

Jack never bit anyone, although a couple of times when boys were rough-housing and he wasn't sure if it was real he barked and growled and broke things up. The one time I ever saw him bite any creature (other than hunting small game at the dog park) was when a Great Dane attacked him without warning. Jack reversed the attack and had put a several gashes in that dog, protecting himself, before I could pull him away from it. It wasn't like Jack was not mighty, he was just more lover than fighter. But no one would have dared break into the house with Jack on guard.

Later Debbie and Nathan and Amanda joined us as we Brady-Bunched. Debbie had two dogs, who Jack accepted and my wife and new children loved Jack immediately. Kids went to college, to the Army, and so on. Right now Rob is back to finish college, Dave is getting his final semester done for his teaching degree, Amanda is on art college scholarship and Nathan is in high school. Daughters Sara and Shelly had moved on to begin producing grandchildren for us. But it was still a big household and Jack was part of the family glue.

As he approached ten years old, Debbie had him on thyroid pills and special diets and he slimmed down to a puppy-sized 95 pounds or so. He had regular walks and dog park trips, played and wrestled, and seemed exceedingly healthy. Friday night he jumped up on the loveseat-recliner with me, folded himself into the space and we talked and I rubbed his back because I knew he had a little arthritis. In the last week of his life he did everything he loved, including a car ride with a rear window open to hang out his head in the wind in our Subaru. He would take up pretty much the whole rear seat in the Forester although he would try to stay on one half if I brought a second dog. He had been to the dog park with our dogs Faith and Chloe. Life was good for Jack.

Saturday evening Jack was hit with a sudden heart attack. He was patiently waiting for a possible taste of Rob's bratwurst when he got up and walked out. He knew something was making him ill and the good dog that he was he was heading to go outside. But he had the heart attack and for the first and last time ever he emptied his bowels inside the family home.

Jack then fought his way to lay down under Rob's chair and seemed to fall into a seizure, breathing heavily but seemingly unseeing. We got him on a sleeping bag and pulled him gently out to the living area, calling the emergency vet. Jack came to for a minute, tried to get up, fell over, talked to us for a minute and then his heart quit on him before we could pick him up and take him to the vehicle. I gave him cpr by pumping his chest cavity and thought he might revive but after a few minutes we saw that Jack was gone for good. He was surrounded by family that loved him. We bawled our eyes out.

Eight days short of eleven years old, Jackson Dogson had lived a great life. He was a mighty dog, faithful, obedient, kind, fun, loving, smart, friendly and always ready to come to you when you needed a dog hug. We went through trials and troubles but Jack was always a constant source of joy. Even in death, he died without a time of dwindling health and he died without giving us the heart-rending decision to make about having to put a suffering animal to sleep. Jack played and ran and loved right to the sudden end. His last healthy thought was to make sure to get outside if he was going to be sick. His last dying thought was to crawl towards his best friend. His last grumbles to us were his goodbye.

Rest in peace, my dear friend. We will sorely miss you. My dog boy. I hope Jesus is holding you tight right now. I know we will always remember your love!

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Macroevolution is popular but not logical

Above are an artist's rendering of a Tiktaalik and a picture of a Snakehead fish. You would be surprised to find that the largest Asian version of the current fish is not terribly unlike the fossil remains of the good old Tik that tried to be a transitional fossil but just couldn't quite get out of that water. Some types of Giant Snakehead are pretty impressive...capable of climbing out of the water and living on land in search of food. Specimens observed and captured in Asia and Russia have been reported to exceed three feet long. Reports have claimed the fish can spend four days out of the water but I know of observations of behavior that only went up to a few hours. Nevertheless this is a fish that looks a lot like Tik and can live and hunt on land but it isn't anybody's ancestor. It just wants to eat everybody and their descendants!

Recently a commenter commended himself for pointing out yet another failed Darwinist assertion. But another commenter supplied the link I just inserted. Read it for yourself. As usual, naturalistic materialistic atheists come up with headlines and then when the claim is inspected it is another canard. Like Ida, for instance. Most of the public goes around thinking that scientists have all sorts of fossils and evidence that "prove" evolution and in fact there is nothing. Zip. Nada. Neo-Darwinists do not have one shred of proof for macroevolution. They have glued peppered moths to tree trunks, made mythical ancestors out of a pig's tooth, they have presented faked embryo charts and on and on and on. But no proof.

Here is a small excerpt from the above article:

The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance (Updated)

[Update 6/16/09: Quote in paragraph 4 clarified to make it clear that the quote did not come from Dr. Catherine A. Boisvert but was rather stated by the journal The Scientist. Any prior lack of clarity on the author of that quote was completely unintentional.]

Over the past couple years, Tiktaalik, a fish-fossil touted as documenting key aspects of the transition from fish to 4-legged tetrapods, has become a new celebrated icon of evolution:

  • PBS's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" featured Tiktaalik as their premier transitional fossil (an anachronism since the fossil wasn’t even reported until months AFTER the Dover trial concluded).
  • The National Academy of Science’s 2008 "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" booklet also prominently features Tiktaalik, pushing it as "a notable transitional form."
  • In early September, Carl Zimmer was so eager to mention Tiktaalik as a fossil that "illuminates our ancestors’ transition from sea to land," that he plugged it in a New York Times article about a video game that had absolutely nothing to do with Tiktaalik.
Clearly, Darwin’s public relations team has invested much rhetorical capital into this fossil. If past experience is to be our guide, the only event that might cause Darwinists to criticize Tiktaalik would be the publishing of a fossil that was claimed to better document evolution. In the past, I have called such events, evolutionist "retroactive confessions of ignorance." And with a recently published re-analysis of the fish Panderichthys, Darwinists are now praising Panderichthys for having features that are "much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik," and are retroactively confessing weaknesses in their precious Tiktaalik, which is now admitted to be a fossil with a "quality" that was "poor."

The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. The study used CT scans to show Panderichthys apparently had a few well-defined radial bones in its pectoral fins. (Radial bones are found only in fish fins, but evolutionary paleontologists contend that radial bones are homologous to digits in tetrapod limbs.) When commenting on this new find, the paper’s lead author, Catherine A. Boisvert, boasted in an interview with The Scientist that "it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod." Boisvert also praised her findings, stating: "The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik."

Confident that Panderichthys fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik: The Scientist article stated, "Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well -- although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." (emphasis added)

The "quality" of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see evolutionists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn't dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.

Then "something better" always winds up failing. Furthermore, appearance does not mean much when studying inheritance and anatomy. I can probably find a mushroom that is shaped like your knee but that doesn't mean knees evolved from mushrooms.

Another recent hoax was the "first whale" fossil that became an ordinary land animal after careful study. Remember Pakicetus?

Pakicetus is an extinct land mammal discovered in Pakistan's early Eocene layer (dated approximately 55-33 Ma). It was discovered in 1983 by 3 paleontologists including Philip Gingerich, who recently analyzed the Darwinius masillae fossil "Ida."

The original finds from 1983 included only skull fragments. Gingerich classified Pakicetus as a cetacean based on its inner ear, and he originally thought that it was aquatic or amphibious. However, full skeletons were discovered in 2001, and these revealed that Pakicetus was a wolf-like land mammal, with legs capable of running.

Naturalist materialistic atheism is a religion and my blog is in fact an attack on that religious belief. When one does not have evidence on his side, trying to draw attention elsewhere is a valid strategy until it is perceived. Darwinists lie about the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics because many people cannot understand the argument, just as a for instance. The public is indoctrinated deliberately from grade school on up with lies and fairy tales. Haeckel's embryo chart is just now finally being eliminated from school textbooks. The horse evolution chart is still being presented. Many textbooks still try to suggest that birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is preposterous in the extreme even for the just-so stories of Darwinism.

Macroevolution is the a process that requires mutation to provide new information that can be sorted and selected out by natural selection and passed on to succeeding generations. Unfortunately, it does not happen. Dr. Carl Wieland mentioned in a recent article that evolutionists have uncovered this problem for themselves:
“Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided an error [sic] of genetic transmission (i.e. a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child).”

Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, peoples and languages, North Press, New York, 2000, p. 176.

The trouble for the NeoDarwinist is that this doesn’t happen—ever.Again, let me quote a well-known evolutionist—this lady is the person who invented the idea of endosymbiosis to account for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells so she is not someone that her fellow evolutionists can easily dismiss:

“Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues.” (p. 11)

“Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies.” (p. 29)

Margulis, L. & Sagan, D., Acquiring genomes. A theory of the origins of species, Basic Books, New York, 2002.

Dr. Jean Lightner wrote a post entitled Special Tools of Life. It describes one attempt to demonstrate evolution using bacteria (Then known as Aerobacter aerogenes, this organism has been reclassified as one of several Klebsiella species). The attempt fails because information loss rather than information gain is the result.

"Most mutations that make a noticeable difference are harmful. A few might be considered beneficial—at least sometimes.3 But do these mutations add information to the DNA? A number of scientists thought so when they saw mutations in a bacterium that normally grows in the soil.4 This bacterium can grow well when it has one of several unusual sugars as an energy source: ribitol or D-arabitol.5 The scientists growing it in the lab tried giving it a very similar sugar, xylitol, as its only energy source. Xylitol is not normally found in the bacteria’s environment. The bacteria have no enzymes specifically designed for the first step in breaking it down.

The wild-type of the bacteria couldn’t grow. However, a mutant strain (X1) arose that could grow on xylitol, although very slowly. Later, a second mutant strain (X2) arose from X1 that grew faster on xylitol. From this, a third mutant strain (X3) developed that grew faster still. Evidence for evolution? A new enzyme evolving? Hardly."

In fact, the loss of information made the mutated bacterium unable to survive for long in the outside world. I am still waiting for news that a fruit fly or a bacterium has actually "grown" a new piece of information. So far these kinds of "breakthroughs" are demonstrating that information loss can lead to speciation, which creationists have always known.

I recommend reading Bears Across The World as an example of how natural selection actually works and what it actually does. My assertion is that:

God designed life with redundancies. All life has the genetic code with massive amounts of information authored by God.

Mutations, usually harmful, can cause the appearance of evolution but it is microevolution rather than macroevolution, simple variation within kind.

Man has manipulated animal life for centuries to take advantage of the design features of animal life that allow for variation.

Scientists have devoted decades in a vain attempt to deomonstrate actual microevolution and have continually failed.

Hope you did not miss the preceding post! Creationism is logical but not popular!

Creationism is logical but not popular

Review time. Kindly think about whether it is logical that the Universe came from nothing. Underlying Darwinism is the idea that there is no God and no creation week as specified in the Bible. Remove God and come up with an alternate explanation for the Universe and Darwinism has the first leg up. However, is there actually a logical argument for a Universe that is without a cause?

Kyle Butt makes an obvious point:

Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.

Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.

Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.

Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from?” His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.

One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.


I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.


The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it…He is Lord of heaven and earth.” Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.”

  • God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.”
  • He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psalm 90:2).
  • And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.

Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.


Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God?” Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?

There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.


The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God….”

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dr. Sarfati also presents a tremendous argument:

If God created the universe, then who created God?

Answering the Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

  1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
  2. The universe has a beginning.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

  • 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
  • 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

In Summary

  • The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

  • It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

  • The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

  • God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.


There are only two ways to refute an argument:

  1. Show that it is logically invalid

  2. Show that at least one of the premises is false.

a) Is the argument valid?

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this paper is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the sceptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.

b) Are the premises true?

1) Does the universe have a beginning?

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe.5,6 It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse—a ‘flat’ universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’ Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.8

2) Denial of cause and effect

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.

Is creation by God rational?

A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.

Marc Kay’s critique of Davies The Mind of God points out further logical and physical fallacies of Davies’ reasoning.11

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, sceptics can’t have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

Further Reading

More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural ‘big bang’ theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.

  1. Craig, W.L., 1984. Apologetics: An Introduction,Chicago: Moody.

  2. Craig, W.L. online article The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.

  3. Geisler, N.L, 1976. Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker).


  1. Actually, the word ‘cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made. Return to text
  2. Novikov, I.D. and Zel’dovich, Ya. B., 1973. Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 11:401–2. Return to text
  3. Schramm, D.N. and Steigman, G., 1981. Relic Neutrinos and the Density of the Universe. Astrophysical Journal 243:1–7. Return to text
  4. Watson, A., 1997. Clusters point to Never Ending Universe. Science 278(5342):1402. Return to text
  5. Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe. Nature 391(6662):51. Perspective by Branch, D. Destiny and destiny. Same issue, pp. 23–24. Return to text
  6. Glanz, J. New light on the fate of the universe. Science 278(5339):799–800. Return to text
  7. Guth, A.H. and Sher, M., 1983. The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe. Nature 302:505–507. Return to text
  8. Tinsley, B., 1975. From Big Bang to Eternity? Natural History Magazine. October, pp. 102-5. Cited in Craig, W.L., 1984. Apologetics: An Introduction ,Chicago: Moody, p. 61. Return to text
  9. Davies, P., 1983. God and the New Physics, Simon & Schuster, p. 215. Return to text
  10. Craig, W.L., 1986. God, Creation and Mr Davies. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37:163–175. Return to text
  11. Kay, M., 1996. Of Paul Davies and The Mind of God. Journal of Creation 10(2):188–193. Return to text