Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Radioactive Decay Changes!

From Rob

When I was in high school and perhaps 2/3rds through college, I was very much into young earth creationism and I felt it was one of the most important movements for biblical Christianity. For several reasons, I have long left that sentiment. I'm no longer comfortable with the way YEC advocates come very close to de-Christianizing orthodox Christians of other views from progressive creationists to theistic evolutionists. I no longer am confident that taking Genesis seriously and authoritatively demands a "literal" interpretation.

Still, I know my place. I began to recognize, even when I was more hyper about the issue, that my limited technical knowledge meant that many of the issues where beyond my ability to judge.

For this reason and perhaps others, while I don't identify with the YEC (Young Earth Creation) movement, I actually don't want them to go away. I don't consider it beyond a reasonable doubt that they may be on to something, that they may indeed come out ahead of the game and may be right about many things. And it's all due to what so many in the 20th century seem to take for granted even if they pay lip service to it. Science is tentative.

I followed an article from popsci on this that serves as a reminder and it involves a matter very important to YEC. Those who have a bone to pick with the idea of an ancient universe or at least an ancient earth have an issue with radio-isotopic dating. It turns out that the decay rates that those methods depend upon are not set in stone and may be altered.

The consequences aren't just for those who have a beef to pick with an ancient age for the universe. Those decay constants are probably linked to many physical principles. Those principles may be wrong. As the article concluded, "Perhaps our understanding of nuclear physics in general -- is a lot weaker than we thought."

Tuesday, August 24, 2010


Some how, I read your comment as email and clicked to publish but it didn't publish. Then I went to the moderation page and probably didn't check mark the little box --but just hit "publish." Not realizing I had to check mark your post first. So a couple of topics ago, you are now published and I responded. And as usual, you are wrong and I am right --heh heh ; )

This happened with Jeanette's comment, too, and I didn't realize until she called me.

I have been SOOOOO BUSY! Our family had 3 medical procedures in one week --one an emergency appendectomy. So I've been driving people around, etc. I also have to have another shot for a pain in the A myself --sciatic nerve --so bad I can't sleep!

You'd think I wouldn't have any more pain in the A with Mudrake out of my blog life!

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Some Ways I Would be Disappointed by Gay Marriage

A Question on Another Blog --and My Answer

Have you, now or at any time in the past, been harmed by the marriage of two persons of the same sex?

Obviously not, since gay marriage is not legal around here.

If it were my kid, I would be harmed by his/her opinion that he/she were homosexual–and I would be harmed by such a “marriage.” Or even a civil union. Why?

1. I would feel that my husband and I had failed as parents to pass along God’s family values in a positive way. We had failed to teach or role model hetero marriage effectively. We had failed to help our kids be happy in their given sexuality, with normal family goals.

2. I would feel that I made mistakes in not chaperoning them better in youth, not grounding them in Christian faith and worldview before college, not shaping their character so they would resist sexual temptations.

3. I would be disappointed that they would not have a normal union and bring children into the world, at least not by any normal means, passing on their fine musical genes and raising chaste and heterosexual children. (Granted, single children don't do this either, but celibate singleness is pleasing in God's eyes, when it's part of a godly lifestyle.)

4. I would be harmed in them deliberately choosing to avoid normal marriage, bringing us no grandchildren for us to love and to love us. There would be fewer family members to help us out and cheer us in our elder years. (My family enriches their grandmothers’ lives, looks out for them.)

5. By not having their own children, homosexuals do impose duties to look out for them on their siblings’ children–who already have their own family responsibilities. Otherwise, the burden falls to themselves or the state entirely. (Again, chaste hetero singles do this, also, but they also haven't made any unholy alliances, given us grief or made children out of wedlock for gov't or us to subsidize.)

6. My kids ARE harmed when they can’t find chaste, hetero mates if more and more of their peers are going off with their own sex.

7. My kids are harmed if their teachers or neighbors or cousins or friends lead them into gay experimentation: “Try it; you’ll like it!”

8. My kids are harmed and I’m broken-hearted if they get a highly promiscuous sex addiction or an incurable STD or other physical ailment because of homo-sexperimentation --or any extra-marital sex for that matter.

9. Families/spouses and children are harmed when the spouse or one of their parents decides to transgender or leave for another person of either sex. I would be devastated if my daughter or son-in-law decided she or he had to be with someone else of either sex, and caused divorce for it.

10. We feel we are harmed if we can’t disapprove of this lifestyle and teach our children to reject it for themselves. We are harmed when our Bible-based values are considered Hate speech –and when we can be prosecuted for teaching or preaching the morality of the Bible. We are harmed if we are denied our constitutional right to free speech, freedom in media, and freedom of religion on this topic –as in England and Canada.

11. We are all harmed in economy if we have to give the same economic benefits to partners of homosexuals who don’t bear the children, educate them for over 18 years per child, spend thousands on them. The perks are for the child-maker-bearers –to offset the costs of bringing children into the world, having one parent stay at home to civilize them, or hiring daycare to do it. This is just best done with a hetero couple –as they are the only ones who can make babies and role-model the functional nuclear family with both a mother and father for their children. Yes, homosexuals may already have children from hetero marriages, and they should have the father’s financial support for those children–unless the mother caused the break-up by coming out gay. In that case, the father should get the custody and child support from the mother because of her infidelity. Marriage law should be just.

Granted, many of the same things I list are true about heterosexual immorality, also –except for the greater likelihood that children will be involved.

Homosexual involvement is just one more rung higher, on the already dangerous and depressing ladder of nuclear family breakdown with promiscuity.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Overview of the Demise of Marriage

Read part of an article about No Fault Divorce issue HERE. This August, 2010, article from World magazine, edited by Marvin O’Laskey (brilliant Jewish convert to Christianity) concludes that divorce should be more difficult –and that when someone like Christie Brinkley complained and exposed her husband’s misdeeds , it was because he was so wrong and there should be consequences. Divorce ought to be fair –rather than neutral about fault when one person has devastated the other’s life, financial and emotional security, and guaranteed the kids a more than 90 per cent chance that they, too, will get divorced some day –if they even marry.

The institution of marriage in the U.S. has been more egalitarian and humane than in some other cultures throughout history, but it has received a battering ram in the last 50 years.

During the Hippie era, free love was in vogue; parents let their college-age kids bring home their boyfriends to their beds and wondered why their example wasn't embraced by their kids; the reason: they didn't TEACH their kids that the fear of the Lord and respect for His statutes are the beginning of wisdom -- and example alone wasn't enough; abortion replaced shot-gun weddings, freeing the young couples who erred to pursue serial monogamy. Soon virginity was VERY unfashionable –except for the religious groups that came along with their “true love waits” programs.

Abstinence ed. had some success with delaying teen sex activity and pregnancy –when it was really embraced by the sex educators. Those who didn’t try very hard to teach it saw their students following the Hollywood love/sex model instead. (i.e. They run up to the bedroom –and live happily ever after –until the next person comes along — or, as in Sleepless in Seattle, in which the old shacked-up mate is tossed aside for new, and in Bridges of Madison Co., women vicariously enjoyed the “romance of adultery” (the bad thing about the movie) –even though the wife stays with her husband –(the good thing about the movie.)

HOwever, TV actually helped marriage with the Cleavers and the Ingalls family as examples. The latter (conceived and directed by Michael Landon (Jewish heritage –and Christian from his parents) were role models for Christians and home-schoolers But then followed Friends and then Seinfeld’s young adults jumping in and out of bed with whomever –as though this were not immoral, just funny, and wouldn’t be emotionally damaging and physically risky.

The Sexual Revolution started with the hippies, aided by Roe vs. Wade –and then came AIDS and Herpes –and instead of the whole country wanting to return to traditional American, religion-inspired, moral VALUES to prevent incurable STD’s, we quixotically endorsed homosexuality because of our compassion for the AIDS afflicted–the group that brought AIDS to America and the group that still has the most new cases.

Finally, I believe we are seeing more and more people with gender identity issues –no doubt, in part, because they don’t have one parent of each gender modeling love for the opposite sex spouse and affirming the given sex of the children in their immediate families. Tougher divorce laws and promoting the importance of traditional, hetero marriage, MIGHT help.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Steve on Proposition 8 --and My Rebuttal --Of course!

Blogger Steve writes:

Oh boy! Prop 8 in Cali got overturned. I imagine most judiciaries will follow suit and laws against Gay marriage will begin to fall like dominoes. The judges language in the ruling is perfect and logically spells out the separation between church and state in legislative issues.

The arc of history is constantly shifting toward more and more inclusiveness and tolerance. Each passing generation is more accepting of others than the previous generation. I think we are on the edge of a new enlightenment. The world is worn out from war and hostility and hate. I think that we will still suffer more paroxysms of violence to be sure; Isreal is about to attack Lebanon again and will probably use that attack as a smoke screen to go after Iran and Syria. But the world is growing tired of armed conflict to resolve issues. What does the bible say about "wars and rumors of war" in the last days? But if you look at statistics.. the number and amount of heated armed conflict is steadily declining, victims of political violence is declining. One of the reasons for this steady decline - in my oppinion - is the empowerment of women around the world. The more women are empowered politically, the better the world will be. So who are the holdouts that are stopping the empowerment of women? Religions.. Specifically Christianity and Islam. Nobody should be treated a 2nd class citizen based on their race, gender, or what they do in private.
"The number and amount of heated armed conflict is [sic] steadily declining, victims of political violence is [sic] declining."

HUH? I wonder about your so-called stats! Aren't you the bright-eyed optimist!! An American Christian mission team was in a restaurant in Uganda recently and Muslims happened to target it (not them but the general population) for bombing --76 dead but the mission team sustained injuries only--as body parts flew through the air.

One could go on and on and list the terrorist and other actions around the world which don't indicate we are becoming more civilized. Yes, women having respect and rights would help the cause of world peace because democracy brings such equality AND peace. However, Christianity is woman's friend, not foe. Democracy has thrived in our culturally Judeo-Christian nation. It is in Christian nations where women have the most freedom and opportunity.

I don't think women fare at all well under Communism, do you? with forced abortions, e.g. I read recently of a Chinese woman who tried desperately to escape abortion, without success. What carnage! What creepy totalitarianism is that!! Personally, I prefer America's freedom that came from its Christian faith --where children were valued and women were protected in divorce and custody situations, where adulterating husbands paid more than now for destroying their marriages. Where women were not expected to protect men from marriage, paternity and child support with abortion, where men were the primary bread-winners able to let the women stay home looking after children and house --or work if they wished, not because they had to.

So, I don't know what rose-colored glasses you are wearing, Steve --that you should see a coming utopia free of Christianity's moral and decency standards in the law in some misbegotten liberal opinion of church-state separation. Our moral standards come from religion --or atheistic ideology. Somebody's philosophical ideals inevitably must prevail in the law--I'll take the Christian ideals anyday.

I just read the Am. Family Practice News magazine or Journal of AFP --and noticed the diseases more common to MSWM (men who have sex with men) than anyone else --and to black youth who have 40% more of a type of STD, especially from bisexuality and down low activities. We can't seem to keep ahead of the flesh-eating bacteria which are on the increase and most prevalent in the gay population--and like HIV, spreading to others, particularly in hospitals.

So celebrate your coming utopia where your own children will be taught in school and media and even by you to feel just as free to explore same sex behavior with all its attendant risks, addiction, heartbreak, frequent promiscuity and broken relationships and childlessness --in order to find out if their self-perceived "difference" from peers (youth ALL feel odd and out of it at various times in development) that makes them odd or unpopular, might just be homosexual preference. There's a pop song out now about a girl kissing a girl and liking it. That's supposed to mean she's homosexual, no doubt. When in fact, it just means that lips on lips can feel good --barring bad smells and sloppiness that a clumsy, pimply-face, adolescent, first boyfriend (or girlfriend) might bring to the experience.

We're setting ourselves up for "the gaying of America." And in the long run, I predict you will rue the day and say, "Barb, you were right!!" when your kids announce their bisexual or homosexual experiences and proclivities. MARK MY WORDS. This is one time that I truly hope I am wrong!! The new rebellion against parental authority and society will become gay experimentation, as parents don't go along with the new official encouragement of gay marriage.

As for the courts --don't be so sure. This one is headed for the Supreme Court if democracy and the right of appeal are still alive in America. But of course, the liberals outnumber us on the court --though not yet in the country. We had better get a series of decent, God-fearing, principle-following presidents to appoint such justices after Obama --or "Gov't Of, By and For the people" will become, instead, "Gov't Of, By and For the Liberal Judges."

As for your privacy right --there is no such right as a right to do whatever you darn well please in private. After all, pedophilia and rape are carried out in private, along with most other crimes. A right to privacy was the twisted logic that produced abortion on demand in America --of which we can never be proud. "Privacy right" was also used to legalize sodomy behind closed doors between consenting adults, which I agreed with only because I don't want the police to barge in on same-sex adults, suspecting they are doing Back Door Boogie and Blow Jobs when they are just sharing expenses? I don't want to hear about their doings, except for educational info necessary to realize we should protect our kids from this mindset with its high-risk behaviors.

YOu are going to be amazed, Steve, if gay marriage is legalized, how fast the following will become legal: polygamy, close relatives petitioning to marry if they are willing to be sterilized or have any defective kids aborted, eccentric ladies marrying their pets, step-fathers marrying step-kids when they turn 18 --and ultimately, lowering the age of consent. All will follow gay marriage.
All will be demanding perks for their various kinds of partners --like housing and spousal benefits in the military as Britain and other allied nations provide. Yet, we already have too much social expense due to divorcing heteros. Gay relationships are even more unstable and adulterous than hetero relationships. (On average, their couplings last 2 years, I read somewhere.) Gay spouses REALLY have no right to demand the financial benefits which heterosexual spouses get because of the obvious value to our national survival and health of procreating couples making and raising children.

Do you really want the gov't and business to pay for the maintenance, insurance, support and pensions of gay men and other same sex partners who can give us no children --same as for wives and mothers of children who deserve the perks for their labor and maintenance of homes for their spouse and kids whom they diligently and most healthfully raise with both mom and dad in the home? Just so these "couples" can give each other orgasms that are normally a part of potentially procreative/intimate male/female relationships? For which we are all designed --even the gays are designed for heterosexual intimacy and procreation.

That's just too much diversity for me to start paying for Adam and Steve to copulate anally and orally in the military --same as for Adam and Eve, father and mother of the future.