Category Archives: Science

Politics, Pro-life, Science

A dialog with a professional child-killer

7 Comments

I’ve taught pro-life reasoning for over 10 years and debated countless people online, but had never dialogued directly with an abortionist until now.  Professional child-killer Willie Parker is not just an abortionist, which would be bad enough, but he claims to be a Christian and that his work is for the Lord.  As an introduction, this Newsweek interview with him has the usual pro-abort rationalizations.

  • He thinks of himself as heroic by aborting the child of an incest victim, as if killing her child solved her problems.  The abortion industry routinely protects sex traffickers, rapists and those who commit incest.  Not only does killing the child not undo the crimes, these abortionists send the victims back to their abusers!
  • He refers to “reproductive justice,” but that’s when you don’t kill the child who has already been reproduced.
  • He says he won’t do abortions for those who express race or gender differences, yet he simultaneous claims that those he kills aren’t people yet.
  • He claims to be a Christian yet says the Bible supports sexism – i.e., he admits to disagreeing with the Bible.
  • He spouts gibberish like this, which of course would justify anything anyone would ever do: “If God is in everything, and everyone, then God is as much in the woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy as in her Bible.”
  • He says women will do unsafe abortions if he doesn’t do them, ignoring that many women do unsafe abortions even when legal, that making them legal increases abortion rates, and that one is never obligated to make it safer for someone to have her child killed.
  • He gladly performs abortions like these: “women in poverty and women of color. He has seen patients from a recently divorced mother of three, with a 1-year-old at home, to a 21-year-old middle-distance runner trying to trim seconds off her 800-meter time to qualify for the Rio Olympics.”
  • In the Newsweek article he denied that life began at conception, but he admitted it during the Twitter exchange.

So that’s a little about Willie.  Someone reTweeted him so I commented and he actually responded.  A few of the comments and my replies (multiple Tweets sometimes combined into one):

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — As someone who provides abortions and who witnesses the relief and gratitude of women who obtain them safely, I could say, TOLD YOU SO!, but gloating is overrated. Abortion doesn’t cause depression, but pro-birth zealots sure do. [There was a link to an article alleging that many women don’t feel guilty about having abortions.]

Note how he calls us zealots, yet later whines about alleged name-calling on my part for my precision in calling him a child-killer.  I choose my words carefully.  Some call the unborn babies, and I know why.  But it lets pro-aborts say that isn’t the correct term.  They still try that when I say children, but then I point them to the dictionary.  Same thing when they deny personhood.

eMatters‏ — Whether your conscience is so thoroughly seared that you don’t regret killing your children is irrelevant. It will always be morally wrong.

My reply was actually about whether the mothers felt guilty, but he took it personally.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — My critics are many. Occasionally, I reply to make a point, like fetuses aren’t people, women are. My reply: If the world were as simple as you think it is, you’d be right. But since it isn’t & since I’ve never killed a child, you didn’t make a point, you stated the obvious.

eMatters‏ — You are wildly ignorant of science. Check any embryology textbook: A new human being is created at fertilization. Must have been too busy learning to kill at school What else would two humans create?! http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/   And see http://dictionary.com . You kill CHILDREN.  Oh, and the seared conscience comment applies to the MOTHERS as well. They should feel guilty for paying you to kill their children, but whether their consciences are seared is irrelevant. I meet lots of unrepentant murderers doing prison ministry. They were still wrong.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ –Insults don’t make your point. Fetuses are human beings, because women don’t give birth to puppies, but to be a human being is not the same as being a person. In my “scientific ignorance” I know the difference between a frog & a tadpole, and an acorn & an oak tree. Do you?

eMatters‏ –Yes, you are ignorant of science. And vocabulary. Once again, the nice folks at http://dictionary.com  can help you out: Person: a human being, whether an adult or child: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.  So your anti-science word games fail you again. You kill human children for a living. That’s sick.  Surely you know the logical fallacies with your acorn / oak tree illustration, right?  https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorns-and-oak-treesand-abortion.html

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Women die during childbirth, but we don’t outlaw childbirth. Check any person who delivers babies.

eMatters‏ — Gracious of you, as a professional child killer, to put these fallacious sound bites out there for all to see. You’re the pro and that’s all you’ve got? Willie says women can die during childbirth, therefore it is OK to kill children to their 1st breath. Non sequitur much?  Conflating death by natural causes vs. actively killing them? Such great pro-abort logic. Most people can see the difference: A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb) B. Human being is deliberately killed by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)  The fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Always human and always worthy of protection.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Developmentally your argument is that human conceptions are persons throughout: fetuses are babies are toddlers are college graduates. Embryo and fetus are scientific terms, baby and toddler are not. How deftly you switch from science to culture, key for embracing pseudoscience.

eMatters‏ — That’s completely false. Why do you feel the need to deceive like that? I couldn’t have been more clear. It is a human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Given that your thinking is linear, your arguments circular and legalistic, and your reference materials are Webster’s dictionary and live action news, you get to have the last word, insults and all. I’ll keep honoring women’s decisions, and you can judge them and call me names.

eMatters‏ — Yeah, referring to dictionary definitions and medical textbook citations for the specific words being debated is legalistic. 🙂 Pretty lame dodge, Willie. Live Action was just quoting PP. Your attack is an example of the genetic fallacy.  If I call you a professional child killer, I am being very precise. You get paid, and by medical and standard dictionary definitions, you kill human children. Killing the children when mothers pay you is a peculiar way to honor them.  And you never demonstrated any circular logic. I just pointed to scientific facts: Every fetus you have killed was a human being at a particular stage of development. You tried to weasel word you way out by calling them [non-] persons, then I showed how you were wrong.  I hope you repent and believe someday – and soon, before you kill too many more children. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. If you don’t, you’ll have eternity to be punished for your countless crimes against God.

And it was just as creepy seeing all his fans calling him a hero and such for being so caring.

P.S. And of course, I got the usual pro-aborts chiming in with fallacies about how we don’t help the poor after they are born.  I usually post this when I get those comments.  

 

 

 

 

Politics, Science

The 97% climate change lie

1 Comment

Consider it the inverse of Planned Parenthood’s “child-killing is only 3% of our business” lie: The widely cited “97% of scientists agree on man-caused / man-fixable climate change” is a lie.  It always has been, but the low-information people listening to the malicious hypocrites keep spreading it.

Via New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’ – Breitbart.

Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming.

The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.

Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement.

The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al in a paper published in Environment Research Letters.

Cook’s paper has since been extremely widely debunked, yet so ingrained has the 97 percent consensus claim become that The Guardian has an entire section named after it, and President Obama has cited it on Twitter.

 

Politics, Science

The reason the Left loves the “climate change” charade

1 Comment

This is a really important concept for everyone to understand. It is one of the reasons the Left loves vague but all-encompassing topics like “climate change.” Once they bribe or coerce the scientific community to agree with their lies they have unprecedented control over the populace. And no matter what happens, they win. They have no accountability. If the weather gets warmer, their solution is more government. If it gets cooler, same solution. If it goes up and down? More government.

Too bad so many low-information voters believe the lies, and too bad so many wicked people like the “Christian” Left spread them.

These “useful idiots” are leading us to destruction and don’t realize they’ll get destroyed themselves.

Intelligent Design, Science

We should celebrate Louis Pasteur, not Charles Darwin

11 Comments

Darwinism is atheistic philosophy masquerading as science.  Not so with Louis Pasteur.  Is it any wonder that the allegedly pro-science “Christian” Left celebrates Darwin Day?  Via Louis Pasteur on life vs matter | Uncommon Descent.

Few people have saved more lives than Louis Pasteur. The vaccines he developed have protected millions. His insight that germs cause disease revolutionised healthcare. He found new ways to make our food safe to eat.

Pasteur was the chemist who fundamentally changed our understanding of biology. By looking closely at the building blocks of life, he was at the forefront of a new branch of science: microbiology.

Here, from a letter to an atheist:

Science brings men nearer to God.

Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.

I encourage you to read it all!

False teachers, Science

“Christian” Leftists deny science at least five ways

1 Comment

They deny the humanity of the unborn so they can support abortions up to the child’s first breath, they support homosexual behavior (denying the created order), they support “transgenderism” (denying the obvious real gender of these people), they deny real climate science so they can support an unlimited Leftist power-grab, and they press the Darwinian evolution myth despite the scientific — and biblical! — evidence to the contrary.

They are malicious and/or ignorant on all counts and no different than your average atheist.

Apologetics, Intelligent Design, Science

Yeah, evolution just happened to create your 37.2 trillion cells

Leave a comment

The human body is endlessly fascinating.  Jesus created such spectacularly intricate designs in us!  Did you know there are 37.2 Trillion Cells in Your Body?  The evolutionists believe on blind faith* that the universe came from nothing**, that life came from non-life and that we just evolved to what we see today.

Their life (death) passage:

Romans 1:18–20 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.

—–

*Atheist scientist Richard Lewontin’s quote is a classic example of Darwinist question-begging — that is, assuming what they claim to be proving:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

**Here is a list of scientists who claimed something came from nothing.

Apologetics, Science

Everyone relies on eyewitness testimony for their beliefs, even Darwinists

Leave a comment

The question is whether you have good reasons to trust those witnesses.

Skeptics often claim that we believe that Jesus really rose from the dead based on blind faith and that you shouldn’t trust anything you can’t prove via scientific experiments.  But they haven’t thought carefully about how their own beliefs are formed.  You can also ask those raising that objection whether they have created all their own test equipment and replicated every single experiment upon which they rely.  Since no one has done this, you can then point out how they rely on the credibility of eye witnesses all day, every day.  You can also point out how many frauds we’ve seen even in peer reviewed publications.

Here is an excellent example of this reasoning, via Everything You Believe Is Based on Personal Experience and Testimony:

In other threads, certain people have claimed that personal experience and testimony are not as valid as other forms of evidence. In fact, some would dismiss thousands of years and the accumulation of perhaps billions of witness/experiencer testimonies because, in their view, personal experience and testimony is not really even evidence at all.

The problem with this position is that everything one knows and or believes is gained either through  (1) personal experience (and extrapolation thereof), or (2) testimony (and examination thereof), for the simple fact that if you did not experience X, the only information you can possibly have about X is from the testimony of others.

In a courtroom, for example, the entire case depends on testimony, even when there is physical evidence, because the jury relies upon the testimony of those that produce and explain what the physical evidence is, how it is relevant, and explains why it is important to the case. Unless the jurors are swabbing cheeks and conducting DNA tests themselves, the DNA evidence is in principle nothing more than the testimony of an expert witness. The jurors have no means of ascertaining the DNA “facts” for themselves; they entirely rely upon the testimony of what they assume to be a highly credible witness.

. . . Similarly, unless one is a research scientist in fields where one believes certain theories to be valid, he is (and we are as well) entirely dependent upon testimonial evidence – found in the form of research papers, books and articles written by such scientists. “Peer review” is nothing more to the reader than the testimomy of supposedly credible sources that the testimony of the authors is not blatantly false or contain factual errors.

Outside of what we personally experience, virtually all of our knowledge comes from testimony delivered via some form of media or another. We consider the source of the testimony, and the media it is delivered through, credible or non-credible to one degree or another – but that doesn’t change the fact that when we read or hear it, it is nothing more than testimony. If you are a scientist conducting research, you are personally experiencing the process and accumulation of data.  Beyond that, it is only testimony to others unless they perform the same experiments.  Often, the conclusions of scientific research hinge upon the testimony of other researchers, which may turn out to be fraudulent or mistaken.

We have very good reasons to trust the testimony handed down to us through the Bible. For those interested in why we find the Gospels and the rest of the Bible so reliable, here is an interesting book by a former atheist and cold-case homicide detective: Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels.

False teachers, Science

Because . . . scientists!

3 Comments

When the “Christian” Left goes along with the anti-human “climate change” Leftist political power grab and the anti-God / anti-science nonsense of Darwinian evolution, they typically point out how many scientists agree with them.  This deliberately ignores the financial and peer pressures that scientists have no immunity to.  History couldn’t be more clear: If you risk your career and reputation for opposing the party line, you are more likely to “believe” the mainstream view.

But it gets worse: The “Christian” Left ignores when scientists are in vast agreement on a host of other issues, including those that are far less controversial and unlikely to be influenced by politics.  Exhibit A: The “Christian” Left insists that Jesus supports killing unwanted children up to their first breath* even though mainstream embryology texts (and common sense) say that a new human being is created at fertilization.  I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

And here’s more via Two-Thirds of Scientists Support Building More Nuclear Power Plants.

Apparently 65% of the scientists surveyed think that building more nuclear power plants is a good idea.  That compared to only 45% of the non-scientist American public.

The reasons behind the scientific communities pro-nuclear power attitudes are not explained in the Pew study.  But, given the years that the environmental moment and the entertainment industry have spent attempting to convince the American public that nuclear power is a threat to humanity and not a positive way of improving Americas energy independence, it might give them pause to know that such a big majority of scientists seem to have no problem with expanding the sources of nuclear power in the United States.

Large majorities of the scientists surveyed also believed that it was safe to eat genetically modified foods (88%) and and favor the use of animals in research (89%), unlike the general public.

I’m sure the “pro-science” “Christian” Left will switch views to pro-nuclear, pro-genetically modified foods, etc. now.

*See it in their own pro-abortion extremist words.

Christian worldview, Pro-life, Science

When “pro-lifers” make pro-abortion arguments

4 Comments

Rachel Held Evans is a “progressive Christian” who argues for the anti-religious freedom aspects of Obamacare via Privilege and The Pill.  Along the way she makes several arguments on behalf of the pro-abortion lobby, such as this comment about when life begins:

Rabbit trail: The fact that a woman’s body naturally rejects hundreds of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises some questions in my mind about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those “natural abortions” as deaths? Did those zygotes have souls? Will I meet them in heaven? Honestly, the more I learn about the reproductive system, the harder it becomes for me to adamantly insist that I know for sure the exact moment when life begins. And it’s even harder for me to insist that everyone else agree.

But with arguments like that, “pro-lifers” like Held hand ammunition to the pro-abortion forces.  That’s a great argument, unless your opponent has the ability to see the difference between A and B:

A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb)

B. Human being has skull crushed and limbs ripped off by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)

In other words, deliberate abortions are vastly different than fertilized eggs dying of natural causes, just as murders are vastly different from grandma dying peacefully in her bed.

Held and Co. also ignore the scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization.  They have no excuse for missing that.

And even if we didn’t know when human life begins, shouldn’t we err on the side of life?  If you thought that what you are about to do might destroy an innocent human life, shouldn’t you stop what you are doing? The “we don’t know when life beings” fallacy naturally leads to abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

She was also wrong about abortions and “morning after” pills:

Andrew Walker and I have published a response over at the First Things website, and we argue that her essay is mistaken on a number of levels. For instance, Evans denies that “morning-after” pills have an abortifacient mechanism. Yet somehow she misses that the FDA label on Plan B’s package says otherwise. But you don’t have to believe me. You can read the label for yourself. Notice the second sentence in bold underneath “Other information” . . .

The pro-life movement does not need any help from faux-lifers like Held who make the arguments of pro-abortionists for them.

Intelligent Design, Science

Things like this make me feel sorry for Darwinists

3 Comments

Take a close look at the wings of a particular kind of fruit fly.  They contain clear images of ants. Then keep this example handy when Darwinists insist that macro-evolution is true.

Via Fruit fly with the wings of beauty.

When threatened, the fly flashes its wings to give the appearance of ants walking back and forth. The predator gets confused and the fly zips off.

Now the Darwinists would have you believe that these changes were the result of small, random, gradual changes over time that are almost always destructive yet just happened to end up with precise pictures of ants on both wings in this case.  As I often note at work when summarizing investigations involving highly implausible claims, you are welcome to believe that if you like.  I don’t.

Of all the resplendent beauties in the insect kingdom, few might look to the humble fruit fly for its delicacy or charm.

But a closer examination of the transparent wings of Goniurellia tridens reveals a piece of evolutionary art. Each wing carries a precisely detailed image of an ant-like insect, complete with six legs, two antennae, a head, thorax and tapered abdomen.

“The image on the wing is absolutely perfect,” says Dr Brigitte Howarth, the fly specialist at Zayed University who first discovered G tridens in the UAE.

It is a member of tephritidae, a family – there are two – of 5,000 species of fruit flies whose colourful markings have earned them the name “peacock flies”.

In the UAE alone, 27 picture wing species are known. Some have wings bearing simple shapes but others, like G tridens, are far more complex.

Dr Howarth first saw G tridens on an oleander shrub in northern Oman. “I was looking at the stem of the leaves and I noticed that there were some insects crawling around. When I sort of honed in I started to notice what I thought was a couple of ants moving around.”

At first she suspected an infestation on the fly’s wings. “But it was so symmetrical that I thought, ‘oh this is not possible’. When I got it under the microscope I realised that these were insects painted onto the wings.”

In contrast to its wings and brilliant green eyes, the fly’s body is a dull greenish grey – “almost cryptically coloured,” says Dr Howarth – that blends into the leaves where it is found.

When threatened, the fly flashes its wings to give the appearance of ants walking back and forth. The predator gets confused and the fly zips off.

This defence mechanism may also make the fly attractive to potential mates – something that is less of a concern for the average housefly.

“A lot of flies, if a male sees a female that is suitable it just flies up and tries to latch on,” said Dr Howarth. But G tridens has an altogether more amorous courtship, showing off its wings in a colourful dance. And Dr Howarth believes it is no exception.

“If you look at the behaviour, it tells you a lot about the functionality,” said Dr Howarth. “Not everybody gets to mate. The ones that do have something about them that make them more attractive.

“Is it the same in other invertebrates, who knows? It’s very possible that those are in fact for courtship behaviour.”

This elaborate behaviour may be a response to the fly’s restrictive environment. “Something that can survive anywhere doesn’t need to have as many protection factors,” said Dr Howarth.

The more realistic the picture on the wing, the better its chance of survival and reproduction.

“It’s all about optimising your possibilities of survival. There’s always variety and some individuals, for whatever reason, have more of a success because of that variation.”

Really, Darwinists, please give it up.  Whether it is the highly ordered, specified information of DNA, gears that allegedly evolved, fruit fly wings, or millions of other examples, the universe screams out design.

And despite the assumptions of Darwinists, even if Darwinian evolution was true, it wouldn’t disprove God.  They haven’t come close to explaining how life could have come from non-life, or how the universe came into existence from nothing.  In fact, they are so desperate on the latter point that they have started pushing the multiverse theory (aka the Atheist Concession Speech).

Here is a good summary of Intelligent Design: “The simplest living cell includes highly sophisticated, functionally integrated information-processing machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms and their implementation.”  If you believe that the universe came from nothing, that life came from non-life and that it evolved to what we see today, then you are the person described here:

Romans 1:18–20 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.

More bad news: You’ll be judged on the standard of Jesus, not by comparing your best traits to your neighbor’s worst traits.  All your deepest, darkest secrets will be brought to light.

Romans 2:15-16 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

It is foolish and rebellious to think that you get to define whether God exists and what He must be like.  Repent and believe while you still have time.  Eternity is a mighty long time to suffer for your foolish pride.  Seek God on his incredibly gracious terms and not only will your past, present and future sins be completely forgiven, but you will have the righteousness of Christ imputed to you.

Hat tip: Uncommon Descent

Also see:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer

Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels – J. Warner Wallace