Tag Archives: science

Pro-life

Planned Parenthood vs. Planned Parenthood

Leave a comment

Marc T. Newman, Ph.D., President of MovieMinistry.com, gave a terrific presentation at a CareNet Pregnancy Center fundraiser years ago. One of the most intriguing things he mentioned was a Planned Parenthood advertisement published in 1964 to promote birth control (click the link or go to the end of this post).  Read the whole thing, then consider this from the Q&A section:

Is it [birth control] an abortion?

Definitely not.  An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.  Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

There you have it!  Straight from the experts at Planned Parenthood.  Read that again and try not to drown in the irony.

So Planned Parenthood used to teach that abortion kills a baby and poses medical risks to the mother.  As Dr.  Newman asked, what did Planned Parenthood learn since the early 1960’s that caused them to change their stance on what abortion really does?  carenet-walk-05-55.jpg

Could it be the sonograms and 4-D ultrasounds?  No, those do more than anything to promote the pro-life view.  Technology is the enemy of pro-legalized-abortionists, and it always will be.  They might have gotten away with the “blob of tissue” argument in the 60’s, but not today.  The scientific fact is that life begins at conception.

Could it be the studies showing the impact of abortion on women?  No.  Despite major political pressure, more studies continue to show the adverse impact abortion has on women – both physically and emotionally.

Or could it be the megabucks they make from abortions that caused them to change their minds?!  money.jpg

Folks, always remember that when it comes to abortion, Planned Parenthood had it right the first time:

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous to your life and health.

Be sure to quote them on that whenever you can, especially when talking to Christian(?!) pastors who support Planned Parenthood.

More on Planned Parenthood here — just your basic well-documented serial felonies of covering up statutory rape.  Your tax dollars at work.PPPlanYourFamily63

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.

 

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!

Apologetics, False teachers

Thanks to “evangelical atheists” for agreeing with the “Christian” Left!

3 Comments

The extreme atheists were active on this blog praising false teacher Tony Campolo for finally admitting he was a pro-LGBTQX extremist.  I responded to a few individually (usually just one comment then I ignored the rest) then gave a blanket thank-you to them:

A few thoughts for the “evangelical atheists” commenting here.

1. I offer my sincere and hearty thanks for your partnership in outing the “Christian” Left for the false teachers that they are. It isn’t that hard for me to do it, but when people like you come along with your aggressive anti-Christianity yet with virtually identical worldviews to the “Christian” Left, it is golden. Seriously, your pro-LGBTQX extremism, pro-abortion extremism, mockery of the Bible, denial of the divinity of Jesus, etc. show how similar you are. You folks are a big help. More here: https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/atheists-the-christian-left-birds-of-a-feather/

2. Having said that, to be kind I must point out how ridiculous it is for you to criticize religious beliefs. After all, if your worldview is true (we both know it isn’t, but work with me here!) then the root cause of all religion, including Christianity, is just the purposeless, unguided movement of molecules against each other over and over. You “know” that my change from being an atheist to trusting in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus wasn’t because of a true change of heart but just because of chemical reactions. I had no choice but to change!

Now I know you all aren’t the ignorant and/or malicious kind of atheists who smuggle a universal, transcendent morality into your worldview. That would be silly, right? Chemical reactions can never create such a thing! Of course we observe “morality,” but that is just a random set of somewhat-similar beliefs held by various people groups. You “know” there is nothing truly universal there.

Yet you continue to make one moral claim after another, as if we should care about your opinions! Why are you wasting your precious time like that? Oh, wait . . . that is just your unguided chemical reactions doing it, right?

More here about how atheists steal “rights” from God https://stream.org/atheists-steal-rights-god/

3. Stop pretending to like science when you support abortion (ignoring all the secular embryology texts that clearly teach that the unborn are human beings from conception — http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/), “climate change” (just a pathetically evil government power grab based on falsified data –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRQS5RhrwLA), transgenderism (Yeah, Bruce Jenner, with his XY chromosomes, is a girl — and I’m a cow. Moo.), etc.

4. Please don’t be wounded when I don’t respond to your comments. I typically take a “one and done” approach to “evangelical atheists.” Life is too short. But I do appreciate you responding to me and elevating our thread to the top of the recent comments section.

5. Eternity is a mighty long time to cling to your false worldview. You can’t dictate the terms and conditions to parents, bosses, teachers, police, or even a McDonald’s cashier, so don’t be foolish and think you can do that with God. The rich young ruler walked away sadly when he didn’t like God’s terms and conditions but Jesus didn’t chase after him to negotiate.

https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/if-you-cant-dictate-the-terms-with-a-mcdonalds-cashier-what-makes-you-think-you-can-do-so-with-god/

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.

For those interested in why we find the Gospels and the 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.” http://smile.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_1

—–

Again, thanks for the support in helping fight the “Christian” Left! I really do appreciate it.

Apologetics, Science

Everyone relies on eyewitness testimony for their beliefs, even Darwinists

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.

Intelligent Design

The many lies from the Scopes trial

11 Comments

The impact of the false reporting of the 1925 Scopes trial still impacts the Darwinian evolution debate today.  Here are a few of the nine lies documented at Mencken’s Mendacity at the Scopes Trial:

First, Mencken lied about the key point at issue in the Scopes Trial, which was not whether the theory of evolution could be taught in Tennessee’s public high schools, but whether the evolution of man from “lower animals” could be taught as a scientific theory to high school students, in a state where a solid majority of parents in the state of Tennessee opposed the teaching of such a theory to their children, on both moral and religious grounds.

Second, Mencken lied by omission, by failing to mention that Hunter’s Civic Biology, a pro-evolution science textbook that was cited at the trial, and which high school teachers in the state of Tennessee were actually required to use at the time, endorsed both racism and eugenics: it taught the the Caucasoid race was “the highest” races, described people with mental handicaps and genetic deformities as “true parasites“, and highly commended the practice of eugenics.

Third, Mencken mis-represented the religious views of William Jennings Bryan, depicting him as a Biblical literalist and a “fundamentalist pope,” when Bryan’s own writings showed that he was a Presbyterian of fairly liberal views, who believed in an old Earth, and who was open to the possibility that plants and animals had evolved by Darwinian natural selection, making an exception only for man.

Fourth, Mencken mendaciously attributed to Bryan the statement that man is not a mammal, when Bryan said nothing of the sort. What Bryan did object to was the portrayal of man in Hunter’s Civic Biology as an unexceptional mammal, “so indistinguishable among the mammals that they leave him there with thirty-four hundred and ninety-nine other [species of] mammals.”

Fifth, Mencken consistently portrayed Bryan as a petty, hate-filled character when others who were present, including Scopes himself, testified to his magnanimity, affability and pleasant personality.

 

Bible, Christian worldview, Favorites, Intelligent Design, Sexuality

Jesus annihilates Darwinian evolution, oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and same-sex parenting in just two verses

6 Comments

No true follower of him should disagree on any of those topics.  When the King of Kings and Lord of Lords speaks, you should pay close attention and trust him.

Matthew 19:4–5 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Churchgoers who  disagree have nearly identical views to the world. You should not follow them.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

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

Christian worldview

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain

1 Comment

See Evolutionist: Let’s Admit it, We Don’t Fully Understand How Evolution Works — We live in interesting times, where the average person — saturating in a lifetime of Darwinist propaganda in education, media and entertainment — is still defending an evolutionary model that the professionals know is false.  Oh, the professionals haven’t given up on their godless worldview, but they know that their paradigms have been shattered and they are desperately trying to find another explanation that leaves out a creator.

On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. Unfortunately Ball fails to take his own advice and ends up doing precisely what he advises other evolutionists against—whitewashing the science.

For instance, evolutionists have had to resort to the explanation that rather than mutations tweaking the DNA’s protein-coding genes to create or improve protein functions, those mutations must have sometimes tweaked regulatory networks that control the expression of said genes. What Ball doesn’t mention is that this new epicycle relies on the prior existence of those regulatory networks and the protein-coding genes they control.

In other words, we now must believe that evolution first constructed the incredible genes and regulatory networks (for which there is no scientific explanation, but that’s another story) which then enabled evolution to proceed.

Such serendipity is unlikely, to put it kindly, but Ball presents it with a straight face . . .

I almost feel sorry for them.  Every day they go to work and get mocked by God when they see how His design is even more exquisite than they realized the day before.  But they trudge on with their blind faith science-of-the-gaps.  Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness must be exhausting.

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.

Read it all, then be sure to read Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design and Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, both by Stephen C. Meyer.