TRANS FORMATION

AOC PLAINLY DOES NOT SEE

 

Stop your propaganda and science/biology denial, Rep. Cortez.

Gender dysphoric children are mentally ill, confused, deluded, disoriented, misguided, uninformed, troubled, in denial of who they are, in need of serious counseling and direction to bring them back to reality.  Any adult - parent, teacher, doctor, politician, or counselor - who reinforces this nonsense is guilty of child abuse.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gender dysphoria

NOUN

medicine

1. the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do these troubled children and this nation a disservice by perpetuating this "transgender" myth (lie). 

Refusing to deal with their mental/emotional sickness does not bode well for their future. Suicide is not driven by bullying or rejection of them as persons but by their inability to cope with something that they are not (pretending, fantasizing that they are the opposite sex/gender from which they were born.) 

Let me remind you, Rep. Cortez and your "trans" allies, that there are only two sexes (man and woman) and two genders (male and female.)  This is basic science,  basic biology, and confirmed biblical.  God does not make mistakes.  He designed human beings to be heterosexual.  To think or  to act (behave) otherwise is to  reject God's perfect plan. 

You are not God, stop shaping mankind into an "improved" image.

What Democrats Want, Day 79, Countdown to Oblivion? LHBT Part 2

As of today, there are 79 days until the most consequential election in American history. This is what they say about many past elections, but this is really it. For if the Democrats seize power – control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and the Presidency – and doing it by hook or by crook (the justifies the means, you know) America as we know it will be forever changed. America envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers will disappear into the shadows of history.

The ungodly secular-humanists/Marxists slow march through America’s institutions over the last 100 years or so will have reached a crescendo – fulfilling Mr. Obama’s fundamental transformation of America. Never again will the demonic Democratic Party relinquish its grip on political power and control of the masses.

Envision with me what a communistic Democratic Party takeover, a bloodless coup, a regime change would look like. This is a series of daily articles leading up to the 2020 General Election scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

Yesterday we looked at the major role the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) played in advancing the LHBT movement and agenda, today we look at science’s part. By the way, LHBT is a more accurate representation of the various sexual anomalies than the seemingly accepted LGBT designation where the H stands for homosexuality.

In part, a meme I saw recently reads, “We live in a society where homosexuals lecture us on morals, transgenders lecture us on human biology…”  I thought that was pertinent to a discussion of science and the behavior of homosexuals and transgenders.

What “Science” Says

So, what do so-called scientists and medical professionals, namely psychiatrists, and others regard those who behave sexually outside of heterosexual relationships?  Let’s look at some history.

Wikipedia reports, “Classification of gay (HOMOSEXUAL), lesbian, and bisexual sexual orientations underwent major changes in different editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). DSM I classified these orientations under "paraphilia", and DSM II under "sexual orientation disturbance". DSM III further modified this to "ego-dystonic homosexuality", before finally dropping the subject from DSM-III-R (and subsequent editions)…The DSM-II considered homosexuality as one form of paraphilia, but in the seventh printing of DSM-II homosexuality had shifted to another classification, which is sexual orientation disturbance. This major change had been preceded by increasing activities of the LGBT community in the 1960s, specifically the Stonewall riots in 1969.” 

In other words, homosexuality “evolved” from being considered a mental disorder or illness to now being considered “normal” behavior. Truth was vacated. Political correctness and hardcore lobbying convinced mental health physicians to replace logic, reason and science with falsities.

Even worse, #JunkScience declared that biological men can by their mere thoughts or feelings magically transform themselves into the opposite sex via hormones, surgery, or sheer willpower. It is a scientific fact that all people are born either male or female.  All people are born heterosexual. This was accepted truth and science for millennia. But “scientists” now play god and try to create mankind into whatever image they want.

According to the (corrupt) World Health Organization (WHO) waved its perverted wand and declared that transgender people will no longer be classified as having a mental disorder.  In a 2019 WebMD.com article it reported, “WHO officials voted to move the term they use for transgender people -- gender incongruence -- from its mental disorders chapter to its sexual health chapter in the 11th revision of its International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), CNN reported. That revision takes effect on Jan. 1, 2022.” 

Hocus pocus, you’re cured from your mental illness! Can anything be more deceitful, more arrogant, more foolish, more illogical?  After this declaration does WHO have any credibility?  Can we believe anything they say or recommend about the communist Chinese coronavirus? The answer is an unequivocal, NO!

The Democratic Party Complicity in the Advancing the Aims of LHBT Movement

The Democratic Party’s platform supports the “repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military allowing homosexuals, lesbians, and transgenders to serve openly and “proudly.” They miss the point of the military whose focus should be on national security and military preparedness and not on social experimentation or social engineering.

The party platform also supports the redefinition of marriage through judicial activism by U. S. Supreme Court in their Obergefell ruling “that recognized LHBT people… have the right to marry the person they love. The Democrat platform claims LHBT rights trump religious freedom, and “reject(s) the misuse of religion to discriminate.” Telling the truth about sexual immorality is considered discrimination and hate. The party’s stance is based solely on emotions, not logic or reason. The fact that the Constitution spells out the right to exercise ones faith takes second place to sexual expression.

Expect more of the same if the Democratic Party wins both house of Congress as well as the presidency in the 2020 General Election.

What Democrats Want, Day 80, Countdown to Oblivion? LHBT Part 1

As of today, there are 80 days until the most consequential election in American history. This is what they say about many past elections, but this is really it. For if the Democrats seize power – control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and the Presidency – and doing it by hook or by crook (the justifies the means, you know) America as we know it will be forever changed. America envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers will disappear into the shadows of history.

The ungodly secular-humanists/Marxists slow march through America’s institutions over the last 100 years or so will have reached a crescendo – fulfilling Mr. Obama’s fundamental transformation of America. Never again will the demonic Democratic Party relinquish its grip on political power and control of the masses.

Envision with me what a communistic Democratic Party takeover, a bloodless coup, a regime change, would look like. This is the first of a series of daily articles leading up to the 2020 General Election scheduled for November 3, 2020.

“LHBT” in the title of this post is not a typographical error. Lesbianism, homosexuality, bi-sexuality and transvestitism (LHBT), like adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, necrophilia, etc. are all forms of sexual immorality and/or sexual deviant behavior.

What is in error is not a typo, it is misnaming homosexuality as “gay.” There is nothing gay about that unnatural, abnormal, unhealthy, immoral behavior. That is why I have reverted to using the more accurate nomenclature, homosexuality. An even more descriptive, a more accurate and proper name for homosexuality is sodomy. But the term sodomy and homosexuality still has a bad connotation. Leftist and Marxists know if you change the words, you change the world. Our world, and more specifically our culture. has been greatly damaged by this sleight of hand.

What Happens When the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and Science Lie?

Complicit in this subversion are, to name a few, some in the medical profession, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), academia, the mainstream media, entertainment, Democratic Party and apostate churches.  However, we have the Supreme Court and science primarily to thank for this fundamental change in our culture.

SCOTUS Says

As America moved into the 21^st century three monumental cases were decided, Lawrence (2003) v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) gave “legal” standing and cover to sodomite and other LHBT behaviors. These dastardly decisions have done irrefutable damage to the culture.

Wikipedia summarized, “Lawrence et al. v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. laws prohibiting private homosexual activity between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases, such as Roe v. Wade, had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated....” Unfortunately, we have gone way past “private homosexual activity” and sodomy has become very public and in your face.

SCOTUS took disgrace to another level when it mocked true marriage by ruling that lesbians and homosexuals had the “right” to “marry.” A Wikipedia entry reads,      “Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 … is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” What a shameful twisted interpretation of the Constitution!  Marriage has always been and will remain in the eyes of Almighty God and correct and logically thinking men and women a sacred institution between a biological man and a biological female.

The final affront to reason, logic and morality in this horrific trio of tyrannical, illegal, illogical and unconstitutional rulings is Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.  Wikipedia notes, “Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity…”  Experts say that this ruling could have broad implications, ya’ think? Yes, staggering implications for women’s sports, for biological men gaining access to real women’s bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms and for religious freedom, and hiring practices by churches and faith-based non-profits, etc. It advances the LHBT agenda one step further declaring the mental illness, gender dysphoria, as “normal.”

Tomorrow we will conclude this two-part post with a discussion of science and its role as the second primary driver of the advancement of the LHBT movement and agenda.

Stem Cell Research Papers Retracted

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/business/stem-cell-research-papers-are-retracted.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/world/asia/academic-scandal-shakes-japan.html?_r=0

There were two papers written about a new method of producing pluripotent stem cells from ordinary cells from the body.  There had been earlier research that had established that skin cells could be used to make stem cells.  But I have not heard anything about what kind of cells were used to supposedly produce stem cells in this new research, other than that they were from mice.  They put various stresses on "regular cells taken from the body" such as chemical treatments and temperature changes to induce them to become pluripotent.  But now these papers have been retracted because some of the data and figures (pictures) were have reportedly been found to be false or falsely labeled. Being a scientist myself, I know that there is a lot bad science published in cheap open access journals, but this stuff was published in the journal Nature, which is a really big deal.  Integrity seems to waning in all areas of life, including in the scientific arena.

And all this makes me wonder.  Should we be fooling around with this stuff?  I mean, if you create a pluripotent stem cell and use it in either experiments or as treatment, is this really any better than sacrificing a human embryo?  I mean, if these cells are really just the same as embryonic stem cells, only they were produced in a different way, then isn't it just as bad to use them for the same purpose?  Killing an innocent human being is wrong.  It doesn't matter how that life came into being.  If the cells that are made by these processes have the potential to grow into a fetus, then isn't it just as wrong to dismember them as if they were just a mass of cells.  Having said this, I realize that not all pluripotent stem cells have the ability to become any type of cell in the body.  But I am just saying that just because embryonic stem cells are replaced by some other type of stem cell, that doesn't necessary mean that it is morally acceptable.

"And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore:  merchandise of ... bodies and souls of men."

Rev 18:11-13 (NKJV)

The Star of Bethlehem Found?

I watched the DVD “The Star of Bethlehem” by Rick Larson a few days ago.  This definitely deserves an investigative report on this blog.  The DVD has been out for over a year, but I just recently got around to viewing it.  I want give you my take on it.

When reading the account of the star in Matthew, a Christian is faced with two possibilities.  Either the star was simply a miraculous occurrence which cannot be explained or it is something that we would recognize today and could potentially discover what it is by extrapolating the trajectories of the stars¹ backward to the time of the birth of Christ. 

I must say that the idea that we must find a scientific proof or scientific explanation for events which occurred in the Bible is somewhat overused, at least by some.  I find little value in trying to explain how the waters parted at the Red Sea (or Reed Sea as it was) by showing the wind blew at just the right speed, direction, etc.  These details just don’t matter and no one can ever be sure of their particular theory anyway.  Its almost as silly as trying to say that the wind blew in the just the right manner to cause Jesus to walk on the water.  Miracles do not have to be explained scientifically, you just accept them by faith because you believe in God’s Word.

This whole idea of “looking for something that fits” sometimes leads people to see things as fulfillment of Scripture when it really isn’t.  These kinds of issues should not be accepted without much scrutiny.  The date of Christ’s birth and the date of the visit of wise men are unknown and Larson has a lot of space and time in which to find the two corresponding stellar events described in the Bible and then conclude what the dates are. 

Having said that, at least at first, I think the mystery of the Star is something that seems more interesting to delve into.  One reason for this is that laws of motion can be used to determine exactly how the stars were arranged at any given point in time, barring Divine intervention or miscalculation due to undiscovered forces².  But you can’t wind by time and see what happened at the Red Sea.  For the moment, let’s assume that the Star obeyed naturalistic forces in the events described in Matthew.  Let’s put Larson’s theory to the test.

Now I must say that Larson takes this way beyond just finding out what the Star was.  He describes other astronomical events surrounding the birth and death of Christ.  I will briefly comment on these first. 

Even before I did any investigation on this subject, some alarms went off in my head about what was said about the constellations and the difference between astrology and authentic interpretation of Biblical signs in the sky.  Yes, one of the differences is that the astrologer believes that the stars are not just signs, but actually control the events.  But it is certainly not the only difference!  There is nothing in the Bible that says that the constellations Leo and Virgo have the symbolism attributed to it in the DVD.  These things were myths from pagan religion.  This is like looking at a horoscope and using it to interpret the Bible! 

How, then, you might ask could it be that such coincidences could occur at the time of Jesus birth?  Remember that we do not know for sure exactly when Christ was born.  Several years can be looked through until you find something that seems significant.  It probably isn’t a coincidence that Jupiter crosses a constellation representing a lion.  A lion is considered to be king of the animals in many cultures.  It would have made sense for the original astrologer to choose a star in this constellation to be the “king” star and a planet that frequently crosses it (more frequently than the DVD leads you to believe, according to AIG) to be the “king” planet.  And Leo doesn’t particularly look like a lion; it could just as easily be some other animal.  And think of all the symbols that are associated with Jesus: Lamb, Shepherd, Rock, Root of Jesse, Bright and Morning Star, etc.  With so many symbols, it is likely that if you look hard enough you’ll find something that looks like it in the sky.  But that wouldn’t be a real Biblical sign because the Bible doesn’t tell us to look for these things in sky.  It is dangerous to mix mythology with the Bible in this way and convince people that it is real because someone could use this idea to look for symbols in the sky and use it to predict future events which only God can foresee.  Also the constellation Virgo does not fit the description given in Revelation 12.  It has about 13 stars, but the description in Revelation says that the woman has a crown of 12 stars.  Virgo doesn’t even have a crown, much less 12 stars in it.  

Larson also describes an eclipse which supposedly fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (the moon would be turned to blood) by making the moon look red at the death of Jesus.  These events necessarily depend on Christ’s death being at 33 A.D.  That date is plausible³, but in Larson’s timeline, Christ’s birth was about 2-4 B.C.  That would make him about 35 years old when he died.  But his ministry began when he was 30 years old (Luke 3:23) and didn’t only last about 3 years⁴?  Halley’s Handbook calculates the date of Christ’s “coming” to be 26 A.D. (see Dainel 9:25) which (according to Halley) corresponds to beginning of his ministry, not his birth.⁵ According to the AIG article, the eclipse was only a partial eclipse which would not have produced a reddish colored moon.  Furthermore, this would not be a literal fulfillment of the prophecy, which I always favor.

The most interesting part about this movie is the Star itself and particularly the explanation of its motion as seen by the wise men as they approached Bethlehem.  Larson claims that the Star is really the planet Jupiter and that it was in conjunction with Venus at the time that it “went before” the wise men to Bethlehem.  Assuming a naturalistic explanation, the fact the Star “stopped”⁶ over Bethlehem could only be accomplished by a nearby object such a planet.  For purposes of this discussion, I am considering the motion of the Star (and all other heavenly bodies) to be relative the earth⁷.  In this perspective, the planets are revolving around both the earth (i.e. its rotation) and the Sun simultaneously.  These two simultaneous motions are what make possible the stoppage in motion of a planet relative to the earth. 

This stoppage in motion is described by Larson as a momentary change in direction (to the opposite direction).  But did this planet (Jupiter), according to Larson’s calculations, actually stop?  If the Star was moving either toward or away from the earth during the instant in which it “stopped” then it didn’t really stop, but only appeared to stop from the view of the observer who could not necessarily perceive that this was the case.  A literal interpretation would not allow this additional movement.  I am not saying that this is the case in Larson’s scenario (he didn’t describe it in that much detail in the DVD), but I must be skeptical until I see otherwise.

Did the planet actually stand over where the child was lying in a manger?  (I am just seeing if you are awake.  I really mean that house that Jesus was staying at the time that the wise men came, not stable that the shepherds visited!)  Again, I am a literalist, so the Star must have been collinear with the child and the center of earth.  That is the definition of “over”.  If Jupiter did not really stop over the child but only appeared to be over Bethlehem from the wise men’s line of sight, then this does not count.  Again, I don’t know whether or not Larson considered this detail.  If this were really true that Jupiter actually did all these things, then it is a very amazing and definitive proof of the events described in Matthew.  But according to the AIG article, Jupiter would have appeared near the horizon at the time of this conjunction. If this is the case, Larson's claim does not fit the biblical account.

What was the real star of Bethlehem, then?  Every reliable source that I have been able to find says that there is no naturalistic explanation for the Star as described in Matthew.  (Some articles attempt an explanation which includes Divine Intervention to move the star in the manner described in Matthew.  Some of these may be plausible, but are highly speculative.)  You just have to accept that it was a miracle that God performed at the proper time.  No scientific explanation is needed.

In conclusion with having done just a brief investigation of the “Star of Bethlehem” DVD (or even just giving it a little thought), I have to say that I don’t come to same conclusions that were arrived at by Mr. Larson.  There are many arguments which can be used to refute its claims on both a scientific basis and a theological basis.  Basically, the DVD exaggerates many things.

(1) For purposes of this discussion, “stars” include planets, comets, asteroids, meteors or anything else which would have been considered a star at that time.  The ancients were not mistaken that other objects are stars, but it is merely a matter of semantics.

(2) Couldn’t it be possible that gravitational field could have been disturbed by an object that is not now detectable?

(3) Assuming a Friday crucifixion, the date of Christ’s death was either 30 or 33 A.D.  See http://www.bible.ca/d-3-days-and-3-nights.htm#IIB for a discussion of this.

(4) That is the weak link in my argument.  I have no definitive proof that Jesus’ ministry wasn’t much more than three years.

(5) It is interesting that Larson establishes that the Magi were from Babylon and may have been influenced by Daniel who wrote the prophecy of the seventy-sevens, which predicted the coming of Christ.  However, as mentioned above, it was not the date of his birth, but the beginning of his ministry that was predicted.

(6) “…it came and stood over where the young child was.” Matthew 2:9

(7) Larson uses the language of a Heliocentrist and affirms the Copernican claim that the earth revolves around the Sun and rotates about an axis.  But he explains that retrograde motion is the apparent motion of an object relative to the earth’s frame of reference and purports that this is what is being referred to when the Bible says that the Star “stopped” over Bethlehem.  But I, being a literalist, take it and all other passages referring motion of heavenly bodies to be absolute motion.  This view is referred to as geocentrism.  The question of which view is correct is not relative to this discussion.  However the fact that the literalism from which geocentrism springs is very relevant will be made manifest in the rest of the article.

Suggested Additional Reading:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/star-of-bethlehem-dvd

http://www.bible.ca/D-Xmas-story.htm

http://geocentricity.com/ba1/no086/star_of_bethlehem.html

http://geocentricity.com/ba1/no122/bethstar1.html

http://geocentricity.com/ba1/no123/bethstar2.html

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_whentheysawthestar

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem

Help Update the Human Subjects Regulations

For years our government has treated human beings like guinea pigs, exposing them to unhealthy chemicals and radiation.  Now they are murdering the tiniest of human beings, human embryos.  Federal funding for scientific research is unconstitutional except for purposes of National Defense.  Make your voice heard!

From the National Institutes of Health:

Ensuring that individuals are protected when they participate as research subjects is vital to maintaining the public’s trust in the research we support. This week, the Department of Health and Human Services published a notice announcing that the federal government is considering ways to enhance the regulations that deal with the protection of human research subjects.

To continue reading and submit your comments:

http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2011/07/28/help-update-the-human-subjects-regulations

North Pole Moves Southward

This subject is interesting because of its implications in the evolution vs. creationism debate.  Some creationists have cited the loss of the earths magnetism as proof of a young earth.  The idea is that if the earth has been losing its magnetism at the same rate throughout its existence, then life could not have existed on earth any more than a few thousand years ago because the magnetism would be too high for life to exist.  But the evolutionists have responded by saying, with purported evidence to back it up, that  every few thousand years the poles reach a maximum level of magnetism and then the polarity starts to reverse itself (also resulting  in a shift of the location of the poles).  In general, the evolutionist theory requires various cyclical occurrences which occur over thousands or millions of years, whereas the young earth creationist sees the same trends as evidence that the earth is "winding down".   Even if the poles do reverse themselves, this doesn't disprove the Bible or creationism, but if there really is no such thing, then the evolutionists have a problem.  But if the magnetism of the earth goes to zero and stays there, creationism vs. evolution may be the last thing people will be thinking about because it will cause chaos wreaking havoc on communications, etc. It would be interesting see how this turns out, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

Is science being prostituted?

Cartoon by Adam Stiles as found on PatriotUpdate.com on 12/16/09

“Some United Nations’ scientists claim the past ten years were the hottest decade ever.

“And if you need any proof, they’ll gladly make it up for you.”

- - - NewsBusted, Episode 12/15/09

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

What a Creator, What a Creation!

Thanks Be To God! He Made the Heavens Right.

“The heavens declare His righteousness …” (Psalm 97:6). Righteousness refers to a person’s uprightness or just moral character. So how can we see God’s moral correctness and justness by observing the heavens? Colonel Sanders said of the food chain he founded, “We do chicken right”. He did chicken so right that he was practically a billionaire when he died. Many agreed with their money by purchasing his “finger licken good” chicken. Righteousness then would be doing what you do correctly.

When we look at the heavens, we can see that it was done correctly for life to exist on earth. There are four basic forces: 1. Gravitation, 2.The strong nuclear force, 3. The weak nuclear force, and 4. Electromagnetism. Each of these forces have their set strengths and if they were different, either higher or lower, life could not exist.

The sun loses its mass at a rate of 4,000,000 tons of matter each second, while the earth receives 3/10,000,000,000 of this in energy for itself. If this energy was reduced by 5% the earth would freeze up and all those living on earth would die. The mass of the sun is 744 times the mass of all the planets with the sun having 98% of the total mass of the solar system. Gravity then holds the planets in place as they circle the sun.

The nuclear force is what holds the nucleus of the atom together which is made up of positively charged protons & sometimes neutrons and they repel other nuclei which are also positively charged. This force does not extend much of a distance, only a few trillionths of an inch. When the nuclei of several atoms are forced together a thermonuclear reaction takes place. If the force of gravity were less the sun would not shine since the hydrogen atom must be crushed and heated to 10,000,000 degrees Celsius for a thermonuclear reaction to take pace.

The electromagnetic force is the electrical force between the electron and the nucleus of the atom. The electron is negatively charged and orbits around the nucleus. This is where electricity comes from: the movement of electrons from atom to atom. There is a magnetic field surrounding a conductor having a flow of electrons, which is electricity. The earth has this magnetic shield around it protecting life on earth from the high energy particles coming from the sun.

The sun is 865,000 miles in diameter providing a stable source of light, heat, and energy to sustain life on earth. Some stars are 40 million to 600 million miles in diameter and would provide too much energy for life on earth. Other stars are only a few thousand miles in diameter and would not provide enough energy for life on earth.

The earth and the planets are on the same plane circling the sun on nearly circular orbits. The other planets provide protection for the earth against any asteroid coming into the solar system.

When you drive down the highway there is a smooth surface wide enough for you to drive and other vehicles as well. A center lane stripe is in the center on the road and stripes on the sides of the road. As you drive you know that this road was built to be driven on. In the same way as one observes creation it is evident to all that there is a Creator.

“The Lord created the heavens: He is the one who is God! He formed and made the earth: He made it firm and lasting. He did not make it a desolate waste, but a place for people to live. It is He who says, “I am the Lord, and there is no other god”” (Isaiah 45:18 TEV).

Global Warming Petition Project

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously...

—Michael Asher

31,072 American scientists have signed the following petition, including 9,021 with PhDs--

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating o the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural and animal environments of the Earth.

If you are a degreed scientist with at least a BS in biology, chemistry, atmospheric sciences, computer sciences, mathematics, or related fields, and if you agree with this statement, sign the petition here:

http://www.petitionproject.org

Is justice really blind in our courts?

I was on jury duty last week. After being transferred from the Grand Jury to the Petit Jury, I was called with 15 other potential jurors to a courtroom for Voir Dire. Eight of us sat in the jury box and eight sat behind the litigants. The judge asked us if we knew any of the litigants or any lawyers in the case or any lawyers that worked for the same law firm as any of the lawyers in the case. The case was a civil lawsuit, having to do with an automobile accident and medical bills which were allegedly caused by the accident.

Then the plaintiff’s attorney asked if anyone had sued, been sued, had an injury that required surgery, had physical therapy, and other such questions. If anyone said yes, then they asked more specific questions, some very personal. He also asked more questions about any connections to the legal profession that anyone had. One man said his brother was a lawyer and another juror was a legal secretary.

The defense attorney kept asking us a question about whether or not we would think that it is possible for someone to exaggerate an injury in order to win a case. The plaintiff’s attorney kept objecting, and the defense attorney kept rephrasing it. A side bar was called, the defense attorney rephrased the question again, and the plaintiff’s attorney objected again. This was an obvious ploy by the defense to plant an idea in our heads. He knew that it would be objected to and sustained.

Each lawyer seemed to try to act like they didn’t know what they were doing in order to gain our sympathy, clamoring for every inch of advantage. How pathetic.

Then the defense attorney asked us more such questions. He asked me about my occupation. I gave a technical answer about what I do (I am a scientist). One juror asked to speak with the lawyers and the judge in private and when they were done, the judge said that this juror was dismissed “with cause”. One of the other eight potential jurors was called to replace him. Then each attorney grilled this juror as they had done us.

Each attorney was allowed to remove up to three jurors without giving a reason (a peremptory challenge). The plaintiff’s attorney declined this opportunity, but the defense attorney challenged the man whose brother was a lawyer. Then I was the next to go.

I think that it is unfair to force potential jurors to answer such personal questions that have nothing to with the case. The judge’s questions were reasonable for the most part. I think that all Voir Dire questions should limited to those which determine if a juror or someone the juror knows would stand to gain anything by a certain result in the case. Attorneys should not be allowed to choose or reject jurors based on their experiences, occupation, or beliefs. I think it is especially unfair to remove jurors because they have knowledge of some subject, such as science, so that this will be to their advantage if the preponderance of scientific evidence is in favor of the opposing side. I think that peremptory challenges should be limited to one for criminal cases and none for civil cases.