With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.
["I am going to suggest you present some credible references." ]
Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask Jesus for a reference after telling the parable of the Prodigal Son?
E=mc2 is a meaningless statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap.
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
[Emphasis added]
[Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?]
What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.-
The problem is that E=mc2 does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.
[In a discussion about Einstein's theory of relativity]
Other commenters above, if you don't mind, I wonder if any of you would estimate how much time you've spent reading the Bible in this month of March. I ask because I've found that once someone falls for Relativity, they almost never open a Bible again.
Does God Have a Sense of Humor?
Although rarely, if ever, is the sense of humor of God discussed or analyzed, there are many compelling reasons to conclude that God does have a sense of humor:
logic: man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
history: man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation.
politics: atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as Attila the Hun, which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.
["Biblical scientific foreknowledge"]
Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory
Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.
The creationist advocacy group Answers in Genesis has suggested that the real aim of the animal rights is to justify abortion - if human beings are no better than animals, and if we can kill animals when we want (as for food or clothing), why can't we kill unborn humans?
The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl -- overcoming preseason odds of 25-1 against them -- begs the question: Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?
Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?
In Britain, where atheism dominates, people dislike underdogs and tend to root for the contestant who is favored to win. The opposite is true in the Christian United States, where the underdogs have traditionally been the favorites of the people.
However, as the liberal media in the United States becomes increasingly atheistic, victories by underdogs are increasingly met with dismay or disapproval.
Why do atheists dislike underdogs?
Possible Reason No. 1: Atheism Is About Control
One obvious reason is that atheism is about control. Stalin, a famous atheist in the 20th century, probably did not like underdogs. Underdogs threaten the status quo and the worldview of atheists. Upset victories are unsettling to people like Stalin.
Evidence for God? During his college years at the University of Florida, Tim Tebow wore black eye patches with the number 3:16 on them, in reference to John 3:16. What are the odds of Tebow throwing 316 yards in his team's victory over the Steelers? 10,000 to 1? A million to one? Or did God Himself make it happen?
Question for evolutionists: If you are so sure that humans are animals, then why don't you call your local Department of Motor Vehicles and ask them if animals can obtain driver's licenses? We know what they are going to say, don't we?
* Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of God. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. Christians can use presuppositional apologetics to break the circle of the atheists' circular reasoning.
* Muslims also use circular logic to defend the Qur'an. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of Allah, that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true. This is completely different from why the Bible is true.
* Evolutionists will claim that a fossil is millions of years old because that is the date given by radiometric dating; then state that it is reliable because they "know" that the fossil is millions of years old due to the strata in which it was found; additionally because the radiometric dating methods agree with each other, and date correctly materials which were historically dated by humans.
[re: the lack of knowledgeable scholars working on the Conservative Bible Project]
The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and fast than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.
The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See liberal creep!
The objection to the Conservative Bible Project is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.
The CBP stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.
[Emphasis added]
[Discussing special relativity, one user argues that the speed of light is constant, because otherwise the light-year would not be a consistently defined unit of distance.]
Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime.
You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable c would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?
Public schools in the United States are liberal and atheistic government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student. Spoken prayer, the Ten Commandments, and sharing of faith are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of morality is implicitly disfavored. Homosexual indoctrination is common as early as elementary school in more liberal states. The failures of underperforming public schools are paradigm of socialism, along with landfills and the Canadian healthcare system.
Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian, widely blamed for the deaths of at least 93 people in Norway on July 22, 2011. Michael Savage and others have pointed out that it is very unlikely that this is the case, however, as the official story from the Socialistic government doesn't add up, convincing many that this is a false flag operation and actually the work of Muslim terrorists. Evidence for this includes a Muslim terrorist organization claiming credit, the unlikelihood of two separate attacks in two distant areas being carried out by one person on the same day, the fact that this attack has all the hallmarks of Muslim terrorists, and the fact that Christian conservatives never do this sort of thing. Many see this as a set up, possibly to be used as an excuse to crack down on Christianity and conservatism in one of the world's most liberal countries. More mysterious is why they would work so hard to defend the Muslims who are probably responsible for these atrocities. It is likely that, in the leftist style of Neville Chamberlain, they are trying to appease terrorists by exonerating them from blame, in the vain hope they will not repeat such unspeakable acts.
Teenage atheism is the lack of religion in peoples of the ages 13-19. A great number of teenage people are atheist because of a lack of teachings about God from parents, which many in past generations enjoyed. Another factor may be peer pressure, as modern society has become largely secular and teenage people who profess religion (especially Christianity) are ridiculed, and in cases, bullied. Yet another factor may be the teaching of evolution as fact in public schools.
Public schools used to teach scripturally-sound moral values, such as a good work ethic, quite frequently. These teachings are largely absent in modern public schools.
Associated with teenage atheism are rebellion, free love, drug use and other staples of liberalism. Often, teenage atheists are adopting these principles in rebellion.
[Conservapedia article on bigotry (which is apparently a mostly liberal value)]
[Turn off irony meters, then read the first and third paragraph back to back]
Bigotry is common among atheists, elitists, liberals, Muslims and homosexuals towards critics of their ideologies...
It is typical to see liberals refer to their opponents as racists, fascists, Nazis, rednecks, fanatics, or any number of more profane slurs.
Bigotry can also be evidently seen when people refer to others who disagree with them as bigots or intolerant, and this is a severe form of hypocrisy because it excuses their accountability by blaming someone else.
Have you ever noticed that atheists are constantly criticizing the God of the Bible, but they seem to never criticize the devil. Shockofgod made this observation and he said that people often are reluctant to criticize their fathers. I think this observation is true.
Gay deceiver
Typical "gay" deceptions include lying about the Homosexual agenda. Proponents of "gay marriage" say that they have no plans to stop preachers from condemning homosexual acts from the pulpit, or forcing schoolchildren to learn that homosexuality is normal. But both of these are lies. In fact, the main purpose of same-sex marriage legislation is not to get rights like next of kin privileges for unconscious hospital patients (which are easily conveyed by power of attorney). Rather it is precisely and mainly to give homosexuals greater immunity to criticism than claimed by Jews or blacks.
Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term coined by Daniel Pipes to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Muslims must be considered potential terrorists.
Examples include:
- John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, the so-called Washington snipers. John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim convert, but some people allege that his motivations may not have been religious.
- Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian school teacher who engaged in a shooting rampage on top of the Empire State Building. He killed one and wounded six before taking his own life.
- Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an American Muslim born in Tehran who ran over students at the University of North Carolina to punish the United States. Taheri-azar was the first terrorist to be explicitly called an example of Sudden Jihad Syndrome by Daniel Pipes.
- Mujtaba Rabbani Jabbar who shot up a movie theater in Baltimore.
- Rashid Baz, a Lebanese can driver living in New York City who shot at a van full of Orthodox Jews. In a burst of political correctness, the FBI initially refused to label this act a terrorist act.
- Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian Muslim, opened fire in a Salt Lake City mall, killing five poeple before being shot dead by police.
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.
[In Conservapedia's article on Sets, Application section]
Another striking example is the how traditional marriage provides a greater set than otherwise: the union of A = {a, b, c, d} and B = {a, b, c, e} is merely {a, b, c, d, e}, while the union of M (man) = {a, b, c, d} and W (woman) = {e, f, g, h} is {a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h}, which is a broader and more diverse set.
[re: 'Christian' being a secularized term]
Right. I don't even think early Christians called themselves "Christian". Most church names (e.g., "Church of Christ") don't use that term either. It's a diluted term preferred more by atheists.
Ditto for the secularization of the term "flood", which is obviously reminiscent of the Great Flood. "Flood-waters" is a particularly silly secularization - does anyone think it might be anything other than water in natural disasters?
[Conservapedia's examples of anti-Christian/anti-American "Secularized Language", excerpts of some of the stupidest ones; supposed originals on left, "secularized" ones on the right.]
Godspeed | Be good
All Hallow's Eve | Halloween
Resurrection Sunday | Easter
Thanksgiving | Turkey Day
God bless you, Bless you | Gesundheit
Jesus! | Gee whiz!
Abomination | Mistake
Abortion | Birth control
Anti-Christian bigotry | Separation of church and state
Anti-life | Pro-choice
Founders | Dead White Men
Heathen | Multicultural
Heavenly | Beautiful
Heresy | Scientific theory
Mankind | Humankind
Possessed | Crazy
Pro-abortion | Pro-choice
Sex before marriage | Liberated
Sin | Crime
Soul | Spirit
With child | Pregnant
Christian Name | Given Name
For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the Bible. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.
[re: Washington's Birthday being called 'President's Day' as an example of "secularized language"]
Washington was a prominent Christian whose habit of praying and appealing to God for assistance is well-known. He was a kind of saint, and the downplaying of his (indisputable) significance is due to his Christianity. If he had been an atheist then you'd see the opposite effect.
"What kind of saint was George Washington?"
The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you heard of Joan of Arc?
"So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being?"
Perhaps the church of Satan does, or perhaps atheists simply dislike Washington. Wouldn't that be enough to explain the misnaming of the holiday as described in this entry?
...
Atheistic bias, like other forms of bias, seeks to downplay and minimize Christianity. Washington was a leading, accomplished Christian. Lincoln far less so, other presidents even lesser still, and the office of president not Christian at all. An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.
[re: implicit incest in creationist account of early human history]
It seems that you want to make this "incest" out to be something bad. You think that the fact that it is incest should be noted in the article, but I've never disagreed with mentioning that it occurred, but object to putting it in a way that suggests that there was something wrong with it. Even just the use of the word "incest", although technically correct, is problematic because of the connotations surrounding the term. As far as putting in bits that aren't in the account is concerned, I previously pointed out that you were doing that anyway. The bits that explain that incest wasn't a problem come directly from what you want to do—applying logic to the accounts, but unlike you, I don't come with the presupposition that they are mythological stories that therefore must have problems.
The 15-year-old public school gunman has died in Wisconsin, and 'the lamestream media do not disclose the title of the movie that his class was being forced to watch when he pulled out a gun to shoot at the projector'.
A major liberal falsehood of the mid-20th century was that intelligent life in outer space must exist, and that America should spend billions looking for it. This falsehood had political overtones in favor of nuclear disarmament, globalism, environmentalism, government spending and atheism. Political and Atheist leaders who supported research into extraterrestrial life, or were strong advocates that intelligent life must exist in outer space were:
Jimmy Carter
Adolf Hitler
Carl Sagan
Belief in ET's is as strong among atheists and materialists as the belief in angels and departed saints by religious believers.
Atheist bullying is a problem in many public schools, where student populations are becoming increasingly atheist or non-religious and are less likely to keep their lack of faith out of school discourse. Atheist students are commonly engaging in persecution of Christian students, encouraged by the out-spoken nature of the growing number of adherents of New Atheism, such as Richard Dawkins.
In serious cases, atheist bullying has lead to Christian students being pulled out of public schools to undergo home-schooling or private tuition, as their academic life has become intolerable.
Many school shootings are thought to be related to atheist bullying. The most infamous, the Columbine shooting, was partly perpetrated by an atheist.
It is feared that the rising number of militant atheist students will lead to more frequent - and deadly - school shootings in the future.
Quantum tunneling is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on traditional laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.
Jesus proved this was possible in John 20:26, when he appeared before the Apostles in a closed room with completely shut doors.
[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge - Observation of the Wave Function]
The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. John 2:9 states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.
Attention atheists: Please get a life!
More evidence that atheists quite often tend to be white, unmarried, socially challenged nerds! An atheists' meeting was organized in the United States concerning the future direction of the atheist movement and 370 people attended. The New York Times described the attendees as "The largely white and male crowd — imagine a Star Trek convention, but older..."[1] For more information, please see Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women
Atheists, please consider the advice that William Shatner gave to Trekkies in a comedy skit: Get a life! VIDEO
For more information, please see: Attention atheists: Please get a life!
The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from Adam, which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."[2] This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists been more openminded about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.
[in a list of alleged counterexamples to an old earth]
6.The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.
The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. Intuitively one would expect the conversion to occur before anyone tasted the drink. But under quantum mechanics, it is not until observation that matter acquires a definite state. John 2:9 describes this precisely as required by quantum mechanics, and the KJV misses this subtle issue of timing in the conversion.
By the 1970s, however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.
Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:
* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)
* oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)
* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives,[4] and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking[5]
* support affirmative action for women
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do[6][7]
* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying[8]
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";[9] object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"
"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.
Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.
Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.
You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding....
If you were genuinely interested in logic, then you'd spend some time reading or translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. But I suspect you're more interested in trying to reject the Bible than giving it equal time in your activities. Am I right?
["I'm Plymouth Brethren, rejecting the bible isn't in my "Modus Operandi"]
Atheist doctor: I think it is time we ended your life now.
Patient: Doctor, I have no health insurance. If I die now, I will never be able to pay you back.
Atheist doctor: Well, upon further deliberation, I think you should fight this condition with every fibre of your being. And if I were you, I would also call my friends and family and ask if they would loan me some money.
Essay: Quantifying Vulnerability to Atheism
We quantify intelligence, health, athletic skills and even musical talent. But more important than those, especially for teenagers, is the vulnerability to atheism. A simply test can quantify one's vulnerability to atheism:
1. Do you frame arguments in terms of what is best for you, as opposed to others?
2. Do you spend more time thinking about yourself than volunteering for others?
3. Do you deny equal time to the Bible?
4. Do you oppose allowing classroom prayer even when everyone in the classroom wants to pray together?
5. Do you think atheists have achieved more intellectually than non-atheists?
(add more)
If your score (or the score of a loved one) is "yes" on more than half of the questions, then you (or a loved one) is highly vulnerable to atheism. Beware of the depression and anxiety that typically follows.
...inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so
What's the name for a self-centered, uncharitable person who censors classroom prayer? An atheist. That's why atheists do not build hospitals, and they don't win sports championships like the World Cup either.
Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is Barack Obama rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?
One explanation is that the Islamic sharia disfavors dancing.
Here is a growing list of logical contradictions in atheism:
* Atheists say they do not believe that any God or equivalent deity exists, but then are often hostile to Christians, as in censoring classroom prayer even when everyone wants to participate.
* Atheist often state that god does not exist, however there is much biblical evidence (which is infallible) which attests to the opposite conclusion.
* Atheists believe that all truths can be derived via reason and deny the efficacy of revelation
(add more)
[re: whether Jesus' instant healing power contradicts the theory of relativity]
Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would Isaac Newton and most great scientists.
As our Conservative Bible Translation project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful
Liberal logic is an argument that has logical appeal to a liberal, but is nonsensical. Let's build a list:
* an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone, but saying a prayer in class can cause tremendous harm
* increasing spending by government must reduce poverty (no, dependency increases poverty)
* teaching abstinence must not reduce premarital sex
* widespread ownership of the largely defensive weapon of gun must not reduce crime
* that lack of government programs to rehabilitate criminals must not reduce crime
* that increasing taxes must increase government revenue (no, often people work less)