Archive for August 7th, 2007

“Where does the Iceman Evidence Lead?” by Dr. Del Tackett

Tuesday, August 7th, 2007

Hiking high in the Ötztal Alps in 1991, a German couple discovered a mummified body as it slowly appeared from a melting glacier. The Iceman, as he came to be known, has been identified as a possible shepherd from circa 3000 BC, one of the oldest mummified human beings on record.

Since his discovery, the scientific world has been working feverously to find out who he is and why he ended up encased in ice so high up in the Alps. Ötzi, as he is affectionately called, has been studied from one end to the other, from isotopes in his teeth to pollen in his colon. DNA samples and a host of other scientific findings have enabled us to pin-point a lot of details: where he was from, what he had been eating, health issues he suffered from, even the route he took before he died (based upon varying pollen traces). But it was a recent x-ray that turned the case into something deeply mysterious and even sinister.

Ötzi, it appears, was murdered.

The x-ray shows an arrowhead buried beneath his left shoulder blade. A follow-on high-definition CT-scan revealed that the arrow had pierced the subclavian artery and Ötzi had bled to death moments later. Of further interest, DNA samples show that Ötzi had contact with blood from four other people: one on his knife, two on his arrows, and the fourth on his goatskin coat. Additionally, he had a long gash on his right hand and bruises around his rib cage.

Hmmmmm. What had dear Ötzi gotten himself into?

All of this is fascinating to me, but my purpose for bringing it up is to call our attention to the intuitive conclusion that poor Ötzi’s death was not accidental. There was an intelligent cause behind his demise. Why do we conclude that?

Because there was an arrowhead lodged in his body.

But think about this. How do we know that an arrowhead is more than just a rock? Why don’t we conclude that Ötzi was just minding his own business when a random rock flew through the air, maybe because of a high-altitude tornado or an errant throw by an evolving baseball-wannabe squirrel, striking him in the back? Why do we conclude that an intelligent creature most likely shaped the rock into a pointy weapon, affixed it to a shaft, took aim with a bow and summarily dispatched our friend Ötzi?

The reason is because we recognize the effects of intelligent causes, like arrowheads, and we examine them through scientific studies.

Why, then, is Intelligent Design called non-science? Why does the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declare that Intelligent Design is not scientific and the National Science Teacher’s Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science label it “pseudoscience”? Others have called it “junk science.” Why?

Science is behind a lot of efforts to determine if an effect was produced by an intelligent cause. Insurance investigators use science to determine if a fire was accidental or an arsonist was involved. Criminal investigators use science to confirm or deny homicide. A look at SETI’s website (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) shows that they fully believe their work is a “scientific” endeavor—searching through the constant noise of space for some hint of intelligence. How will they recognize an intelligent effect when they see (or hear) it? What kind of intelligence might it be? SETI doesn’t know, but it believes that it is using real science to hopefully one day discover some effect that they could scientifically say was caused by something intelligent, though that intelligent cause may be totally different from anything we know on earth.

If all of this is science, then why isn’t it science to look at DNA and follow the evidence to conclude that something intelligent designed it rather than the random forces of evolution? Why is it “junk science” to examine the flaggellan motor or the blood clotting mechanism or numerous other systems that have no testable means for proving how they could have evolved and speculate that an intelligent designer or transcendent force beyond our material world was involved in their design and creation?

Why are scientific endeavors that point to anything other than a Creator, even strange and unknown aliens in the deepest parts of space, embraced as science, but Intelligent Design, no matter how “scientific” its methods are, is dismissed with hostility? As we speak, Intelligent Design is being systematically banned from more and more academic institutions–eliminated from any open or honest discussions.

It almost makes me think that someone is trying to hide something from students lest they ponder facts and arguments outside the “approved” answers. Let’s follow the evidence. If it leads to an intelligent cause, why suppress it?

(By the way, I don’t really believe that squirrels can throw rocks that hard.)

Original Link.

Ethanol – The Green’s Big Lie

Tuesday, August 7th, 2007

I recently ran across an article concerning the amount of water needed to produce ethanol. It said “It takes three gallons to five gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol”.
Three to five gallons of water. That’s clean water, mostly distilled.
So now on top of the energy expended to make ethanol, we now have a water usage issue.
I want to quote from a blog I ran across today. This gentleman, named Robert Rapier, is an expert in the energy field, so I feel confident quoting the numbers from his blog. He says:

“I have dealt with the USDA studies in previous essays, showing the shoddy and misleading methodology they use. But let’s now examine this claim of energy efficiency. Would it surprise you to know that not only is this claim false, it is WAY FALSE?

Let’s do some quick calculations to demonstrate this. A barrel of crude oil contains 5.8 million BTUs (2) of material that will ultimately be turned into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. It is well-documented that the average energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for crude oil production is around 10/1 (3). Therefore, we will use up about 580,000 BTUs from our barrel getting it out of the ground. The other major input occurs during the refining process, and it also takes roughly 10% of the contained BTUs in the barrel of oil. The total energy input into the process is 1.16 million BTUs, and the energy output was 5.8 million BTUs. The EROEI is then 5.8 million/1.16 million, or 5/1.

For ethanol, the USDA study reference above showed that for an energy input of 77,228 BTUs, an energy output (when co-products were included) of 98,333 BTUs were generated. The EROEI is then 98,333/77,228, or 1.27/1. The efficiency of producing gasoline is then 4 times higher than for ethanol, which makes sense when you think about it.

Crude oil is a highly energy dense mixture. It is contained in underground deposits, and just needs to be pumped out of the ground. During the refining step, large amounts of water don’t need to be distilled out of the product. Contrast this to ethanol. The corn must be planted, grown, and harvested. Processing must take place to turn the corn into crude ethanol. The crude ethanol is actually mostly water, which must be removed in a highly energy intensive distillation. The final product, ethanol, contains only about 70% of the BTU value of the same volume of gasoline. So it would appear that even without doing any rigorous calculations, producing ethanol would be far less energy efficient than producing gasoline.

So, where did the claim that ethanol is more energy efficient originate? I believe it originates with researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, who developed a model (GREET) that is used to determine the energy inputs to turn crude oil into products (4). Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100% in the way they measured it. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the kind of calculation people use to show that the gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Look again at the example from the USDA paper, and lets do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. In that case, we got 98,333 BTUs out of the process, but we had to input 77,228 to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Again, gasoline is about 4 times higher.

OK, so Argonne originated the calculation. But are they really at fault here? Yes, they are. Not only did they promote the efficiency calculation for petroleum products with their GREET model, but they have proceeded to make apples and oranges comparisons in order to show ethanol in a positive light. They have themselves muddied the waters. Michael Wang, from Argonne, (and author of the GREET model) made a remarkable claim last September at The 15th Annual Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego (5). On his 4th slide , he claimed that it takes 0.74 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of ethanol, but 1.23 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of gasoline. That simply can’t be correct, as the calculations in the preceding paragraphs have shown.

Not only is his claim incorrect, but it is terribly irresponsible for someone from a government agency to make such a claim. I don’t know whether he is being intentionally misleading, but it certainly looks that way. Wang is also the co-author of the earlier USDA studies that I have critiqued and shown to be full of errors and misleading arguments. These people are publishing articles that bypass the peer review process designed to ferret out these kinds of blatant errors. I suspect a politically driven agenda in which they are putting out intentionally misleading information.”

Sorry that was so long, and some of the numbers can be quite confusing, but in a nut shell, his findings are what I have suspected as well…ethanol is not the answer to the world’s energy needs. It’s just another Greenie ploy to demonize the oil industry again.

Read the rest of Mr. Rapier’s blog here.

Democrat says ‘Right-Winged Evangelical Republicans’ Lying About Hate Crimes Bill

Tuesday, August 7th, 2007

As usual, it is the Democrat who is lying. The hate crimes bill will limit free speech in regards to Christian opposition to homosexuality. I highlighted a portion of the article below. Take a look…

A Michigan congressman is appalled over an attack against opponents of “hate crimes” legislation that was unleashed by one of his Democratic colleagues on the House floor.

Last week, one of the sponsors of the so-called “hate crimes” bill that has already passed the House lashed out at what he called “a group of right-winged evangelical Republicans, national in scale” who are “bearing false witness.” Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) expressed frustration that the group was trying to convince black preachers in his Memphis district that the bill squashes their free-speech rights “to speak what they think about the Bible and about people’s conduct.”

But Congressman Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) says the bill does indeed threaten the First Amendment rights of pastors and churches.

“He [Cohen] said it was a lie — when, in fact, if you read the legislation it doesn’t go any further than what we have presently in place as far as actual murders and mayhem and assaults; but it moves into the thought police side in saying you can’t talk about beliefs and values that you’ve long held. The fact of the matter is that if you do, we may indeed be able to pull you in as an incentive to hate violence. That’s a chilling effect,” says Walberg.

The bill, which would include crimes against homosexuals in federal hate crimes statutes, has yet to be voted on in the Senate.

But which direction?

Meanwhile, Walberg also offered comments on the House Democrats’ claim that they are “moving America in a new direction.” The remarks were made after a seven-month progress report was published by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-Maryland) office. The report included a list of achievements such as “lobbying reform,” “energy independence,” defending our country,” and “restoring the American dream.”

The Michigan Republican says that although he agrees that the Democrats are taking American in a new direction, it is not the direction he would choose.

“They certainly are moving into a larger government-control ‘nanny state’ that pretty much takes control of all that should be in the private sector and given to citizens to make decisions on their own without excessive government involvement through taxation, through spending, through regulation. So if that is what they are talking about, I’d give them an ‘A’ for effort,” he says.

The Democrats’ progress report also boasts the party is “changing the way business is done in Washington by restoring fiscal responsibility and the highest ethical standards.”

Original Link.

Author Says Muslim Group Unwilling to Distance Itself from ‘Jihadist Agenda’

Tuesday, August 7th, 2007

The terrorist front group, operating here in the U.S. as a supposed champion of human rights for Islamist, is still refusing to call terrorist what they are, which is terrorist.
CAIR is nothing more than a terrorist group themselves.

A best-selling author is attempting to expose people to the fallacy of the notion that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is a moderate group that merely protects the civil liberties of Muslims.

CAIR recently threatened to sue the Young America’s Foundation for having Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer address its annual Conservative Student Conference. Despite the threat, Spencer delivered the speech detailing CAIR’s ties to the Palestinian terror group Hamas and its efforts to advance the “jihadist agenda.”

Spencer points out that four CAIR officials have been arrested and convicted on various terrorism-related charges. “You have a very serious question about whether CAIR is really even concerned about the jihadist sympathies that its employees and officials may or may not hold,” says Spencer.

He also notes that CAIR’s condoning of the “flying Imams” lawsuit against passengers who reported their suspicious behavior will have the effect of making everyone afraid to report suspicious behavior. Spencer says that one really needs to wonder whose side they really are on.

According to the Jihad Watch director, people should be aware that CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has stated he would the like the United States government to be Islamic under sharia law some time in the future. “American citizens need to know that this is not necessarily an organization that is everything that it claims to be,” he urges; “and [they] need to be on guard to ways in which it is, whether by accident or design, advancing the jihadist agenda.”

Spencer is author of the new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t.

Original Link.

Michigan Town Could be First U.S. Municipality Controlled by Muslims

Tuesday, August 7th, 2007

I really wouldn’t have a problem with this, if I felt that Muslims were the least bit interested in democracy, which I don’t. Oh they like democracy all right, at least as far as using specific freedoms to advance their radical agenda, that of imposing Islamic law on our land. Keep your eyes on this, folks. We really are “sleeping with the enemy” here.

One of the nation’s leading critics of the Islamic religion is concerned that a Michigan community could become the first U.S. municipality to be controlled by Muslims.

Hamtramck, Michigan, made news in 2004 when the city council passed an ordinance allowing Muslims to broadcast calls for prayer over loudspeakers in the community. Now Hamtramck has four Muslims seeking city council posts. If all are victorious, they would join one incumbent Muslim council member to control five of the six council seats.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is concerned over this upcoming election. He believes the Muslims are emboldened in the city and would impose their laws on everyone else in the community.

“The fact that there is an increasingly assertive population there [as well as] an increasingly numerous population … will only make this kind of unilateral assertion of their will more common than it already has been,” Spencer asserts.

Spencer notes several examples of Muslim assertiveness have already been witnessed — such as in Minneapolis, where Muslim workers at a Target store refused to handle pork and airport cab drivers refused to give service to people who had alcoholic beverages with them. He also points out that requests have been made for foot baths to be placed in taxi stations for Muslim cab drivers.

“I would expect that a Muslim-controlled city council in Hamtramck could institute all these things [and many others as well] as a matter of city policy,” Spencer says.

Original Link.

Firefighters Forced to Join in ‘Gay Pride’ Parade

Tuesday, August 7th, 2007

The homosexual activist continue to force their perverted agenda on people. In this case, by ordering four straight firefighters to drive their fire truck in a “gay” parade.
The article has very graphic language in it, that I will not post here, but I encourage each of you (if you are an adult, that is), to read the WorldNetDaily article (see the original link at the bottom of this post) to get an idea of the things that go on at these “gay pride” events. The San Diego fire chief, who is a lesbian, might think this type of event is “fun”, but I find it depraved, disgusting and horrid.
Keep in mind that the type of things these firefighters were subjected to are normal behavior for these events. This is not the exception to the “rule”, but the norm for homosexual behavior.

Four firefighters are suing the city of San Diego for being forced by their superiors to attend the annual “Gay Pride” parade where they endured a barrage of sexual taunts and lewd gestures.

San Diego’s fire chief, Tracy Jarman, is an open lesbian who called the July 21 parade a “fun event” in which “all employees are encouraged to participate.”

But the firefighters said, unlike previous years, they were ordered into uniform to participate in the parade in their fire truck, despite repeated their protests.

The firefighters’ legal counsel, the Thomas More Law Center, said the men were “left with the Hobson’s choice of either violating their conscience or being disciplined for disobeying a direct order.”

The firefighters, described as devoted husbands and fathers, said they were subject to the most vulgar kinds of sexual harassment.

“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some type of sexual gesture,” one said, adding, “If any crew member were to hang up pictures at the station of what we saw, we would be disciplined.”

San Diego area attorney, Charles LiMandri, the West Coast director of the Thomas More Law Center, insists the city should have known from past experience “the kind of offensive activities that go on at this event.”

“This was a clear case of sexual harassment in violation of state and federal law as well as the City’s own code of conduct,” he said.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center argued the constitutional right to free speech also protects the right not to speak.

“These men should not have to explain to their families, friends and church congregations that their presence at a celebration of lewdness and obscenity in support of the homosexual agenda was because they were forced there by way of a direct order,” he said. “This is a clear violation of their constitutional rights, and the city must be held accountable. It should never happen again to any city employee.”

Jarman, the city fire chief, insisted when she was appointed that her homosexuality had never been an issue at the department.

But Thompson maintained the firefighters’ ordeal was “another example of how radical homosexual activists in positions of authority force their agenda on unwilling citizens.”

“Although the local media avoided mentioning the debauchery and the obscenity that pervaded the parade, the general public should know what went on and how these firefighters were forced to participate against their will,” he said.

As WND reported, prior to the parade, the San Diego City Council unanimously adopted a resolution introduced by Mayor Jerry Sanders to designate July as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Month.”

Original Link.

“Hating Christ . . .” by Jack Kinsella

Tuesday, August 7th, 2007

I was reading the comments posted by readers of the Huffington Post in response to a column posted by Max Blumenthal about the “Christians United For Israel Tour” Washington summit meeting, hosted by San Antonio pastor John Hagee.

The column was entitled, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United For Israel Tour.”

Blumenthal’s column fairly dripped with hate for Christians in particular, but reserving some for Jews who collaborate with them.

“CUFI has added the grassroots muscle of the Christian right to the already potent Israel lobby. Hagee and his minions have forged close ties with the Bush White House and members of Congress from Sen. Joseph Lieberman to Sen. John McCain.

In its call for a unilateral military attack on Iran and the expansion of Israeli territory, CUFI has found unwavering encouragement from traditional pro-Israel groups like AIPAC and elements of the Israeli government.”

Let’s digest that before moving on, ok? The warmongering Christians are in a conspiracy with other pro-Israel groups and elements of the expansionist Israeli government to destroy Iran.

Now that we know who the players are; warmongering Christians and expansionist Israel, Blumenthal warns that the Christians are not just warmongers, they are duplicitous, as well.

“But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers – Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. – must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation. Over a dozen CUFI members eagerly revealed to me their excitement at the prospect of Armageddon occurring tomorrow.”

The real motive behind Christians United For Israel, according to Blumenthal, is suspect, because what Christians really want to do is convert Jews to Christianity.

There are two ways to look at that motive. The first is positive.

The Bible says that Jesus is the only way to heaven and my greatest earthly obligation is to do everything I can to keep people from going to hell. I have nothing to gain in this lifetime by seeing someone converted to Christianity.

And, assuming there really isn’t a God or an afterlife, nobody has anything to lose.

Nobody is injured by coming to Christ. And if the atheists are right, as they believe, nobody is injured in the afterlife, either, since there isn’t one.

But the way that Blumenthal expresses it, Christianity is an evil, hateful religion in which “Jews, Muslims, Hindus, (and) mainline Christians must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation.”

It is hard to think of a more negative way of expressing it — Blumethal is to be congratulated for his semantical skill. It is interesting that Blumenthal included ‘mainline Christians’ in his list of the damned.

That is very revealing. It isn’t the Christian system that Blumenthal rails against.

It is Christ Himself.

The reader comments to Blumenthal’s column literally took my breath away. Christianity calls on its followers to love God above all things and to love one’s neighbor as himself.

Evidently, that is exceptionally offensive to the readers of the Huffington Post:

“Dear Max, You’re the best, this report of yours gets right to the heart of the matter. These Zealots are a danger to Humanity. Thanks for exposing them, because it is their dreams of “Heaven” that is bringing us to *HELL* on earth. – DAP”

“They want to finish the job Hitler started — removing Judaism from the face of the earth — and they imagine that a nice Jew, Jesus, is going to do it for them. They are a curse on the face of Christianity, a danger to Jews, capable of starting a war in the Middle East if they feel it will bring Armageddon closer and just the kind of offal that makes Christianity ugly to Jews who are not sucking up.” – Midnight4

” I agree Dap . . .thank you Max . . these guys need to be exposed and stopped . . . put behind bars more like . . . they are insane.” – Macready

“When terms like “Jesus Freak” and “Bible Thumper” prove woefully inadequate to describe such creatures, there’s always the clinical yet entirely apt “dangerous psychopath”. – willfarnaby

“There IS NO GOD! GOD is a fictional character and it never ceases to amaze me how supposedly intelligent people that seem to demand proof of everything else in life (most of which doesn’t need more than looking at to prove – e.g. air quality and it’s relation to green house effect) then say “oh…it’s all about belief and faith.” What blind bullsh*t.”

“That those of the Jewish faith would allow this merger with those Christians, who believe that the rapture will give the Jews, “God’s Chosen People”, a chance to save their souls would be laughable, if it wasn’t so frighteningly delusional!” – JoDeeVa

“Clearly these religious freaks should not be allowed to vote; or drive for that matter.” – editor

The hatred the comments expressed was aimed at people like me. I guess that is what was so breath-taking to me. Logic doesn’t apply to this kind of white-hot hatred.

Wrote another blogger, “As a non-believer, it’s frightening that these people go to sleep hoping that I will burn in hell tomorrow.” dragbunt

If the guy, ‘dragbunt’ is an unbeliever, then what difference does it make? There is no hell, so what the heck is so frightening to him? And if he is frightened by a Christian belief that doesn’t apply to him, wouldn’t that necessitate the coining of a new word, say, “Christophobe”, to describe him?

I don’t get it. The Left utterly vomits out its hatred for believing Christians and Jews, but champions Islamic rights to demonstrate its enlightened and progressive doctrine of “inclusionism”.

Here is the Left’s brand of inclusionism at work: Pro Islamic and Saudi-funded K-12 school curriculum is now mandated by the federal government. The government gave the job of designing it to Harvard University.

According to a report authored by Sandra Stotsky, a former senior commissioner for the Massachusetts Department of Education, the curriculum is both “distorted” and “manipulative.”

Harvard’s outreach program delivered seminars that virtually promoted Islam as a religion, while sharply criticizing alleged American prejudice against the Muslim world, she found.

Harvard’s outreach training prompted K-12 teachers to design celebratory treatments of the life and teachings of Mohammad and the “revelation” and spread of Islam, with exercises calling on students to “appoint imams,” memorize Islamic principles, and act out prayer at a Mosque.

According to Stotsky, if Harvard’s outreach personnel had designed similar classroom exercises based on Christian or Jewish models, “People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the A.C.L.U. would descend upon them like furies.”

We’ve discussed this program in previous briefings several years ago, they aren’t new. But the Lefties that express such hatred for those who believe the Bible have no problem with Harvard’s Islamic evangelical outreach programs.

There are no ACLU lawyers serving papers, People for the American way publicists whispering in news editors’ ears, no atheists challenging their 1st Amendment Right not to believe in Allah to the Supreme Court.

They’ve had time. The public school system has been using this curriculum since 2002. No doubt the first crop of American jihadists have already graduated.

Stotsky criticized one of the key teaching resources pushed by Harvard’s outreach program: “The Arab World Studies Notebook.” The “Notebook” has been widely denounced as a “practically proselytizing” text offering uncritical praise for the Arab world. Stotsky calls it, “a piece of propaganda.”

Even the Notebook’s editor, Audrey Shabbas, acknowledges that it’s purpose is to provide “the Arab point of view.”

One analysis quoted by Stotsky says that the “Arab World Studies Notebook” is designed to “induce teachers to embrace Islamic religious beliefs” and to “support political views” favored by the Middle East Policy Council (formerly the Arab American Affairs Council).

How is it that Christianity so hateful that the Bible qualifies as ‘hate literature’ while a Saudi-funded Islamic indoctrination program is part of the K-12 public school curriculum?

It isn’t that the Left prefers Islam. It’s just a knee-jerk, mindless response to its blind hatred of Christ.

Christ, not “Christianity.” The Left has no beef with the Christian ‘system’. (After all, they’re going to hell with everybody else.)

It is the followers of Christ who are the hateful ones so despised by the Left that they’d rather see America embrace the Koran than the Bible.

It is Christ, and those who follow Him, of whom BufuAmericanus was speaking when he wrote in his comment: “If you don’t bow to the right ghosts, we will wish for you to burn alive and suffer in eternal torment… God is love, A-Men.”

Saying someone will go to hell if he doesn’t accept the gift of pardon offered by Jesus Christ is ‘hate speech’ to the Left.
Calling Christians “religious freaks” that should be silenced, disenfranchised and jailed is not. Since it is aimed at Christians, it is protected opinion being expressed by those exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

With all the hatred being espoused against Christ, and knowing that Christian sites are being targeted for hate crimes, it helps to keep in mind that we DO follow the real Jesus Christ. He said this would happen, and He gave us a command for when it did.

“These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. . . He that hateth Me hateth My Father also.” (John 15:17-19, 23)

Original Link.