Monday, August 21, 2006

The secret of the ooze

29944Primordial

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed"

Charles Darwin

Ahhh yes, Charles Darwin. The founding father of the "Religion of evolution". I say religion because it is a theory which requires a lot of "Belief" in something that was never witnessed , lacks evidence, the "evidence" it claims is often questionable and, at times, easily scrutinized, and often has science contradicting itself. Yet evolutionists will quite often vehemently defend it's inconsistent findings, even unto the point of twisting and distorting their own science to try and substantiate their claim.

While the evolutionist/atheist almost demands evidence of a deity they seem content without providing their own regarding Theories. They intentionally neglect the FACT that what they purport to be "truth" is called theory for a reason. Because it is not substantiated, thus proven, beyond all shadow of a doubt that it is indeed factual. It therefore requires an act of "Faith".

One of the other early theories that Charles came up with, and his devout followers adhere to even to this day, is the "belief" that life was conceived essentially in a warm little pond over billions of years. It is known as the "Primordial soup" theory. Over time, science has tried to refine and hone this theory into a mold that would explain, not only the origins, but evidence that life began on it's own and not thru a creator.

Today it has become indoctrinated into our college/university students at the great secular church's of educational institutions that primitive earth was at one time covered with pools of chemicals that included an atmosphere that was capable of forming life. The energy that "supposedly" helped charge or breathe life into these chemicals was lightning. No actual evidence is offered, just "faith" in a theory that misleads it's followers into believing it actually occurred.

One of the main reason's people are lured into believing and accepting this theory as fact go back to 1924 when Russian biochemist, Alexander Oparin, proposed (not proved) that complex molecular arrangements and the functions of living matter evolved from simpler molecules that existed on the earlier stages of earth. It was then suggested in 1928 by British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, that ultraviolet light reflecting on earth's primitive atmosphere somehow caused sugars and amino acids to concentrate in the oceans. Thru this amazing act of disorganized chaos, life amazingly formed. (And all the atheist's children said?....Amen? nope. Nothing, they don't believe in anything!)

It was later suggested (again, not confirmed) by Nobel Peace prize winner, Harold Urey, that apparently earth's primitive atmosphere (based on Alexander Oparin's assumption) would have made it favorable for these organic compounds to have emerged. Harold Urey was also the Ph. D. advisor to Dr. Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago. Dr. Miller is well known for putting this theory to the test in what was considered to be a landmark experiment. It was an experiment that was hailed as a major breakthrough for science that , once again suggesting, the successful experiment in fact proved conclusively that life could have emerged from non living chemicals.

miller2

Now we get to the fun part. This where we see science dissect science and destroy their own theory. This "experiment" performed by Dr. Miller consisted of a re-created atmosphere (in the lab of course) of primitive earth where he shot electricity through it to simulate the effects of lightning. It wasn't long before Dr. Miller discovered amino acids, the building blocks for life, had been created. While many evolutionists went into a state of euphoria over this claiming that life was not a chance event but an inevitable event that comes along naturally when physical conditions are right, overlooked one major problem that invalidated the experiment. (I know, they still will not concede it too this day). It was this:

Whether it was Dr. Oparin or Dr. Miller, neither one of them had any solid evidence that the earth's atmosphere was actually composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. Which were the gases used to conduct the experiment. It appears Dr. Miller wanted to achieve a chemical reaction that would be favourable to his experiment and would obtain the desired results by (here we go again) proposing/suggesting that the atmosphere was rich in those particular gases.

But even Dr. Oparin was intelligent enough to recognize one very important factor in the equation. It was this. That inert gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide will not react to this type of experiment. Why do I bring these two gases into the equation now? Since 1980 to the present, NASA scientists have shown that gases such as methane, ammonia, and hydrogen were not factors in primitive earth's atmosphere. What was in fact present was water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Had Dr. Miller conducted his experiments with the correct three gases, his experiment would not have achieved the same results as amino acids would not have begun to create life. With water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen you cannot achieve the same results.

In essence, the "deck was stacked", as they say, by Dr. Miller in such a manner that in order to achieve a desired result he could only include gases in his experiment that would give him favorable odds. Not accurate odds. Considering science prides itself on rational logic and analysis with absolute unbias I think it would then be fair to suggest that it is indeed past time to CAN this theory.

06soup

Unless of course one wants to continue to choose to believe in the religon of the ooze, against all odds.

Until next time...

Monday, August 07, 2006

Hezbollah (Party of Cowards!)

hezbollah 012005-8-12-13

As the world continues to watch the horrors of war unfolding in the middle east on the borders of Israel and Lebanon it has caused many on the outside looking in to engage in emotional and, at many times, heated debate.

Often as is the case the "Right" wing come to the defense of Israel. We are often lumped together by "Left" wing pundits as a group of overzealous Christian fundamentalists who, "solely" for Biblical reasons, defend Israel's actions taken against the Hezbollah. They often forget that many "Right" wingers are not people of faith/religion but simply hold more conservative views.

On the other side, again as is usual , we have the "Left" wing pundits denouncing Israel and calling for a ceasefire. They believe that one can broker a “Peace” deal with a terrorist. Yeah...right! They also often tend to assume that because the “Right” believe that a nation has the right to defend itself when it is attacked unprovoked, that this make’s them a bunch of blood thirsty savages enjoying the blood shed on CNN.

I have seen the images of dead children being held in their parents arms and felt anguish for these people. I stopped a moment and imagined holding one of my own and instantly welled up with tears. My heart and prayers go out to both the innocent’s of Lebanon and Israel.

I hate the fallout of war and yet I recognize that it is not always avoidable. I wish it was. But sometimes it becomes a necessity even though nobody wants it.

As I am sure many of you have done, I too have asked the question “What just happened? Why? And who truly is responsible?”

These same questions were asked during the reign of Hitler. Winston Churchill lost his following election for going to war and yet many will agree that standing up to Hitler was (now hindsight) the best thing that could have been done for mankind.

Flagbig

Today those decisions still have to be made. Israel is in a tough position. They are surrounded by nations that harbor and support, both financially and politically, terrorist organizations like the Hezbollah who have only one objective. The complete eradication of the Jewish people and annihilation of Israel. A short list but pretty nasty.

While on the other hand, anytime Israel has had to defend itself against such hate filled attacks on it’s nation, it is THEY who come under international scrutiny. Not the aggressor’s. It is Israel who is always pushed into coming up with some sort of ceasefire plan for something they did not start. Is the focus not just a little bit misdirected? Where are the The great purveyors of human rights known as the U.N. and their condemnation of such barbaric acts like the ones unleashed by the Hezbollah? When do they decry the death of innocent Israeli’s who also lost loved ones from rockets that were not provoked thru a declaration of war but a straight forward act of aggression? Lack of support from the International community or the U.N. is a statement of support for the actions of terrorism.


Let’s make no bones about how this started. Hezbollah attacked Israel first! As a nation, just how does one expect Israel to respond?

(How the International community would like them to respond)“Oh great and terrible leaders of Hezbollah, we do not know what we did to offend you but what ever it is we are truly sorry and beg your forgiveness. Could we just sit down and broker a peace deal that we know you will ignore anyway but it should pacify you for at least another 8 - 10 weeks until your hate begins to burn towards us again?”

Hezbollah is not interested in negotiating. In fact, they are not interested in war because they already understand that war on an equal playing field (out in the open) would mean a swift defeat. They know if they had the balls to fight in a war they would not need to hide in civilian homes, in foreign countries, kill innocent civilians with their gutless suicide bombs that they detonate in public malls and on school buses full of children (funny how the international community forgets those acts) , and using the local women and children as human shields. These are not the actions of soldiers but of spineless cowards.

A true soldier would don a uniform and meet Israel out on the battlefield. But that would take courage. Something Hezbollah does not have.

So how do they win sympathy from “Left” wing pundits and the U.N. (Useless Nations)? They rely on the “Propaganda strategy of the more civilized society’s” They actually hate western society but they know how to manipulate it by first embedding themselves into suburbia, virtually ensuring innocent civilian deaths, they can then draw fire towards themselves thru provocation and show the world just what big bad Israel did. Hezbollah understands how to exploit the weakness of a "civilized" society that focus's on the innocent's killed by the responders as opposed to lashing out and dealing with the perpetrators who intentionally and willfully set out to take as many innocent lives as they possibly can. (again, see definition of the suicide bomber)

What also seems to be overlooked thru out all of this is that by Hezbollah moving rockets into villages AND THEN FIRING THEM at a neighboring nation, this is a direct violation of the Geneva convention. Where was the uproar on this one?

There is no debate that Israel has taken innocent lives in the pursuit of responding to Hezbollah attacks on their nation but there is certainly a difference between Israel and Hezbollah when it comes to the killing fields of war. Kathleen Parker summed it up better then I could when she said:

" let's be clear on the issue of moral equivalence. There is none. Hezbollah aims to kill civilians; Israel aims not to. But by firing rockets from civilian areas, Hezbollah forces Israel to return fire, thus inciting the condemnation of civilized nations and fueling the reliable outrage of the Arab street.

The fog of war may prevent absolute clarity, but this much seems certain: Those dead women and children are casualties of Hezbollah, not Israel."




Dead Hezbollah

As far as Hezbollah themselves are concerned, they picked this fight, and they will get exactly what they were asking for. I do believe that Israel has finally had enough and is fed up with Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, and the International community of the all too sympathetic civilized elite."

Until next time...

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Where is the love?

 As a Christian I am commissioned by God to present His wonderful plan of hope, redemption, and salvation for mankind thru His one and only son Jesus Christ. The Holy Bible testifies of this plan and records it's fulfillment, that being Christ's sacrifice on the cross, in the New Testament.

God truly is love. For there is no other god who can ever make the claim that they loved their own creation so much that they would sacrifice their own life in order that man could have life eternal in the next life. Now there are those that would argue against that but it is, at least in most cases , due to the fact that they are unwillingly to accept a God who will not accept sin. However, love is not love without discipline. Neither does it hate when enforcing discipline. Love does not allow free reign when it foresees tragic consequence. It instructs, guides, and directs with the other's well being in mind. It is not necessarily about what one wants as opposed to what one needs. Love always has the best intention for the other.

The last 3 out of my 4 postings had to do with the homosexual lifestyle. A sexual lifestyle that has been pushed real hard in recent decades for acceptance. As a Christian, for me to accept the lifestyle, would be an act of defiance to God. In essence I would be saying that I do not whole heartily follow Him because I am not willing to adhere to His word, His moral law, or to follow Him wholeheartedly.

But does that constitute hatred towards the homosexual? Or bigotry? Does that qualify me as a homophobe? Or God for that matter? Let's get this right out in the open and get to the meat and potatoes of the matter. Does God hate fags? Not a term I care to use but you will understand right away why I just used it. According to this self proclaimed Christian (I use the term quite loosely) who goes by the name Fred Phelps, He does. (Allow me to refute the fool)

collegehumor164376

Fred is an ordained Baptist minister and the founding member of "God hates fags." I spent a solid 45 minutes previewing his website before I literally began to feel nauseous. I read some of his "teachings" and previewed some of his videos so I could see for myself where he came up with this grand delusion that "God hates fags". I also discovered God hates just about everybody else, that is according to Freddy.

For example, I just about fell over when Freddy referred to Billy Graham as a "whore"! WHAT!!! Billy Graham? Even the most vile of sinnerdom respect's this guy. He is the epitome of a Christian. He presents the gospel truth in a very "Christ-like" fashion. In a way of compassion, genuine concern, and love without sugar coating the truth for the sake of appeasing the world. I strive to be Christ like myself but with my own fallibilities being half the man Billy Graham is would be quite an achievement. Anyways, that is a bunny trail for another time. Moving along...

Apparently God also hates:

-America
-American soldier's (ironic considering they are fighting to preserve Fred's right to espouse his deluded message)
- Every other minister of the gospel that espouses God's love (even though they adhere to biblical teaching's)
- and everyone outside of Fred's congregation.

**Note** I could not find any scriptural references to support Fred's delusion.

You see, Freddy feels that because the Bible renounces homosexuality as a wicked abomination and a detestable sin before God (which it does and up to this point I am in agreement) this must mean that God hates homosexuals as well. This is where Freddy and I will have conflict. The scriptures have always been clear that it is the act (sin) that God despises. You see the Bible declares ALL sin detestable and this would include murder, theft, embezzlement, lying, cheating, and other sexual sins such as adultery, fornication, bestiality, rape, and so on. Homosexuality is not singled out.

There many scriptural references I could easily bring into this but anyone who has taken the time to thoroughly read the bible in it's entire context will logically arrive to the conclusion that although God does condemn sin He also provides a message of hope thru redemption and salvation. It is one offered to ALL mankind including homosexuals. For....

God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. John3:17

Would God do this if He already pre-determined that He hated you? Would Christ lay down His own life in such a horrible and torturous death because He hated you?

Christ died that ALL might have life eternal. I say might because God has left the decision in the hands of the individual. But His love has already been displayed up front. Christ displayed His love for us in the face of sin when we read John 8 where we find a woman caught up in sexual sin (adultery). It reads:

"Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!" Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to her,
"Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"

"No, Lord," she said.

And Jesus said,
"Neither do I. Go and sin no more." John 8:4-11

This woman, at this point, was without hope and without God. Yet Christ LOVED her first by forgiving her. BUT, He did not condone her sexual sin but instead told her to turn from it practice it no more! This woman turned out to be Mary Magdalene. She was not one over by Christ's disdain and hate for her but love. This is how Christians are supposed to be a testimony to the rest of the world. By sharing God's love, not condoning sin, but loving the sinner. Something every Christian was at one time and still has a tendency to slide into due to our fallibilities. Sadly, this is something that has not sunk in with Freddy.

Freddy also thinks that God laughs when homosexuals die or any other unrepentant sinner for that matter. I sought the Lord on this one asking Him if what Freddy says could possibly be true and His spirit brought a verse to me immediately.

"As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live."

Ezekiel 33:11

Hmmmm...don't know which God you are serving Freddy but it isn't the God of the Bible. Sounds more like God's adversary....I have read that he is filled with hate.

FPDemon[1]

(notice a resemblance?)

Until next time...