Posts Tagged ‘Creation’

“Problems” with the KJB? Think again, look again, be a Berean

November 15, 2011

The NIV and other translations and the accusations of “problems” with the KJB I have seen have provided excellent occasions to show why I am a KJBO defender. Two-thirds of the Bible-gone! The accuracy of a different second-person singular–Gone! The cardinal order of the six days of creation –Gone! Not one jot or tittle shall fail–Gone with thousands on thousands of jots and tittles. Jots and tittles were an obvious allusion to the tiniest nuance of meaning in the prophecies, and they are lost first in all the dynamic-philosophy translations, and lost in unnecessary “language modernization” in the others.

For God is not the author of the confusion of a hundred different translations. I have yet to see ONE BIBLICAL REFERENCE that says God would never intervene to ensure one accurate standard for his word, down to jot and tittle.

By their fruits ye shall know them. Claiming that the gospel of Mark leaves Jesus in the tomb and never left us the Great Commission (profusely quoted by the earliest Christian leaders) reminds of me of Job’s comment: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me”. What can we expect from the Greek base compiled by a pair of reprobates about whom their own sons wrote that they did not believe Jesus was God, that Charles Darwin was right and the creation narrative in Genesis was myth, that Jesus’ sacrifice for sins was a “bloody horror”, and that belief in the miracles was stupid.

Yeah, I can believe they were almost incredulous at the request from the Bishop for their help.

Where is the verse that says God said he would never ever make sure the words in the original autographs were understood the way he wanted them to be understood ages later? With all he said about his word, why oh why would he trust in us mere men for the job??!

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Advertisements

Many infallible proofs of the Bible

October 2, 2011

To those who claim that faith in the Bible is based on pure whim, as somebody who was won to belief in the Bible from atheism and radical socialism through pure history, science, facts, sifted through Boolean logic, I must strongly protest with Paul that our faith in Jesus Christ is based on “MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS”. Once I got there, in my forty years hence, the evidence just keeps piling up. Some do come to Jesus because they were simply raised in a strong household, others for other reasons, but making their decision at some point.

But all believers are well served by the fact that Jesus doesn’t even really expect us to have a “blind” faith. The Darwinists and materialists are the ones with a “blind faith” in nature to create everything. In an interesting humorous joke by God, the famous atheist proselytizer Richard Dawkins even said so in the very title to his book “The Blind Watchmaker”. God makes even the wrath of man to praise him.

In fact, we are commanded to have an answer for those who ask us such questions.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

We “have not seen” the Lord Jesus with our eyes like Thomas did even before putting his hand through the wound, but we have an embarrassment of evidence today.The lightning-fast pace at which the gospel expanded across the Roman Empire from Jerusalem after the Resurrection, the written eyewitness testimony of the apostles that has more strenght than an affidavit, signed in their own blood, martyred for the gospel, including Thomas “the doubter”.

And today thousands of Creation scientists bear witness to the fact that “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork”. Biology bears witness too, with every major advance exposing the folly of the pagan Darwinian doctrine of spontaneous biogenesis, including fossils, DNA, epigenetics, and irreducible molecular machines.

Entropy, Adam and Eve, Seth’s sisters, genetics and in-breeding

October 2, 2011

n-breeding was not a problem for the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. From the Law of Entropy and the knowledge that today all species incorporate some “genetic defects” within, products of mutation, and from the knowledge that Adam and Eve were “very good” creations, perfect in fact, directly fashioned by God, inbreeding was not a problem for the first generations, neither for the grandchildren of Noah.

Besides which, the genome is built by God with mechanisms for adaptation to changing conditions, including great numbers of “spare parts” –which used to be called “junk DNA” by the clueless arrogant smarter-than-thou Darwinian pagans.
That’s right, many superstitious tribes of Old Testament times also believed of a stock “Thou art my father”, and of a stone, “Thou hast brought me forth”.
Read Jeremiah 2:27, it’s right there.

Biblical Christianity is Evidence Based

June 24, 2011

Christianity is an evidence-based faith, based on true historical events, chief among them the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the six-day Creation of the universe with the evidence all over the heavens and on the earth and in the earth.

Because it’s real, the more we learn the Word the more we are able to see that the world works like God’s word says it does. That’s how faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. From all that comes “Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen”.

It is the atheist and agnostic that avoids the facts, denies the evidence, and has blind faith in the blind universe to blindly blunder into creating human intelligence.

More Darwinian Follies…

February 25, 2011

Good examples of misinformation and information gaps repeated ad nauseum to confuse the gullible:

See here an example of backwards logic: “The ‘Hobbit were diseased humans’ argument is a long way from proven, yet you deploy it like its been settled.”

Turn that around. The point was and is that the Hobbit was treated as a glorious missing link until oops, what about this, what about that, and some of them said it was consistent with “diseased humans”. Except I think it is just another example of short people, like the Pygmies in Africa.

They are in danger of being eaten –literally– out of existence right now in Africa, as Christianity gets pushed back and the old paganism recovers. They are now regarded as animals by warring tribes around them, “missing links” you might say.

Christian missionaries are leading the charge to save them from their persecutors.

“Nested heirarchies of organisms” are a natural corollary of both functionality, using the same building blocks for survival and propagation of life –DNA, proteins, and all that.

It’s telling that evolutionist logic can get “convergent evolution” when the functionality doesn’t fit the hierarchies, but cannot see functional convergence as a natural attribute of design.

Claims that the “fossils show a continuum of features from the past to the present” only serve to expose the abysmal state of science education, and the attack on true science that the Darwinian religious beliefs represent.

…Noah’s…would expect to see a uniform distribution of animal types across the world, originating as they did from one release point somewhere in the middle east…

LOL. Another example of a belly-laughing demonstration of selective logical circuits, who don’t know how to apply the principles they use elsewhere to this one. There are major campaigns on to save ecologies endangered from the introduction of alien species, as we speak.

They brag about how fast a peppered moth goes from white to black to white, but fast radiated breeding and natural selection works for your theory you see it at work here too.

Here you go, a YOUNG-Earth creationist who explains how the marsupials and exotic animals of Australia show consistency with the idea of descent from their non-marsupial counterparts:

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/marsupial_migration.html

The various kinds of animals in Australia line up with the kinds of animals elsewhere, suggesting common descent from those animals’ ancestors, rather than a common marsupial ancestor. This is one of Darwinians’ favorite toys in their grab bag: “convergent evolution” based on conditions in Australia.

Stephen Gould has admitted that the fossils show no continuum of anything at all, where it counts. There are no mammals with feathers, but neither do you have anything at all between reptiles and birds, and the showcase ‘examples’ of one or two break down to plainly one or the other on examination.

Here is the Biblical description of DNA in fact:

Psalms 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

How many lines of evidence form nature corroborate your bible’s account?

Plenty. There’s the above verse describing DNA. Others describe the effect of a nearby nuclear explosion on human flesh in a future prophecy, the vast currents, or “rivers”, in the oceans (at a time when Greeks were saying the oceans were generally calm and shallow), they hydrologic cycle, and don’t forget an amazing set of rules for scientific hygiene in food preparation and treatment of diseases. The “stretching out” of the heavens.

Looks like none to me.

Well, Jesus healed the blind who accepted faith in him, and he can heal you too.

Its embarrassing to watch.

Yes, like Muggeridge predicted, [Darwinian] evolution will be seen soon enough as the object of ridicule and hilarious laughter, as scientists will marvel at its pagan mythology.

Nothing new under the sun:

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

Let us all flee from the kind of paganism that will only lead to another Hitler’s fascination with helping the human species evolve, another Margaret Sanger (founder of the Birth Control League) that wants us to eliminate “inferior stock”.

Let us find love in the God of Love and his Son.

Moses and the Red Sea!

September 23, 2010

It was an “east wind” that blew the waters back for sure, that’s what the Bible says. And when the Israelites were safely on the other side, Moses raised his hand and the waters came back so high the Egyptians drowned, chariots and all, even as they were already getting bogged down.

But some people today would rather worry more about a couple of parents refusing medical treatment for their faith than they do about handing their health care to government agents like the ones in the IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it. And oh yeah, please, please give us the waiting lines for lab tests like in Canada and hold back health care to keep down costs like Obama’s guy said to England.

What about the people that have to wait six months in Canada and Europe for an X-Ray that shows they have cancer that could have been cured with quicker testing…

How about the science illiterates that today’s schools are turning out that don’t even know that the greatest founders of today’s science like Isaac Newton were not only men of faith but total creationists?! See, there’s no conflict between real science and faith, just a conflict between atheists and science.

How about those who think science gives them plenty enough wisdom without God thank you very much and give us the benefit of their atheist tyrannies, like it or not?

And what about those atheist regimes that always seem to get run by people enamored of their own voice and command themselves to commit mass murders in the tens of millions like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, in greater numbers than probably the entire population of Europe during the Inquisition.

What about the fact that the homicidal maniacs both the ones that are atheist and the ones supposedly saying “God told me”, the whole lot of them seems to want to wipe out Biblical Christians and Christianity, the Inquisition included?

There are people who SAY they would rather live in a world without Mother Theresa, the Red Cross, the YMCA, the Salvation Army, hospitals, clinics, orphanages, food banks, adoptions —all institutions begun by Christians ancient and modern.

So maybe they’d rather bring back the world that was before Jesus Christ through his TRUE followers (“Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things that I say”). Of course that would mean infant and human sacrifice, slavery, gladiator battles, legalizing the murder of one’s children.

Jesus Christ says Love Your Enemies. If people followed him instead of looking at hypocrites, they’d be way ahead. You, reader, you can have the truth, with Jesus Christ.

–trutherator

ID, Creationism, Religion and Science

August 17, 2010

Newspeak dictionaries put out by the Propaganda Ministry of Big Brother try to paint ID as creationism, but of course they know that it’s not the same thing any more than SETI is just a way to sneak UFO abductions into mainstream science. Not that mainstream science shuns all craziness, and not that there’s anything wrong with creationism!

> Religion and Science used to be bedfellows in past centuries and many of the scientist expressed a belief in a supreme being and many identified themselves as Christians but times have changed and Science and Religion got divorced and Science married Politics and Religion has tried to be Scientific with not good results, at least in today’s climate of controversy…

“Religion” is a word used today with a meaning that is mixed up with the word “Organized Religion”. It was the organized form the US Founding Fathers had in mind with the word in the First Amendment. This, in spite of the fact that some of them, the minority of them, had a more personal view. And even those made a point of frequent church attendance, being Christians.

But true Bible believers should rejoice that that the Bible, is “not a science textbook”.

“Consensus” (unproven) science, has been knocked down hundreds, even thousands of times, by actual discoveries and real-world experimental results that use the real-world scientific method. And yet blind-faith followers acting like herds of buffalo keep picking up “consensus” and trying to make it look like it has some magical quality of truth to it.

> I think ID is an attempt to get Christianity back into the public schools…

Government child indoctrination centers (aka “public schools”) have made mincemeat of children’s brains the last century or so, and not just in areas that relate to Creation and Intelligent Design. In the US alone, the primary-school level McDuffy readers of 1915 (I have read parts of some of them) would humiliate Harvard grads of today.

The campaigns for “public schools” was driven –is driven– by forces that want an easily manipulated same-thinking population.

Faith in anything other than the almighty state is anathema to the plutocrats, and generates independent-minded thinkers. The only opiate that plutocrat Marxists will allow is their own pie-in-the-sky promises with which they fool the “public”, up until they take power and consolidate it, at which time they don’t care what you think.

That’s why the battleground fro freedom is shaping up to be the Internet itself. The American administration (both faces of the political duopoly), along with all the other national administrations, is collaborating in the development of strategies to bring it under control. They have only allowed it to get a network medium established that addicts the important elements of the populations. (They don’t think much of the unconnected poor).

THEY HATE VOUCHERS

That’s why they hate school vouchers, but they hate tax credits even more. They despise the idea of letting parents have any more control over their children’s education and future than the parents already have. In fact it interferes with their strategies to displace the parents’ role in the formation of new generations.

It is not just Christians who should be reacting with fury against the takeover of their children’s lives by the state, and indeed, there are many others. Misguided anarchists are one group, but there are even-minded atheists and people of other persuasions who are disgusted with the academic neglect of official institutions. Some of them even add one plus one and get two when they realize that the official government neglect of education in their turf is deliberate.

It’s a good thing we can know that even though they may build up their global dictatorship infrastructure to prepare for the Beast and his tyranny, he will have massive opposition from many different sectors of the body politic, not just the Christians who knew what was coming. And it’s a good thing that before he can totally destroy the world, Jesus will be coming back to put a stop to the madness.

–trutherator

Bioethics? What Bioethics?

August 7, 2010

Found on the Web:

July 31, 2010

BioEdge: From the Editor:

One area that we would like to cover more thoroughly in BioEdge is how some bioethicists are adapting their ethics to scientific developments. For thousands of years, it has been thought that some actions, like murder or adultery, were inherently bad. Now the new field of evolutionary psychology has “discovered” that good and evil are written into our genetic code and evolutionary history.

Obviously this upsets the applecart of religion, but not only that. A growing number of people – the transhumanists — believe that their destiny is to transcend evolution. Presumably, then, they would transcend outmoded morality, too. From what I have read of the theorists of neuroethics, we can look forward to revolutionary proposals in bioethics.

Is this something to look forward to? Or to dread? Leave your comments on this week’s article about a conference on the new science of morality….

http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9132/

That “evolutionary history” they’re talking about is just the required nod required of Darwinian nature worship when discussing biology, but as to the “discovery” that good and evil are bequeathed upon us from birth, this is exactly what thinking Christians have been saying ever since Paul said that good and evil were “written into [our] hearts”, as in ever since Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil”, we know what it is:

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

> Obviously this upsets the applecart of religion, but not only that.

This just shows how clueless they are. It is their own applecart they upset with this, because Christians have been saying in various paraphrases throughout he ages that we are not only created with a God-sized vacuum in our hearts, we also come with intuitive inborn understanding of what is right and wrong.

They are proving Paul’s point, because God said he made them that way, and this also shows another example of how science testifies to God’s word.

It often even appears in “discoveries” like this that God is letting them deceive themselves into thinking they found evidence for their own willful disbelief, to give them incentive to share the evidence of his glory in his creation with the world.

Psalms 76:10  Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

> A growing number of people – the transhumanists — believe that their destiny is to transcend evolution. Presumably, then, they would transcend outmoded morality, too. From what I have read of the theorists of neuroethics, we can look forward to revolutionary proposals in bioethics.

“Revolutionary proposals” baloney. Back to more depravity. They’ve already brought back prenatal infanticide, unmerciful “mercy” killing, public rewards for sodomy, impunity for presidential rapists, and while Planned Barrenhood never stopped with the race purification business, the usual professional God-haters are now openly talking about it.

These are some of the signs of the end, road signs that tell us the Antichrist Dictatorship is ahead and in formation.

But even though he wreaks organized havoc on the earth, even though he adds his own dosage of misery to the “natural” judgments of God to come in the Tribulation when he is persecuting the saints and oppressing the poor, even with all that, it says “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him”.

–trutherator

Bible Interpretation: How To

July 20, 2010

What is wrong with the the common notion that the “firmament’, the “windows of heaven”, the ‘pillars of the earth”, the “four corner of the earth”, etc, constitute phenomonological language that accomodated ANE cosmology?

The answer to this lies in understanding the proper approach to scripture, besides taking note of the big caution flag that this very recent “discovery” of what Genesis really meant to the ancient Hebrews did not happen until after modern denials of Creation came up with new “science so called”.

Here follow guidelines for those who need it for “interpreting” Bible verses, especially the interpretation of figures of speech like those mentioned in the above list.

“Phenomenological language” is a bit different concept, but one may call it one example of a figure of speech.

Considerations for understanding the Bible.

(1).STRAIGHTFORWARD SENSE OF THE SECTION OF SCRIPTURE.

That means if the literal meaning makes semantical and grammatical sense as is, then there is no need to tamper with it, just believe.

Sometimes the literal meaning of one isolated word is semantically ridiculous, like talking about the “four corners of the earth”. In such cases, the word is part of a “figure of speech”. The individual words used in a figure of speech have no meaning, because they are part of what is conceptually the same thing as a “compound word”.

What some people call “phenomenological language” is really a figure of speech. Saying the sun is “on the horizon” does not mean it is physically located on one of the points of the physical land that we can see from a given point, it means that’s the way we see it. By they way, I prefer the term “positional” for this particular example.

But if there is no compelling reason –especially in context– to say it is only phenomenological or positional, then it’s not.

If Acts 1:9 says Jesus was “taken up” and “a cloud received him out of their sight” then that’s what happened.
If Exodus 20:11 says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”, then that is what happened.
If it says a great fish swallowed Jonah, then you don’t need a yardstick to measure the fish.

(2).IMMEDIATE CONTEXT IN SCRIPTURE.

Immediate context trumps anything from outside context for interpreting anything about which there is some question. But it is an invalid question anyway if it comes from doubt, or a desire to escape the straightforward meaning of a word or verse.

A word in scripture has its own meaning, and the immediate context clarifies it further.

For example, if you don’t know exactly what a cubit is, you can know from the immediate contexts that mention Goliath, that he was abnormally huge, and that nine feet is a much more reasonable measure than is six feet.

(3).SURROUNDING CONTEXT IN THE SCRIPTURE.

Further help for those who are still confused is provided by context found a step beyond immediate.

For example, there are attempts to cast doubt on the virgin birth by making Mary a “young woman” instead are laughable when you consider she asked how could this be “for I know not a man?” Try substituting “young woman” for “virgin” in the Isaiah prophecy for a really good belly laugh. Imagine the Lord telling the prophet that he will give you a sign, that a young woman shall conceive and bear a son. What a sign!

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the case of Genesis, it does nobody any good to look elsewhere for the meaning of the word “day”. The immediate context says it was “the evening and the morning”. The days are numbered as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. The days are not only numbered but clearly given as consecutive ordinal numbers, one following the other.

For Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it does no good either to try to divide them out. The first verse certainly can stand on its own by itself as a magnificent proclamation of God being the Creator, but it’s snuggled up to the rest of Genesis scripture that follows.

Keep in mind that although the KJB is accepted by tens of thousands as inspired word of God (call it re-inspired if you want to), it seems like nobody considers either the paragraph markings or the verse and chapter organization as inspired. They are convenient for referring to particular sections of scripture, but the first two verses of Genesis are part of the integrated narrative that begins the chapter.

Also, anything else would be irrelevant. In any case the only reason to try to twist it into supporting an earlier creation of some sort has no corroboration from context in any way. The idea only came about to accomodate the millions of years that evolutionists were adding on the age of the earth. This also is shot down by the fact that there was no light until God said “Let there –be– light”, and so such an idea shoots itself in the foot.

(4).THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE BIBLE.

This is where relevant references from elsewhere teach us. It is true that some sections of scripture may not be too clear to someone, so cross-referencing can help. It is also true that we can all too easily and all too often take a chapter or a verse in some way, but then we find that the way we took it is not at all what the Bible says on the subject everywhere else, so we have to go back to that verse.

Peter said this about some of Paul’s writings:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So some scriptures can lead you away if you want them to. So don’t!

(5).ENGLISH DICTIONARY. (With great caution)
Great caution because if the dictionary is not a dedicated devoted follower of Christ with spiritual discernment and guard up against deceit, one can be fooled into getting the wrong definition out of a set, and even there, the misapplication can be wrong.

In general if you are merely trying to let the Bible tell you what it says, instead of trying to figure out how to fit it to yourself, you will find the truth of it.

I said English dictionary because this writing is in English, and because the KJB is the gold standard of scripture today. The KJB is written in English and the major factor in the stabilization of the language.

For example, some creationists seem to have a hurdle with the the word “firmament”. The word firmament is a proper English word, like so many that were imported into the English language from Biblical sources long before the KJB was translated. I have seen the claim that a word that was in common use already for 70 years still does not count as a proper word to use for “translation”, as if no self-respecting United Nations interpreter today would use the word “tsunami” when translating from Japanese.

Most of the time where modern critics find fault with “difficult words” in the English of the KJB, it is merely a justification for a versions preference. But some will not know the meaning, and will still be unsure with context, but all they really need is a dictionary.

(5a).BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS.

One of my best friends is of Greek descent (cue laughter), but he would agree, I wot. Beware of Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, especially Biblical dictionaries today. Most of them are based on the work of one Gerard Kittel, a “Christian scholar” who was the “Christian spiritual adviser” to Adolf Hitler.

In part because of the blasphemies in his work, we now have modern versions using the word “race” where it should be using the word “seed”.

Like the verse which becomes literally racist in the NIV, Ezra 9:2: They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

That verse should read:

Ezra 9:2 “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

(6).REPETITION AND REDUNDANCY.

If you are tempted to override a section of scripture with some extraneous doctrine because “respectable Christians” say it means something else, but this particular scripture incorporates a repetition of the matter, this is an emphasis on the clear meaning of it.

(7)..AVOID DOCTRINES OF THE UNGODLY.

Beware of the surrounding pagan doctrines creeping in to your view of the Bible. God’s chosen people have lived apart from the world around them, in the world but not of it. Therefore if a tribe nearby to the peoples of the Bible held a doctrine, it might be good reason to think the Hebrews believed differently. Certainly their ideas of creation, cosmology, origins were different.

Not every idea of some particular ungodly thinker is bad, they do get some things right of course. But they cannot trump the clear meaning of a word, as reinforced by immediate context, and by more distant context, and by relevant declarations elsewhere in scripture.

(8).THE BIBLE IS TRUE.
(It is a non-fiction book of books).

This may seem like it goes without saying for a Bible believer. But it helps understand some scriptures when extraneous “interpretations” are trying to say it means something other than what it says.

The Bible is written as a statement of what happened, and of what the world is now, and how things work in the real world, and prophecies of what shall be.

Analogies, fables, fairy tales, symbolic stories, these are so identified.

For example, the heads of the ten-headed beast in Revelation are identified clearly there and in Daniel as representing ten kings, and the seven mountains upon “on which the woman sitteth” of Revelation 17 and 18 are clearly identified specifically as seven kings.

Note only that five are already fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece), and one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (The Empire of the Beast, or Antichrist).

—trutherator

Anti-creationists should open their minds..

July 19, 2010

What creationists are asking for from evolutionists and darwinists, and young-earth creationists from old-earth creationists.

Why should they preach to six-day creationists about open-mindedness and not their own excessive bashers?

I went through likely more paradigms of origins than almost anybody in my younger days, including old-earth creationism, evolution, Big Bang, until real-world and science and historical fact with their logical consequences became so overwhelming that it became settled for me.

The Bible has proven time after time to trump its detractors, including those inside Christian institutions.

For example, I much prefer discussing the actual issues relevant to the issues of the Bible and the science than engage in discussions about behavior.

What is the norm in the establishment-approved “consensus science” today.

Take it from an anti-creationist if not me. Here’s Michael Crichton
blasting away at today’s “consensus science” and the way it is the /science establishment/ that has its sacred inviolable dogmas that are not permitted dissent:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html

Funny, he started off with a total logical emasculation of the “Drake equation”. It should have killed it forever, but it remains the favorite “science” argument of SETI.

*”The Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. . . ”

*”Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”*

*”There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .”*

*”This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands…

“…Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?”*

–trutherator