Monday, 23 February 2015

Abortion on request is sacred-let the child sacrifices to Moloch continue.....

gendercide
Dr Sarah Woolaston,  doctor and Tory MP for Totnes has tweeted to say she will be voting against Fiona Bruce's attempt to outlaw gender specific abortion. A growing number of female babies in Britain are being killed because they are not male and for no other reason. Medical groups, including the left wing pro-abortion BMA and various women's groups are voting against any ban on female specific abortion too. See link below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11425828/Gender-abortion-Womens-groups-urge-MPs-to-vote-against-law-change.html

The practice of aborting, i.e. poisoning, dismembering and incinerating, developing girl babies in the womb simply because of preference for a male child is termed gendercide. In China and India there are now millions of men who have no chance of marrying because of tens of millions of female specific abortions. This godless and harmful practice is now growing in Britain, mainly due to people of Indian descent.

You might think that the sisterhood would oppose this. After all, this is killing girls just because they are not valued as boys. But no. The 1967 Abortion Act, which from day one has been interpreted as allowing abortion on request, is truly sacred. Anything that suggests there might be a problem with abortion or any limitation whatever on women's supposed rights and freedoms to choose will be absolutely opposed with all available weapons. Not a millimeter can ever be conceded. After all, we all need to feel good about ourselves, so if we decide to do something our God given conscience tells us is evil, we need to silence our conscience with a lie.

Feminist activists claim that since only women become pregnant that men have no say-but of course much of the pressure for freely available abortion comes from men, whose freedom to fornicate without responsibility is greater than ever. And we all live in a society whose morals and world view have been radically changed by legal abortion on request. And if you are reading this, your mother didn't kill you.
abortion
The pagan tribes that inhabited Canaan practiced child sacrifice to their foul demon god Moloch. The One True God, who causes no man to sin but knows all things from the beginning, in His sovereignty allowed for this particularly evil people group to inhabit the specific piece of land that He had chosen to give to Abraham and his descendants for ever. Because of their spectacular wickedness, He justly decreed that they should be wiped out. Their practice of murdering their own children was cited as a key reason for this terrible judgment.

Well over 7 million unborn children have been killed in Britain since 1967, with the full connivance and support of the medical, legal and Parliamentary authorities and of the Press. The few that have spoken out against this have been shouted down. Abortion protest is now very muted, the current interest in female specific abortion has lifted the level of interest. Interestingly, 7 million is about the number of foreign immigrants who have come in during that period of time, apparently since the labour market is short of young British people. So abortion on request has changed the demographic of Britain as well as its ethical milieu. Don't expect a BBC or C4 documentary exploring this any time soon.

I am studying the sad but beautiful  Book of Jeremiah at present. This book deals with God's mercy in warning wicked nations and graciously giving them ample opportunities to repent and turn away from their sins and be forgiven before final judgment comes. We read in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation that the shedding of innocent blood cries out to God for judgment. It is true that the Bible says nothing specific about abortion, but we can reasonably conclude that God hates it, as it destroys a human made in His image.

 in the first chapter of Jeremiah He said to the young man

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."

Psalm 139 also affirms that the child in the womb is fully human, verse 13 King David speaking in prophetic praise to God says

'You formed my inward parts, you wove me together in my mother's womb.' 

And we read in Luke's Gospel 4:44  that the unborn John the Baptist '...leaped for joy...' in the presence of the unborn Jesus in Mary's womb.

No more needs to be said: when we take the life of a developing human in the womb we are messing with God. And we know it.  In Jeremiah 19: 5 we read that God said

"They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

This is an extraordinary statement from an omniscient Deity-it appears that God was uniquely shocked that people should be so extremely wicked that they would kill their own children.

Jeremiah continued to speak God's gracious and merciful rebukes and warnings to to Israel, but they refused to listen, even burning his words in public, beating him and throwing him down a muddy well. But in time all of his words proved true and unrepentant Jerusalem was destroyed and its rulers taken into exile. The king's sons (who had  mocked and ill treated Jeremiah) were killed in front of him, he was then blinded before being taken to prison in Babylon for the rest of his life.

For the materialist/atheist/humanist of course the above is all nonsense. We came from nothing and are going to nothing, there is no God so no moral law and there are no eternal consequences, only our rights and liberties to have as much fun as we can f
or as long as we can. If a baby is on the way and it doesn't suit us, well it is weaker than us so our right in the struggle for life is superior. So why not kill the handicapped and economically unproductive too? That would be the Darwinian thing to do. Society isn't quite ready for that yet, but it's coming, it's coming.....its amazing what you can get used to.

God partook of our weak, frail, suffering human condition when He became a zygote, then a foetus, in Mary's womb. Because of what He did for us on the cross, the worst of us can be forgiven and reconciled. But the offer has terms and conditions. Immediate application is highly recommended.

Friday, 16 January 2015

Beagle 2 Mars probe fail revisited

We are told that rather than crashing and burning, the Beagle 2 probe that landed on Mars on Christmas Day a few years back merely crashed. New pictures suggest the chutes deployed but the solar panels only half opened, causing mission failure.

I remember laughing like a drain when this hubristically named project failed, and on Christmas Day too. Who says God has no sense of humour?

Guys, there ain't no life on Mars, or comets. Stop wasting money trying to 'prove' abiogenesis in space and admit that we now know enough biology to realise it's impossible on earth.

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Yawn....

Another news headline today.....traces of methane apparently found on Mars, so maybe life!!!!!

2 problems-A) this isn't a new claim, and B) if there is methane on Mars it isn't even a glimmer of a fragment of the beginning of an explanation of the origin of life. And this isn't my faith position, it's basic biochemistry.

I remember hearing this one around 10 years ago. Setting aside issues about the accuracy of the technology that may have detected traces of methane, the herd of elephants in the room is the many steps from simple chemicals like methane to even a single strand of protein.

The reporters and commentators who constantly repeat these 'building blocks of life' assertions seem to be on a mission to persuade us by repetition that the origin of life is fairly straightforward. This is absolutely the opposite of the truth, and what's more the scientists know this very well.

This 'reporting' is not news, it's propaganda. Repeat something often enough, however false, and folks will assume it's true.

Monday, 24 November 2014

Silicon age fairy tales and chronological snobbery

Christianity is often dismissed as 'Bronze Age Fairy Tales'. This lazy slogan is inaccurate on so many levels you could write an essay about it.

For a start, I ask the scoffer, can you make, and work, bronze? I didn't ask 'Do you know what bronze is' but can you MAKE it, not in theory but for real, starting with rocks, sticks and fire. Because our ancestors whom you denigrate with your cheap slogans somehow worked out how to.

C S Lewis wrote about 'chronological snobbery', the idea that we are necessarily better than our ancestors because we come after them and have taller buildings, airplanes and mobile phones. They were dumb so they just believed any old nonsense, but we're so much wiser than them.

Oh yeah? Because they had Mozart, Shakespeare and Columbus while we have Lady Gaga, Shoot 'em up computer games, a generation of kids on prescribed amphetamine for 'ADHD' and Magalluf?

There is no evidence that our ancestors were stupider than us. Our technology is more advanced, but that is down to building on accumulated knowledge we inherited. Standing on the shoulders of giants.

We believe some pretty dumb stuff today. We believed that conquered Iraqis would willingly embrace Western style liberal democracy, pluralism and probity and then the whole Middle East would follow suit. Our rulers refused to listen to those who knew different. But we repeated the same errors in Libya and Syria. We have borrowed money we can't pay back to buy stuff we didn't need.

We have eviscerated marriage and encouraged, subsidised and enabled an epidemic of fatherless families which we know harms future generations. We are short of nurses, engineers and artisans because we encouraged our youth to do junk university degrees in 'film studies', 'criminology', sociology, graphic design, media studies and other liberal vanities. And we have created a housing crisis partly by epidemic divorce and single parenthood and also by bringing in 5 million immigrants to to do the work our own benefit claimants won't do-not least because we sold them unrealistic expectations and recruited them into a Ponzi scheme to pay our pensions and healthcare costs out of their taxes while they struggle with student debt and unaffordable housing. No wonder euthanasia is being talked up so much.

I don't think we are wiser, or even cleverer, than the generations of Chaucer, Bede and Newton. Our grandchildren will curse us for our selfishness and stupidity as they deal with the broken relationships, dismembered culture and cosmic levels of debt we are leaving them. We have abandoned our Christian heritage not for 'enlightenment' but for debt funded electronic toys and games.

Something else our worthy ancestors knew was that Islam wanted to eat Western Civilisation (formerly known as Christendom) and needed to be restrained. But for their efforts we'd be speaking Arabic and certainly not on line as the industrial revolution would not have happened, or the so called Enlightenment. We have welcomed it in and invited it to sit at table and have a drink while they look at the menu.

When you ditch the beneficent Creator God and His Saviour Christ, eventually reason and liberty follow true religion out the window and are succeeded by madness and tyranny.

Friday, 21 November 2014

Government to legislate against free thought

An item on the Centre for Intelligent Design web site shows how anxious the evolutionist establishment has become at the intelligent, articulate criticisms of the Darwin Mythos that are coming their way.

rather than rethink their position in the light of unwanted evidence, they use bullying tactics to censor inconvenient questions.

read more about the doctrinaire atheist assault on academic freedom here.


Scientism is not science, it is materialist philosophy.

Science should be unchained.

Enquiry should be free, not restricted by well connected pressure groups.

Friday, 14 November 2014

Rosetta/Philae comet project

So they dropped a washing machine on to a rock from a minibus?

Very clever of them, and a £billion is small change compared to overall government spending.....but in the end, so what?

Commentators keep saying this will help us solve the question of the origin of life. But how?

We already know that life only comes from life. They are asking the wrong questions and looking in the wrong place.

When will the scientific establishment admit the truth that all the science ever done shows that life cannot begin without design input?

Is the whole Rosetta project, clever though it is, just another attempt to produce more obfuscation around all the dead end origin of life experiments?

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Intelligent design hypothesis-conclusion of reflections

Intelligent design hypothesis-conclusion of reflections

After posting a few reflections on ID over the last month or so, I'd like to conclude for now with these thoughts.

Scientific endeavor is about hypothesis, measurement and testing. It always begins with a problem or question, and it should be a worthy one. A philosopher whose name escapes me (Popper?) said that doing research into the cubic volume of books in a library would be a theoretical subject for study, but pointless. Agreed. Not all research is worthwhile. But big questions about origins are worth asking, and we had better get the answers right since one of the options floating around out there is that we have a creator to whom we are accountable and who plans to bring us into judgment in eternity. Surely as the Christian philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal suggested in his 'wager', if that option is even anywhere near the table we had better take it very seriously? We ought at least not be willing to be thrown off the track by bluster, censorship and slogans.


'I've been out walking, for hours.
got something on my mind.
how did we get here
where are we going?
and why is life so hard?'

Fair questions, and old ones. We exist, our existence in this astonishing universe and marvelous planet seems very improbable but nevertheless here we are. we had to have originated somehow-so was it God or was it Chance? Its a question worth asking, and getting the right answer matters. As Dr Vij Sodera says (see link below) 'It doesn't matter what you believe as long as what you believe is true.'

It's probably true to say from anthropological studies and history that most humans since the beginning of humanity have assumed that we have a creator. Belief that the universe and its inhabitants were created by atoms sticking together whether entirely accidentally or through some impersonally 'life-force' (deism) go back to the ancients. I came across the idea that we had formed from atoms in Marcus Aurelius and I understand that Epicurus was an atheist who accepted some form of evolution. 

But obviously the idea was developed by Darwin in his 1859 book 'Origin of Species' that humans and other life forms developed by natural selection acting very slowly on naturally occurring variations and became known as the theory of evolution. And it is clear, notwithstanding the contradictions of professing Christians who say that molecules to man evolution is compatible with biblical Christianity, that the theory of evolution explains away our existence without recourse to a Great Maker or creator. In my opinion that has always been its purpose.

So what of ID? Clearly ID does not exist in a vacuum, it is primarily an  attempt by mainly (although not exclusively) Christian believers to falsify evolutionary theory by using the scientific method. Let's not be coy about this-but this is NOT an admission that ID arguments are inadmissible because they are tainted by the motives of their advocates, since CLEARLY the advocates of evolution are equally open to a charge of wanting materialism/atheism to be true.

to summarise

1) The intelligent design (ID) hypothesis is not religious. If its advocates have religious or philosophical motivations, then so equally do evolution advocates. Similarly, if ID has metaphysical implications, so equally does evolution theory. It is therefore NOT LEGITIMATE to exclude consideration of ID arguments and questions by smearing them as creationism in disguise.

2) ID makes observations and asks questions about structures in the natural world, particularly nanomachinery and information in living cells.

3) ID posits that unguided evolutionary mechanisms could not possibly have made the living things that we observe, and that unguided molecule to man evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations is therefore falsified. (*)

4) ID also notes, using similar arguments to Lyell and Darwin (the present is the key to the past) that we can observe the process and results of purposeful design today. Applying the lessons learned from studying design today, we find that living things share aspects of devices and structures that we know from direct observation were designed and made. We therefore deduce that the living things which we did not see originate were most likely designed by a superior intelligence. We deduce this on the grounds that we know from direct observation that complex, purposeful structures with numerous working parts routinely arise from intelligent design but are never seen to arise from unguided processes as evolutionists claim must have happened in the unobservable distant past.

I could go on but will leave it there for now.

Intelligent design  was a given for the Psalmist (e.g. Psalm 19:1 'the heavens are telling the glory of God') and the Apostle Paul (Romans 1: 8-22 where he argues that the divine nature is obviously seen through the things that have been made).

Going beyond the intelligent design hypothesis, the bible believing Christian notes that we have good reasons for believing that the God of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel etc is the creator and has spoken to us, most notably and finally through His Son Jesus, who was raised from the dead and is coming again to judge the living and the dead. This Jesus and His Apostles repeatedly warned about false teachers and false prophets who would come particularly in the last days before the end of the world and would lead many astray. Paul wrote to the church at Colossae (Col 2:8)

'Take care that no one takes you away by force, through man's wisdom and deceit, going after the beliefs of men and the theories of the world, and not after Christ:'

I'd like to leave this discussion on ID there. For more information the UK centre for ID and the excellent book by Dr Vij Sodera which comprehensively documents the scientific evidence against evolution 'One Small Speck to Man: The Evolution Myth.'

Intelligent design basically shows, using scientific arguments and facts, why evolution theory doesn't work. Ask yourself, why is ID routinely vilified, misrepresented and censored in the main stream media? Ask yourself if you have ever seen a TV programme consider the arguments being put forward in support of the ID hypothesis. No, we are just constantly bombarded with evolutionist propaganda.

God or Chance? This is much too important to be left to the people who tell society what to think. If ID can be falsified by empirical science, for example by demonstrating a meaningful new structure self assembling without design input, then let it be so falsified. But if ID is being shouted down and suppressed by arrogant establishment bullies, then maybe consideration could be given to the possibility that evolution is an elaborate deception promoted and sustained by powers who want to stop you thinking about Christianity perhaps being true. If it is, then we will be giving account to God for our wrongdoing, including our culpable unbelief, sooner than we think.

(*) it is conceded that many ID advocates including Michael Behe, accept many aspect of evolution including long ages and a common ancestor, hence my carefully qualified description of evolution, a word that is claimed to mean many different things. I think Behe is wrong to accept long ages and common descent, but that does not invalidate the facts and arguments set out in his books and lectures.