Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

The Bill Nye Delusions

At this writing, the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate for February 4, 2014 is still expected to take place. (Unless he takes the advice of some critics and will be like brave Sir Robin, "When danger reared its ugly head, he turned his tail and bravely fled...") Tickets sold out in a hurry, but the event can be watched live, free, onlineNye's fanboys are thinking that Ken Ham will "crumble to scientific facts". Nope. 

People are drawn to this anti-creation poster boy who are impressed with his bravado, ridicule of creation and his affirmation of "science". However, he is greatly mistaken when he claims that evolution is fundamental to science. He also demonstrates great faith in science and his religion of evolutionism. But such faith is unfounded.


I have gone on record as saying that Ken Ham will be the victor in the debate. Not only does Ken Ham have experience and more education than Nye (despite the claims of his adoring fans), but Nye is fundamentally flawed in his understanding of both the nature of science itself and his ability to speak without logical fallacies. He engages in circular reasoning, assertion, unargued philosophical bias, prejudicial conjecture, equivocation and more. It seems that his hatred of creation science (which ultimately means that that there is a Creator and we should find out what he has to say) and his godless religious beliefs have made him into a preacher of anti-science propaganda.



Sunday, January 26, 2014

Everyone believes in the supernatural...As a preface to Question Evolution Day and the QEP? You must question Naturalism!!!

The purpose of this blogpost is to demonstrate to you that EVERYBODY believes in the supernatural when they consider origins.   Hopefully you realize that not one of us is a tabula rasa but we are all looking at the world from a suppositional starting point.  The sum of all the information we receive as we grow up causes us to make assumptions about the nature of the world even before we are capable of making hypothetical abstract constructs in our mind about the nature of being itself and the purpose and meaning of life. 

Three years ago I compiled a set of posts that were a sample of the proofs I had offered the world that information is not material in form or substance, that in fact it is not material at all.  It was call the Ultimate Information Post.

As Darwinists struggled to come up with arguments, I challenged them to give me a natural source for information...and this one was the most common response, to quote that linked source:

"What is a natural source for information?"

"Mutation plus natural selection."

Yes, this is supposed to be an answer.  It is akin to asking a student to provide us with Euclid's first theorem in a Plane Geometry class and having him say, "Obtuse angle."  Will obtuse angles be mentioned in a Geometry class?  Undoubtedly, and you may even argue with me about what the first theorem should be called but in no way does the answer given answer the question.  We would all agree with that.    FYI in my opinion the answer would be, "If two triangles have two sides equal to two sides respectively, and if the angles contained by those sides are also equal, then the triangles will be equal in all respects. 

If we leave the world of Geometry and stroll over to an art class, we could easily disprove this theorem, as we could paint two identical triangles but color one red and one blue.  So the theorem is true in the world of plane geometry but in the actual world in which we live there are ways to make the statement untrue.  So far, so good?  Euclid's first theorem is true in the world of Geometry but not necessarily and completely true in every context.

The following statements about information are true: 

  • Information cannot be quantified perfectly because it is not material in form.
  • Information containers can be quantified but the exact quality and quantity of the information within cannot be.
  • Information within DNA can be associated with specific portions of the DNA string, which enables us to quantify to some extent and identify to some extent the information contained within DNA.  But this is still a matter of identifying the container of information.   
  • No material or natural source for information has been identified.  Information within the genome is pre-existent and it is lost, it is mutated or it is transmitted but it is never created.

We know that information is lost in reproduction, we know it is lost in ring speciation, we know it occurs when a subset of organisms is isolated.   We have also discovered that by mating speciated kinds with each other we can to some extent begin to bring scattered genetic information together.  It would be theoretically possible to bring all dog-kinds together and mate them until we produced an animal that is probably very similar to the original dog-kind.  When dogs of all kinds are abandoned and begin to run in packs and intermingle they have a tendency to lose the characteristics that breeders bred for and they tend towards a homogenous dog-kind such as the wild dog packs of Detroit.   Detroit has large parts that have been abandoned as this blog's pictures nicely illustrate.  Although new members to feral dog packs can be very obviously identifiable breeds, the result of interbreeding has produced a typical feral dog that is turning into a type with similar features, sizes and colorings.  There was a fascinating documentary shown on cable television last year documenting the Detroit feral dog, its habits and appearance and measures man was taking to try to control their population.  Detroit Mayor Dave Bing has denied a Discovery Channel request to do a documentary on these dogs.  I have been unable to locate the original documentary and would appreciate a link if you know what has become of it?

Now we move to information theory.   I will point to links below in which I clearly demonstrate that information has no material form but in order for material beings to transmit information we need tools that are material in form such as media and languages.   Dr. Gitt actually has written a brilliant and challenging book concerning information that I have often referred to or accessed for publication on this blog and frankly doing that all over again is unnecessary.  In The Beginning Was Information is readily available for purchase at Amazon as well as Creation.com and other sources.  His biography page at the aforementioned site and it is quite modest.  Dr. Gitt reached the pinnacle of information science and is among the most respected if not the most respected information expert on the planet.  His detractors are generally those that resent his Christianity and the fact that he does not hesitate to link science and God.  Of course, neither did Newton or Kepler or Lord Kelvin or Bacon or Maxwell or other great scientific minds that have come before him.

Information has been shown to be intelligence transmitted.   It is not material in form or substance.  When someone claims that a definition of information is not correct without a demonstrable way to quantify it, they are playing games of misdirection.   Information cannot be quantified because it is not material!  Make sure you understand this.  By this we understand that information and intellect did not arise by natural means and because of this truth alone the entire worldview of the Darwinist collapses in a heap at his feet.  Naturally (small pun), Darwinists do not wish to allow that to be understood or known, so they demand that information be defined in a quantifiable way.  They will not get their wish.  Shannon's Law deals with information containers, which can be quantified.  But it cannot speak to the content within the containers, which is the actual information itself"

If I took a blank pad of paper and a pencil and weighed them on a scale and then held up the pad for you to read it, you would look at me quizzically. If I asked you what my message was to you, would would say something like, "Nothing?"   Now, if I took the pencil and wrote, "Darwin was wrong!"  You could repeat it back to me and you would understand my message to you.  I could then take pencil and pad and weigh them again and the weight would be the same as it was before I wrote the message.  You see?   By taking the pencil and writing on it, I was able to communicate with you and yet the mass and substance of the means of information transmission were not greater or heavier than they were before I wrote the message.  Going to the Ultimate Information Post you will find all sorts of faulty-to-desperate arguments from Darwinists that all fail to refute the proofs offered.  

Information can only come from intelligence and intelligence, like information, is not material.  In fact life itself has no weight or mass and yet we can surely distinguish between a living and a dead organism.   We have three dogs, a parakeet and well over one hundred fish.  If any of them die I will be able to tell easily and yet at the moment of death the physical composition of the organism will be unchanged for a very short time until the microorganisms both within and without begin to break down the structure of the organism. It will eventually be recycled and become part of the ecosystem as part of the food source for other organisms.

But I have BURIED THE LEAD - homage to the exquisite 1987 movie,  Broadcast News - for this post is supposed to challenge any belief you may hold that is naturalistic aka materialistic.   If you have cherished your belief in only a natural world, you have been living a life based on a lie, for there is no scientist or philosopher or thinker of any stripe who believes in a natural origin for our existence.   You doubt this?

Let's consider the state of the popular and badly flawed hypothesis of the Big Bang.   Often in this blog I have pointed out that the equations that pretend to demonstrate that the Big Bang occurred are missing in the vicinity of 95% of the energy and mass needed to make it an actual equation.   When most of your equation is mythical, it is ridiculous to call it anything like science, it is simply wishful thinking.  Knowing this, and knowing that the purported "Planck Time" is miraculous if true,  many of the Anything But God crowd have resorted to a Quantum Mechanics - based answer which is a grave error of logic.  We will yield the floor briefly to the "The Daily Galaxy."


"The Universe Exists Because of Spontaneous Creation" -Stephen Hawking

Srvr In "The Grand Design," Stephen Hawking and Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow suggest that physics and metaphysics (and religion) are merging. The grand design which we have taken for granted since Newton is more complex than anything we ever dreamed of. Models of the universe are changing radically. Many physicists doublt the reality of a Big Bang. We live in a world in which many physicists have come to believe there are not merely three dimensions plus time, but 10, or possibly 11 -a new world view world that encompasses that includes black holes, supermassive black holes, galaxy-mass black holes, dark matter, dark energy , string theory, M-theory, alternate pasts and alternate futures.


"The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own," says reknowned physicist Stephen Hawking Hawking explains in his new book, The Grand Design.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going." In his famous 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking did not dismiss the possibility that God may have played some role in creation. But earlier this summer he said in an interview that he does not believe in a "personal" God, reported Great Britain's Telegraph. "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second," he explained. "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God,' but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Just because Hawking does not prefer a personal God that you can meet does not mean that a personal God is not there nor does is preclude the inevitable meeting between Hawking and God.  Hawking invokes gravity to usher in the Universe and yet gravity has no power without mass and if the Universe is not yet in existence then neither mass nor the laws of nature would exist either.   There is either an "is" or there is an "is not." Not even the concept of nothing could exist.  Before the Universe existed, there was no existence at all.   This is logically obvious. So any form of the assertions of Hawking and Mlodinow that the Universe created itself are incredibly childish. 

Perhaps the final sigh of great-but-foolish mind's failure to find an alternative to God is to offer up a doppelganger in God's place?   Haters of God have done this for centuries...we should not be fooled by the latest attempts to displace God with a magical mystery self-creating Universe and have it labeled "science!"  

If there are all possible Universes in the multiverse scenario, then one of them would need to be made by the Creator God and then that God would have created all that is.  By definition, Universe means all there is that exists anyway, so having multiverses is as ridiculous as having married bachelors.   It is logically impossible.

Darwinists have suggested in various ways that what must have happened was that all the negative subatomic particles and all the positive subatomic particles equal absolutely nothing and some kind of collision or explosion or other unknown event had caused the equilibrium between them to have been disturbed, thus popping our Universe into existence ex nihilo.   Spontaneous Creation of the Universe is what I believe, because God created it instantly when He decided He wanted to create one.   But just as the Spontaneous Generation of life was absolutely disproved by Louis Pasteur to the point that all of science agreed that the Law of Biogensis was, well, a LAW, so any such explanation for the Universe must also eventually bow to the need for a Creator as well.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have not been overturned.  A Universe does not create itself.

To harken back to that blank pad of paper, if at the beginning you had indeed said that there was nothing there, you would have been wrong.   In fact, you had meant there was no information being transmitted from me to you as I had not yet written one word.  But a blank pad of paper certainly is something, it is made primarily of wood pulp and it has tangible weight.  You can see it and feel it and move it about.  Those scientists who claim that Quantum Mechanics has shed any light on the origin of the Universe are certainly saying so from a place of complete darkness logically.  Whereas the "spooky" nature of subatomic particles appear to both violate and yet substantiate Relativity Theory, there is not one scientist who can claim to understand how subatomic particles seem to "know" if they are observed or not nor can they show that the Laws of Thermodynamics are ever broken by them.

I can write this:  1-1 = 0.   Was zero nothing or something?  It is something as you can see, for you can read it as I have typed it.  Zero is in between positive and negative numbers but it is NOT nothing.  That people with very high IQs and rigorous University training this should be obvious but, alas, it is not!

Question " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (R. Feynman) If that statement is true, how can we know if QM is true? "

Answer "Whatever our definition of truth could be (Like: "A statement is true if its content corresponds to reality." which, I believe, was Einstein's concept of truth.) before we determine if a statement is true we need to understand it. In the same way, before we determine if a theory is true, it is necessary to understand it. If nobody understands quantum mechanics, as a consequence, no one knows if it is true."- ResearchGate

We live in a world into which we come naked and helpless and we leave it without taking even our own body with us.   The people who hate God because they hate the idea of being responsible for their actions and intentions and even their thoughts have always battled God and attempted to find ways to make their own gods instead of acknowledging the Creator.   The first man and woman disobeyed God,  their first-born son, Cain,  killed their second-born son, Abel because of jealousy and rage against God.   But Adam and Even had another son, Seth, and from that point forward  mankind has fallen into two groups:  Those that have faith in the Creator God and those who do not.   Seth chose to believe in God and Genesis therefore tells us (Genesis 4:25-26) the following:
"And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”  And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord."

People know that actual experiments and observations have demonstrated that life does not come from non-life and that nothing is either created or destroyed in the natural world, but there is a relentless path down which the Universe must travel as all energy is being converted into entropy or, if you prefer, everything is getting colder or less orderly.   No matter how you view the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis, they are antithetical to a Universe creating itself, life creating itself or frankly that Darwinist evolution ever happens.  

God created the Universe to be a grand stage upon which all of mankind would play their parts, hitting their marks, speaking their lines, acting out their lifetimes and then exit stage left.  Because God is sovereign, it may not be perfectly accurate that we have free will, as He has made us in His image and He knows what kind of person we will be.  Perhaps the better way to say it is that we are free to make choices.   All of us can choose to have faith in God or choose to reject God.  No matter what is true about the Will of God, we know that statement is true because God has told us that it is true.  

II Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
 
The road to stupidity since Darwin proposed his twisted hypothesis and hucksters like Thomas Huxley began promoting it has been paved with bad intentions.   Darwinism is anti-God and anti-good and this is why science has been poisoned with it and many advances in medicine in particular we could have achieved have been lost in the desperate search by so many for that impossible proof of Darwinist evolution.   The search for the Philosopher's Stone actually led to many scientific discoveries along the way.   But the money and energy spent on anti-science is gone forever.   Could we have found a cure for ALS if we were not so intent on proving that God did not create us?  Would we have a cure for cancer of all kinds, would we have learned how to turn trash into energy efficiently had we not been so focused on finding a missing link?  Would we have a better idea of how to fight devolution (mutations do not build, they break) and stave off the proliferation of new allergies, new syndromes and new diseases that are threatening lives?

Everyone has a responsibility to the Creator God.  My responsibility includes telling all who read this blog that God is the Creator and He has made a way for us to be redeemed from our sin by accepting the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as our Savior and Lord.  I pray that you are not deceived but are instead persuaded to abandon folly and trust the way God has made for you to be saved.

Galatians 6:7-8 - "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life."

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Chesterton, Keynes, Morgan and Me

Cowboy Bob Sorensen, fundamentally flawed, Creation Magazine, Creation Ministries International, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
Actually, it's spelled "s-E-n". 

Happens a lot.
A while ago, I received an e-mail from Creation Ministries International's Creation magazine asking permission to print a comment I sent them. Actually, I had forgotten about it. The letter quoted what I wrote, and I gave them the go-ahead.

It was in response to an editorial in Creation 35(4) by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati about G.K. Chesterton and "The Illogic of Anti-Creationism" (now available online). Chesterton noticed that "arguments" of misotheists against God were passionate and contradictory. These helped him come back to his faith. My printed comment was about when I was far from God and ignoring him for the most part, but obstreperous atheopaths and evolutionists actually helped spark my return to Christ while the Holy Spirit was working on my heart. When the letter was printed in Creation 36(1), I was glad to see it and moved on — I had Question Evolution Day taking up a lot of my time.

Later, Bob Enyart and Fred Williams were discussing that issue on "Real Science Radio". They brought up a short article on pages 8-9 where Laura Keynes, a direct descendant of Charles Darwin, was repelled by the vituperation of atheists in the Richard Dawkins camp. She became a theist. I was pleasantly startled to hear Bob refer to my article in that same magazine. He mentioned that my remarks were similar to her journey, that negativity played a part in my return to Christ and her conversion to theism.

Former Dawkinsite Richard Morgan was also put off by the modern atheists and their venom. Scottish pastor David Robertson was treated terribly by the hatetheists at the Dawkins site, and Morgan was compelled to look further. He is now a Christian.

The hate and rage that angry atheists spew may make them feel better, but they are just preaching to the choir — people agree with their "genius" and "you sure told him!" that have convincingly lied to themselves that God does not exist. Although claiming to be "rational", to believe in science and use logic, the reasoning power of these kinds of atheists is very weak indeed. Based more on emotion than reason, their fundamentally flawed "logic" easy to pick apart.


Insanity Wolf, Meme, Bible, The Question Evolution Project, Proverbs 1:7


People who are willing to engage in thought without the hatred, however, are not fooled for long by the ranting of christophobes. Since we are not just animated matter with minds and have a spiritual nature as well, people are finding out that God is real and at work to bring them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Cor. 2.1-5, ESV)


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools... (Rom. 1.18-22, ESV)
— Cowboy Bob Sorensen


Sunday, January 19, 2014

Creation Sunday, Apostate Christians and Dishonest Atheists

This two-section article is a call to action for Christians, and also exposes bad "research" from an evolutionist atheist. Also included are some remarks about apostate religious people.

Some Christians insist that creationism is divisive. Well, standing for the truth is divisive. But so was Jesus! (Luke 9.62, Matt. 10.34-39, Luke 11.23 — so much for "neutral ground".) People are ignorant that creation is foundational to the gospel. Many have compromised on a straightforward reading of God's Word, insisting on adding to it so they can have their own interpretations and accommodate atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence (Prov. 30.6). The Bible does not teach an ancient Earth, nor does it accommodate theistic evolution.

People are falling away from the church. One very big reason is that they have been told lies: "Science" has disproved the Bible, Genesis is just mythology, the Bible is full of contractions, science proves evolution, and even that God does not exist. For honest seekers, information that these claims are false is available.

Let's make February 9, 2014 into "Creation Sunday"! We're calling for pastors, church leaders and anyone else to encourage their churches to take a stand for biblical truth. There is information on this site about how Genesis and creation are important to a proper understanding of Scripture, and I recommend that you read about Creation Sunday here, too. Atheists like Michael Zimmerman are calling on compromisers, false Christians, cultists and non-Christians to affirm evolutionism on the Sunday before Papa Darwin's birthday. We should stand up for the truth.

Videos are available to watch online, free, at several sources. Here are just a few:
These links should give you plenty of information to get started. Feel free to link to this page and the others, and grab the graphic below. Spread the word.

Now, about that dishonest (or maybe just incompetent) atheist part.

It must annoy Michael Zimmerman and other misotheists that there are people who reject in his "Evolution Weekend" apostasy drive. There are Bible-believing Christians who take a stand and proclaim "Creation Sunday" every year since 2006.



Creation Sunday, Tony Breeden


There are also people involved in the grassroots "Question Evolution Day", started by yours truly in 2012 and inspired by the "Question Evolution!" campaign. One part of "Question Evolution Day" includes the use of the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" aspect of the "Question Evolution!" campaign. (I was thrilled that they liked my video and included it in their "15 Questions" page.)


The Question Evolution Project, Question Evolution Day, Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman, Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Creation, Evolution, Creation Science

I am not a reader of the biased leftist "Huffington Post",. but I found something in a 2012 article from Zimmerman. He was busy demonizing Ken Ham and portraying him as someone who is only in it for the money. I'd like to see a comparison of who gets more money, Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins. Yeah, that'll shut you up!

Look at this:
Third, and perhaps most tellingly, every year creationist organizations spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to disparage Evolution Weekend. If Evolution Weekend were not an important event, creationist groups would ignore the celebration. Instead, they attack it -- and use it as a way to raise money from supporters.
Seriously? I see an Affirming the Consequent fallacy as well as Appeal to Motive. You might even get a Fallacy of Exclusion here. But the next paragraph was quite interesting:
This year was no different. Indeed, as The Christian Post pointed out, something called "Question Evolution Day" was created this year to combat the efforts of The Clergy Letter Project. Given all of the T-shirts, bumper stickers and related paraphernalia that sponsors were hawking, "Question Evolution Day" might well have been a boon to the economy, but there was no evidence that it promoted meaningful dialogue.
Amazing. If he did research, it was pitiful. I have some bad news for you, Sunshine: I am the one who started "Question Evolution Day". Not only does it have nothing to do with Answers in Genesis because (as stated above), it was inspired by Creation Ministries International, the article I'm quoting demonizes AiG and Ken Ham, but I did not market any Question Evolution Day merchandise (I'm just a guy doing this after work and on days off, not a part of an organization), and am not aware of anyone else who did market merchandise.

Also, "Question Evolution Day" was not started in response to your "Clergy Letter Project" call to apostasy. The fact is, I had never heard of it, or him, until after QED was happening. Zimmerman needs to get over himself. Now, I can see where he might get the idea that QED was started because of his "let's get liberal churches whoring with atheists" initiative, since The Christian Post (which he linked) said:
As many churches observed "Evolution Weekend," some congregations and other groups decided to celebrate a different perspective on the origins debate with "Question Evolution Day."
The Feb. 12 observance was meant to encourage people to skeptically approach Darwin's theory of evolution. It was coordinated by multiple groups including the Traditional Values Coalition, Creation Ministries International, and the website Piltdownsuperman.com.
"This is not designed to teach Genesis per se, nor is it a platform for debating the age of the Earth; there are plenty of other places for that," said Bob Sorensen of Piltdownsuperman.com, to The Christian Post.
So I can see where someone who read hastily and did not bother to do research might get the idea that it's in response to his "get the liberal Christians to compromise more" project.

Pay attention here. The number of "churches" that Zimmerman has recruited is misleading (and fewer than in previous years). He lists churches that are so liberal, their doctrines cannot even be recognized as Christian any longer. Adding Unitarians, "New Age" groups, Buddhists and others that would rather align themselves with atheists than actual Bible-believing churches is disingenuous at best. 

I can lower my standards and use the same fallacies that Zimmerman used. It is obvious that education systems will crank out a doctorate for anyone with enough money to pay for it (especially atheists), because he does not show the ability to do decent research, and indulges in selective citing. But I won't indulge myself in that fallacy. I will say that his "research" was very sloppy.

Here's a message for the apostate groups:
“Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Joshua 24.14-15, NASB
— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Thursday, January 16, 2014

A note from Radar about Love - I have had two great loves - TWICE!!!

 TWO LOVES?

I didn't know what "falling in love" was when infatuation first hit me.  You get the grade school crush and then from time to time you crush again and then it goes away.  I mean, everybody has to have had at least ten crushes from the time you were a single-digit midget until the end of high school, right? 

The level of crush tends to diminish over time.  So by the time I was reaching that good old 21 year old level I thought I would never have another crush.  I might be very attracted to someone, but no more every-single-second emotional roller coasters.  Those were for kids.

The I met a girl named Kathy.  Actually, I met her at a party and thought, yeah, cute girl.  But there was a girl who was aiming for me and I like being a target so I saw Kathy but it didn't make a dent.  Then later on she came in at my favorite dance club/bar.   The age to drink at that time there was 18 so her 19-year-old self could come in with a gaggle of girls...and us guys just happened to have a few tables all pushed together so we saw that group come in and snagged a couple of extra chairs and made room and they came sat down with us.  I remembered the girls from the party and was no longer even slightly interested in the girl who I "won" during a rigged spin-the-bottle - twice.  No way was I into her at all.  But this time I really got a good look at Kathy and I was very impressed, oh yeah, like every guy in the place was checking her out.  What the heck was wrong with me at that party, wow?  

But I played it cool.  I asked her to do a fast dance with me and when it ended, she told me it was her birthday and she wanted a kiss for her birthday.  I told her when she was ready to dance a slow dance with me, then maybe I would kiss her.  We sat and we talked and other guys asked her to fast dance but she turned down every slow dance.  I didn't ask her.  Finally came the last dance of the night and it was a slow one and I asked her.  She was far more gorgeous than she knew and fit into me like honey poured into a glass.  Oh, man!  I told her she could have her kiss now and she said that we ought to go outside.  We did and we kissed and worlds collided and we both knew it was the real thing.  Honestly, I probably was crazy enough to ask her to marry me right then and there but I didn't have a ring and the money to be able to support two people unless we scraped or she left school - she was going to a local college.  

We fought because I was an idiot who would develop green-eyed monster symptoms.  I wasn't used to caring that much and she was so sweet she would let guys ask her to fast dance when we would go back to the club.  I knew she liked hanging out with her girlfriends and then I would have her to myself and she told all the guys she belonged to me.  She only slow-danced with me.  She would come by the school at break sometimes and bring me something or just be there so we could sneak around the side of a building and kiss for five minutes and then I would go back to class and she would go back to her school.  All the guys in my classes were jealous because she was so pretty but I was not mature enough to handle the real thing and the Army still owned me, so shortly before it shipped me off I broke off with her.  I told her I would come back for her but then I got into bad company and figured it was better if I didn't come back.  The one time I stopped back in for a visit she ran to hug and kiss me and I had to keep going and felt so wrong somehow.

So a few years go by and I marry a girl and we have kids and things happen and she runs off and I keep the kids and the house and let her go find her right mind in another place.  I figured I knew true love once and nobody gets a second so Kathy was in my heart but not in my life.

Years go by and I am checking out the Christian dating sites and find a Debbie.  We connected with emails and then phone calls.  Finally we decided to meet, I took her to the Olive Garden.  She sharked a bite from my plate, we hopped back in my turbo VW and I kissed her right then and there.  Bang!  We were both Christians so we never did what you are supposed to wait for marriage to do but I think it was three months from first kiss to marriage?  Yes, I did find true love a second time and Debbie now owns the place in my heart that Kathy had always inhabited.  Kathy still gets a tiny back room in there but Debbie is the love of my life and she owns the place.   Twice in a lifetime?  Oh man, it makes up for all the bad stuff!!!

TWO LOVES PART TWO

Probably part of the problem with me and Kathy was that I had a love affair with me.  I was considered a good guy back then, but I was hiding a very selfish soul.  I did like people, but I loved me some me!!!  Oh, yes I did...being nice to people meant they were nice to you for the most part.  After I parted from Kathy a more selfish me began to come out and I began to hang out with some people who were less about being good to others and more about getting over on everyone else.  

A few years go by and I am in a gang of criminals doing things that could have tossed me in the Federal prison system if caught.  I have told my story ad nauseum so I am not going there again.  Let's just say that people who know me now find it hard to believe when I tell them the guy I used to be and I am pretty sure the guys (and girls) I hung with "back in the day" would never believe I became a Jesus Freak.

When I realized that Jesus really was the Son of God who lived in as a man to save all of us from our inherent sins and the various sins we'd committed, then I also realized that up to then I had been my own god and I had done a bad job of it!  I had lied to so many people, used them, taken advantage of them and especially I liked messing with people's heads just because I could.  I was a snake with no rattle, biting some and wrapping others up until I was ready to release them.  I was a rotten god of me!  I loved me some me and that meant I didn't do a good job of loving anyone else.

Now Jesus has changed me,  God the Father has adopted me and the Holy Spirit lives in me and directs me.  I am not a robot, I just changed gods from me to the real God.  It has taken years of Bible reading and prayer to see things I needed to revise and to ask forgiveness and also give it, but the biggest change was instant on the inside.  My wanter changed what I wanted.  I wanted to stay away from drugs and drunkeness and brawling and hurting people and playing with their heads.  I was determined to be a God man and that meant as good a man as I could be.  I wanted to help other people find the amazing and awesome GOD that had changed my life.  My love of God had been usurped by the love of me, but now God was my Lord and the me had to be put well behind.  I try to love others and I want to love others.  This is the miracle, not just having fire insurance, but being God's child and friend and servant and it is much, much better than anything any drug or sensation can be and I ought to know.  I had tried just about anything and everything but Jesus but now I belong to Him!  Anything or anyone else is pretending to be the real thing.  There is only our Mighty Creator God the God of the Bible and all others are a pretense or from ignorance or plain stupidity...or perhaps in some cases pure evil?  Hope you will find the Real God before it is too late! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to thank the Piltdown Superman for posting on this blog while I deal with terrible pain and no hope but another operation.  Trying to get caught up on work and learning to live with the pain and just hanging in there while I wait to get in line for a VA hospital and surgeon to fix me up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now I will tell you what I told my friend, Bob...and so I will change the font color to differentiate from the top part of the post.

I prayed to God Saturday morning that I would go on fighting and fight to live and not die, I would battle to get that new knee and I would work to keep my family in our house and food on the table. After I did, I had the urge to read the Bible, as if the Holy Spirit was telling me to be a Christian, turn off the television and go to BibleGateway and read a chapter NOW. I just read the entirety of the Psalms that was excerpted even as I thought (while navigating there) that I hoped it wasn’t a long Psalm that day! It was Psalms 118!!! Go read that Psalms before you end your day please?

Anyway, I read it through and then decided to read it again, this time out loud to my three dogs. They liked that. My wife had gone out to find the manger scene from Christmas in the snow so she could put it in the crawl space and two of my sons were at work. So here is where it gets good – we NEVER go into the crawl space – but she opened the door to the space and saw water!!!!!!! I now know the outside PVC pipe (very large so I thought it would never freeze) had indeed frozen and the sump pump killed itself trying to push water through solid ice. The space is about five or so feet from floor to ceiling but only about 18 inches below the bottom level of our tri-level home at the door end. It is a bit deeper all the way back at the far East side of the crawl space where the actual sump well is. So the water was a couple of inches above the sump well at that end and so water had only crept maybe five or six feet towards our crawl space door. We had been in a blizzard and now rain had fallen and all that snow was melting FAST!

Knee or knee not, I had two sons at home and the bottom level of the house was in danger! They did not know anything about sump pumps and sump wells but my little wife fairly easily got herself back there and answered all my troubleshooting questions. I realized what had to be done. I called the hardware store that was thankfully still open. I threw on a hoodie and pajama pants and sped to the store, bought a submersible sump pump that was powerful but not huge and a long rubber tube that was, like the vacuum hose on our Kirby, made with steel wire within to avoid kinking. The tubing was small enough to fit inside that big PVC tube that went out to the outlet, designed to emit water into the gravel kennel we have in a fenced area of the backyard. So I sent the two guys into the crawl space with jobs to hacksaw off two inches below the turn from vertical and the horizontal at the turn of the PVC to the horizontal. Then they installed the pump as I suggested (by this time the water is halfway to the crawl space door) and it began to work. They put as much of that tube into the horizontal PVC pipe as they could force in and duct-taped it there thoroughly. I sit on a small bucket and turn on the lights and look in morning and evening and Debbie yanked off the outside PVC so just the outlet was there thus eliminating freezing risk. 

If I had not prayed, would I have read Psalms 118 and would Debbie have decided to go find the manger scene buried in the snow? If not, by the time we were in bed Saturday night the water would have begun to flood the downstairs and we would have at some point discovered that the downstairs was being flooded…danger to wiring and furniture and EVERYTHING down there! Disaster and how much of it could be replaced by insurance? How much in the way of stored stuff in the crawl space, kept off the floor, would have been destroyed? But God sent me to the Bible, my wife out in the snow to find something buried so she could put it in the crawl space where she spotted water where there is NEVER water! Now all is drying out. Sure disaster but for God…God knew and He made sure we knew. Not coincidence.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Satanists, Atheists and Monuments to Pride

— by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Elsewhere, I presented my case that atheism and Satanism share the same root: Pride and selfishness. Atheism is far less organized than Satanic churches. Organized Satanism (such as the LaVey version) has pretty well spelled it out. The independent forms are still based ego and rebellion against God, but even more irrational: "I'm a Satanist and I'll kill a cat". Sure, Skippy, every respects that, you betcha. 

You knew about the Satanic church that wants to put up a monument in Oklahoma City? After all, atheists made a monument in Florida. United in hatred of God, some atheists and Satanists want to unite to fight "religion". Atheists are starting "churches", but they can't seem to get along. Just like the Satanists, who have groups fighting about uniting with atheists. Some are even saying that new groups are not real Satanists! This may be a form of the fallacy of ambiguity called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I have seen it used as the "No True Atheist" fallacy. Now we have the "No True Satanist" fallacy? They just can't get along. That's what happens when there is no solid foundation for morality.

This all came together for me after hearing the January 14, 2014 first hour of the Janet Mefferd Show, which you can hear at about the 37-minute mark.



Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Trusting The Bible?

People have opinions about the Bible, and they often express them very freely. Unfortunately, they are usually uninformed opinions, expressed at the tea social and then forgotten. Many angry atheists express prejudicial conjecture, where they say something that is an opinion expressed as fact.


Genesis / stock.xchng / winjohn
Prejudicial conjecture is fun for uninformed and biased people to share. They will call the Bible a book of myths, but the myths are what they are expressing. Getting "information" from bigoted misotheist sites like the libelous (ir)RationalWiki does not count as research, Poindexter. Truth about the Bible can be found if people honestly want to consider the evidence.
The Bible is an extraordinary work of literature, and it makes some astonishing claims. It records the details of the creation of the universe, the origin of life, the moral law of God, the history of man’s rebellion against God, and the historical details of God’s work of redemption for all who trust in His Son. Moreover, the Bible claims to be God’s revelation to mankind. If true, this has implications for all aspects of life: how we should live, why we exist, what happens when we die, and what our meaning and purpose is. But how do we know if the claims of the Bible are true?
You can learn more by reading "How Do We Know that the Bible is True?"

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

Secularist "Wisdom"

Happy New Year 2014 from Radaractive!





On a recent podcast from Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, he was pointing out that leftists consider some things to be very wise — if they agree with leftist ideologies. Shallow thinking is applauded, but when we disagree and point out the flaws in what passes for thought from these people, they prove their brilliance by name calling, labeling (we are "arrogant", "racists", "homophobes", "science deniers" and more) and resorting to other logical fallacies. Then the other shallow thinkers applaud them for their foolishness. This reminds me of Romans 1.32, translated in the NASB as "...and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

I agree with his statement that such "thinking" is the result of secularist education. People are not taught to think critically and examine evidence. Instead, they follow what they are told by people that they admire and support their preconceptions. The leftists attacked Mitt Romney and said that he would have a bad effect on women's rights. People who believed that nonsense had not bothered to consider the American governmental system or even ask for support for such outlandish, emotionally-laden assertions.



Other Christians and I have had experiences that support this. Richard Dawkins is known for his diatribes against God, the Bible, Christians and especially against creationists. He is not a theologian, but I fully believe that the people who admire him are simply looking for clever wording to support their rejection of God. 

In a recent exchange on Facebook, they blatant hatred and hypocrisy of Dawkins was displayed in his own words. "Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you", which is his "Eighth Commandment". But at the failed "Reason Rally" of 2012, Dawkins encouraged his minions to "ridicule and show contempt" for people's faith, to "mock them, ridicule them in public". So atheopaths became even more obstreperous. One Dawkinsite defended him by attacking people on the Facebook Page. When his logical fallacies and conduct unbecoming of a civilized, rational human were pointed out, he became even more childish. This kind of irrational behavior is all too common in the Web.

We have to deal with stalkers who will accept utterly ludicrous and unsupported assertions of the scientist-priests of evolutionism, then throw this material at us as if it was scientific fact. They become angry when we point out that all they have is speculation and anti-creationist philosophies in the name of "science", then seek to silence us through ridicule and poisoning the well (including the inane expressions like "liar for Jesus" and "young earth creationists are all liars"). Yes, they actually follow some of us around like children on the playground, seeking others to join them in their mindless hate crusade.

Why is that? The spirit of scientific inquiry does not include suppressing contrary evidence, but anything refuting evolution is disallowed in schools. This is not critical thinking, it is brainwashing. That's right, I said it! Further, if someone points out the race of a criminal (or dares to disagree with Calif in Chief B. Hussein Obama's policies), he or she is labeled a racist. Those of us who stand on biblical principles and say that homosexuality is a sin along with other sins, leftists scream, "Homophobe!" And on it goes.

Interestingly, science flourished when true free thought was allowed. Biblical creationists were among those who brought significant advances to science. Scientism, secularism, evolutionism, liberalism are allied on the left. Free speech, freedom of religion, academic freedom and intellectual freedoms are in jeopardy. Some of us will speak the truth while we still can.

Where does real wisdom come from? Secularists hate this, but it comes from the Word of God, and is far above the "wisdom" of the world. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline" (Prov 1:7, NIV). "For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. Instead, their thoughts turned to worthless things, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Though claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Rom 1:18-22, ISV). "The fool says in his heart, "'God does not exist.' They are corrupt; they do vile deeds. There is no one who does good" (Psalm 14:1, HCSB).

But it is not too late yet. You can have a new start for the New Year. Today is the day of salvation. You may not have a tomorrow. Eternity is too long to play games with God and stand on your pride. Humble yourself, we implore you, and receive God's gift of salvation. "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God" (John 1:12-13, NIV). "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new"  (2 Cor. 5:17, WEB).

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen