The Media’s Snipe-Hunt

It’s Not a Witch-Hunt; It’s a Snipe Hunt
By Bryan Fischer

If you’ve ever gone to a summer camp in North America, the odds are good that you have been duped into participating in a snipe hunt or shamelessly duped others into participating in one.

A snipe hunt is a hunt for an elusive and imaginary creature called, well, a snipe. The unsuspecting victim is led to an outdoor spot, given an empty sack or pillowcase, and told to make creaturely noises to attract the prey into his clutches. After promising to chase the creatures right to him, his fellow campers melt into the darkness.

Then the campers return to camp and sit around the campfire eating s’mores and laughing themselves silly, waiting to see how long it will take for their hapless victim to discover that he’s a dupe.

Well, in its frenzied, mindless, and utterly irrational attack on Donald Trump, the Talking Snake Media is leading gullible, easily duped Americans on the political equivalent of a snipe hunt.

Charges of “collusion,” “conspiracy,” and “treason” are bandied about wildly as if the mere brainless repetition of the words will make the totally imaginary charges stick.

The latest maniacal frenzy is over Donald Trump Jr.’s 20-minute meeting with a lawyer from Russia in June 2016, right after Trump Sr. had secured the GOP nomination. There are numerous problems with the media’s efforts to use this brief encounter to drag Trump and his aides into the swamp and drown them there. First, the lawyer was not representing the Kremlin. She disclaims any connection to the Kremlin, and the Kremlin says it has no connection to her. In America, at least, this puts the burden of proof on the accusers.

Second, what happened cannot possibly be treason for the simple reason that we are not at war with Russia.

Third, she had no incriminating information about Hillary to share. And it wouldn’t be a crime if she did. “Collusion,” even though it’s a sinister sounding word, is only a crime when it’s part of an effort to commit financial fraud. There simply is no law against receiving opposition research from anybody, even including a representative of a foreign government (which this attorney was not).

And if it is a crime, then Hillary Clinton should already be under lock and key in the nearest federal prison for “colluding” with Ukraine to defeat Trump.

According to Politico, in a January article, I’m sure it wishes it could bury in the same swamp they’re trying to drag Trump into, Ukraine is accused of actively colluding with the Clinton campaign to sabotage the Trump campaign.

Feast your eyes on these excerpts (Emphasis added.):

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. …

Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.

In a word, Yikes.

Bottom line: maybe there is an actual snipe to hunt here (there is a real bird called a snipe), but the name of the bird, it turns out, is Hillary Clinton.

Original Article

Advertisements

The Best Reason to Study Prophecy

The Best Reason To Study Prophecy
A Bible Study by Jack Kelley

I make known the end from the beginning,  from ancient times, what is still to come.  I say: My purpose will stand,  and I will do all that I please. (Isaiah 46:10)

Here’s a question I’m often asked and it’s a good one. If we believe the Rapture will take us away before all the End Times events occur, then why do we need to study prophecy?

There are several good answers to this question. One of the clearest comes from the Olivet Discourse, specifically Matthew 24:15-16“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel–let the reader understand– then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” Even though the Lord was speaking primarily to Israel here, He directed everyone who reads Matthew’s gospel to understand Daniel 9:24-27, a prophecy given to Israel, and the key to understanding End Times prophecy.

Another good reason is that Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians are chock full of End Times prophecy. Every chapter of both letters contains a reference to the 2nd Coming for an average of one every 13 verses. Paul went to such lengths even though it’s pretty clear he had taught them that the rapture would take place before the anti-Christ is revealed.  If the Bible really is the inspired Word of God, why did He have Paul describe events on Earth after the rapture if He didn’t think we needed to know them?

And then there’s the Book of Revelation. John shows the Rapture occurring in chapter 4 but then goes on for another 15 chapters, mostly describing conditions on Earth, before re-introducing the Church in Rev. 19. Same question. Why describe events on Earth after the rapture if He didn’t think we needed to know them?

Some say it’s so those left behind at the Rapture can read Revelation and the Thessalonian letters and find out what’s going on to help them endure the End Times. That may be OK for the middle of Revelation, but John’s book begins and ends with the Church in view, and the Thessalonian letters were written specifically to the Church. For some reason, we’re supposed to know how End Times events unfold.

And Here’s The Best One

And that leads me to what I think is the biggest reason. For that we’ll go first to Isaiah 44:6-8.

This is what the LORD says- Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: “I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come- yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Here is the two-part test for anyone who would be God. Part one: Accurately recall every event of the past. Part two: Accurately predict every event of the future. Of all the so-called holy writings, only the Bible answers this challenge.  Other “gods” require that you take them at face value, offering neither evidence of their existence, nor proof of their trustworthiness. But ours says, “I’ll prove that I’m real and that you should trust me.”  He tells us our past (sometimes as personally as Jesus did with the woman at the well in John 4:17-18) and gives us detail about the future that only someone who has already seen it can know. “I make known the end from the beginning,” He proclaims, “From ancient times, what is still to come.” (Isaiah 46:10)  He’s chosen this way to authenticate Himself to us because He’s the only One who can do it and be right every time.

This is so we need never be in the position of having zeal without knowledge, (Prov. 19:2) believing passionately but unable to defend our position. When we share the Gospel with someone, and they respond with, “That’s just something you believe,” it’s good to be able to justify our beliefs with a summary of God’s 4000-year track record for truth-telling (the Old Testament) and to explain that someone who’s been that truthful about the past is likely to also be truthful about the future (the New Testament).

Some Personal Experience

When I was a kid in upstate New York, nearly every family went to church on Sunday and ours was no different.  We belonged to one of the main line denominational congregations in town.  With a few lapses here and there, this habit carried me into adulthood and though I lived in several different places, on most Sunday mornings you could find me in the local version of that same denominational church.  But then,  two important but unrelated pieces of information came to my attention at about the same time.

The first was from a man who was one of the most influential public speakers of his time and a life long student of human behavior.  We happened to share one evening together and over dinner he asked, “Did you know that if you were to devote just one hour each day to the study of any subject that interests you, within 5 years you could be one of the world’s leading experts on that subject?”  I was amazed at the possibility that one could become a world leading expert in only five years no matter how many hours a day it took.

The other piece of information came in the form of 3 cassette tapes that were given to me by a friend.  It was a series on Bible Prophecy, a compilation of research done over the years by various scholars.  Its purpose was to demonstrate that through out the 4,000 years of the Old Testament God had maintained a perfect record of predicting the future to Israel.  No matter what set of standards you apply, statistical analysis, rules of evidence, forensic science or whatever, you’ll find that this could not have happened by chance.  It could only have been done by someone who can see the end from the beginning, an ability unique to God.

I decided to apply the action step from the first piece of information to the subject matter of the second.  Over the next several years I spent hours every day learning all I could about Bible Prophecy. In addition to studying the Bible, I read every view by nearly every respected scholar before forming my own opinion that the pre-trib, pre-millennial, dispensational view is the one most consistent with a strict literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture.

If What You Believe Doesn’t Result In Action …

Even though I’ve spent a lot more than one hour a day for a lot longer than 5 years, I don’t claim to be a leading expert on prophecy.  But as I studied, the logic of God’s claim from Isaiah 44:6-8 became indisputable. The history of Israel is replete with events first predicted and then performed with faultless accuracy.   And when it came to the Messiah, over 300 specific prophecies, given over a span of several thousand years, were fulfilled in detail within one generation, the one in which He lived.

And so after nearly 40 years of sitting in church most every Sunday, I finally opened my Bible and became born again.  I also became convinced that through the study of prophecy God can prove Himself to any reasonable person beyond a shadow of doubt. That’s when I began teaching what I was learning.

No rush of emotion for me, no gushing of tears while I stumbled blindly down the sawdust trail as a choir sang “Just as I am,” but a dead certainty that God has to be Who He says He is, He has to have done what He said He did, and the Bible has to be His inerrant Word.  I called it a rush of logic, but the certainty I felt drove me every bit as humbly to the foot of the cross as a teary eyed confession would have, and yet it gave me a staying power that’s often missing in more emotional conversions.  I knew what I believed and why I believed it and could explain it clearly to anyone who cared to listen.

As often happens to people who undertake a serious study of prophecy, I concluded that if the 25-30% of the Bible that’s prophecy can be trusted then the rest of it can be trusted as well, so I began studying it too.  I discovered that God made a whole bunch of promises to us, such as His promises to see us through the tough times we can now see coming, and to take us to be with Him before He judges the world.  These promises have more meaning because they’re backed up by His proven track record in prophecy.

If you’re not every bit as certain as I am about God, then try a study in prophecy. I bet it will galvanize you into action just as it did me, especially as you begin to understand how little time is left.

And even if you’re already sure you know who God is, you still have a great reason to study prophecy.  But it’s not just so you’ll be better informed about what’s coming.  It’s so you’ll feel the urgency to tell your friends about it while there’s still time.  Because if you listen carefully, you can almost hear the footsteps of the Messiah. 08-01-09

Original Article

Anti-Gay Christians?

Behind Those Deceptive Headlines About ‘Anti-Gay’ Christians
By Benham Brothers

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (emphasis added).

That’s our First Amendment right – it’s called the freedom of religion.

This protection guarantees we’ll never have a statewide religion – like what we had in England – and it also safeguards our right to exercise (or live out) our religion freely.

Unfortunately, the First Amendment is under attack today. So it’s important to clearly define exactly what we are talking about when it comes to our first freedom, because so much is at stake.

Headlines regarding religious liberty are often misleading, and surveys are even more so, depending on how the questions are asked.

A recent headline last week asked the question, “Is it acceptable for Christian business owners to refuse service to gay people?” At first glance, most honest Americans would say, “Of course not!”

This was our reaction as well, because in our mind we could easily replace the words “gay people” with any number of other folks and answer the question the exact same way: “Of course not! If you’re in business you should serve everyone.”

But this response doesn’t actually answer the real question, which should be, “Is it acceptable for Christian business owners to be forced by government to service ceremonies, events or messages that are against their beliefs?”

You see, this conversation (or debate) over religious liberty has been framed to suggest Christian business owners are refusing to serve gay people in this country – when in actuality nothing could be further from the truth.

Religious objections in the marketplace have nothing to do with refusing to service people. Rather, they have everything to do with forced participation in ceremonies, messages and events that are against believers’ consciences.

In our own business, we’ve sold more than 20,000 homes in 14 years across 35 states in this country, and never one time have we refused service to gay people – not once. This is the same story for nearly every Christian business owner in America.

Discrimination against gay people simply does not exist. To say otherwise is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst.

Yet the headlines continue, blurring this critical distinction as masses of people are led astray on the issue.

Check out this scenario and see what you think in terms of religious liberty:

Imagine you’re a Christian who owns a local print shop. You also lead marriage seminars at the church and help families stay together and thrive in unity. One day, a couple you’ve counseled through the years files for divorce because the husband was caught cheating on his wife. He ends up leaving her and the kids – rejecting all the counseling you’ve given him over the years.

Then he decides to get married to his lover and asks your business to print the invitations for his wedding. You decline, based on your religious conviction that what he has done is wrong. You just can’t stomach what he has done to his family.

All good, right?

Well, what if his lover was a man? Should you then be forced to participate in the wedding?

Honestly, it doesn’t really matter what choice you would make as to whether or not you would print the invitations – but what does matter is whether or not you should be forced to print them.

That’s the crucial distinction.

Here’s another scenario:

You own a marketing company and are a recovering alcoholic. The abuse of alcohol nearly destroyed your family, but you got help through Alcoholics Anonymous and cleaned up your life. As a result of your newfound sobriety, you vow never to touch alcohol again, and you even go a step further by promising your family and employees you’ll never allow your business to promote events that sell alcohol.

Then you’re asked to do a direct marketing campaign for the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade – an event where you know alcohol will be sold. You refuse, based on your conscience objections.

All good, right?

Well, what if it was the local gay-pride event? Should you then be forced to market the parade?

Do you see where this leads?

Failing to clearly distinguish the lines between people and events, messages and ceremonies will result in a significant loss of freedom in this country. It’s time we start fighting back.

Ronald Reagan prophetically warned: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

The freedom of religion must be fought for and protected, because the stakes are so high today.

Original Article

Google’s You-Tube Supports Jihadis

Google’s YouTube – Soap Box for Terrorists
By Ruthie Blum

Originally Published by the Gatestone Institute.

In mid-March this year, major companies began withdrawing or reducing advertising from Google Inc., the owner of YouTube, for allowing their brand names to pop up alongside videos promoting jihad, a new report released on June 15 by the Middle East Research Media Institute (MEMRI) reveals.

According to the report — which documents the failure of Google to remove jihadi content that MEMRI volunteered to assist in flagging — thus far, AT&T, Verizon, Johnson & Johnson, Enterprise Holdings and GSK are among the companies pulling their ads from the platform. Google responded by promising to be more aggressive in ensuring brand safety of ad placements.

Then came the Westminster attack. On March 22, 2017, Khalid Masood rammed his car into pedestrians — killing four people and wounding dozens of others – then stabbed an unarmed police officer to death.

Exactly two months later, on May 22, Salman Ramadan Abedi detonated a shrapnel-laden homemade bomb at the Manchester Arena, after a concert by American singer Ariana Grande. The blast killed 22 people and wounded more than 100 others.

On June 3, ahead of Britain’s general election five days later, Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba murdered eight people and wounded 48 others in a combined van-ramming and stabbing attack on London Bridge.

On June 6, Britain’s three main political parties pulled their campaign advertisements from YouTube, after realizing that they were placed in or alongside jihadi videos.

If anyone still doubted at that point the connection between terrorism and Google’s video platform, the Daily Telegraph revealed that British counterterrorism police had been monitoring a cell of ISIS “wannabes” since March, and recorded its members discussing how to use YouTube to plot a vehicular ramming and stabbing attack in London.

Appallingly, the surveillance did nothing to prevent the carnage. It did provide further evidence, however, that jihadis purposely use the major online platform to spread their message and recruit soldiers in their war against the West and any Muslims deemed “infidels.” Terrorists have learned that YouTube can be as deadly a weapon as cars and knives.

Nor could Google claim that it is unaware of the increasing pernicious use of its platform, or that it lacks the algorithmic tools to monitor YouTube’s massive traffic – involving 1.3 billion users and 300 hours of video uploaded every minute.

In the first place, complaints about jihadi content have been lodged by individuals and organizations for years. Secondly, Google vowed to tackle the problem through a flagging feature that alerts YouTube to material that “promotes terrorism.” Furthermore, YouTube itself claims: “Our staff reviews flagged videos 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to determine whether they violate our Community Guidelines.”

In 2010, five years after YouTube’s inception, MEMRI Executive Director Steven Stalinsky met with Google and YouTube free-speech attorneys and other company officials to discuss this issue in detail and offer assistance in monitoring jihadi online activity. Nevertheless, despite YouTube’s assurances, it has continued to serve as a virtual soap box for radical imams and recruiters of “martyrs” for missions against both general and specific targets.

During that period seven years ago, MEMRI also presented findings to members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, resulting in written appeals from both Democrats and Republicans to YouTube CEO Chad Hurley to take the matter seriously and do something about it.

In spite of Tube’s earlier promises, MEMRI found that most of the videos it had flagged, beginning in 2010, remained online two and three years later.

The breakdown was as follows:

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and 9/11 attack glorification videos – 100 were flagged, 58 remained online.

Yemeni-American Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki videos – 127 were flagged, 111 remained online.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri videos – 125 were flagged, 57 remained online.

More recently, of the 115 videos that MEMRI flagged on YouTube in 2015, 69 remained active as of February 27, 2017. Many are still online to this day. Some are so gruesome that the MEMRI report includes a warning to readers about “graphic images.”

One example is a clip titled: “A Martyr From the Taliban Laughs and Utters the Two Declarations [Of Faith] Before He is Martyred.” Posted on July 5, 2011 — and viewed by nearly three million people — it shows a terrorist welcoming death with a smile on his face. The comments beneath the video are all in Arabic.

Another, titled “Shuhada (Martyrs) Of Islam, Look They Are Smiling In Death,” was posted on September 22, 2009, with the YouTube disclaimer, “This video may be inappropriate for some users,” and the user option: “I understand and wish to proceed.” In Arabic with French subtitles, the clip lauds terrorists “martyred for Allah.” User comments include: “beautiful… may Allah give us all the knowledge and power to accelerate our imams.” In other words, the pictures of smiling terrorists and their dead bodies serve as an inspiration to young Muslims seeking Paradise through martyrdom.

A screenshot from one of the terror-supporting jihadi videos on YouTube that was flagged by MEMRI. The video remains on YouTube to this day.

This is not theoretical. According to the website Wired UK, as of June 5, there were 535 terrorist attacks around the world — with 3,635 fatalities — since the beginning of 2017 alone. It is only because the bulk of these attacks took place in countries such as Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia and Bangladesh — and involved Muslims killing other Muslims — that they were barely reported, and even less noticed, in the West.

Whenever a Western country is targeted successfully, however, the issue of global jihad hits the headlines – and now threatens to hurt the coffers of social media giants that have been acting as enablers. According to analyst firm Nomura Instinet, YouTube could lose $750 million in advertising revenue this year, as a result of its “funding” of terrorism and, in effect, enabling of wide-scale murder. Although this figure would not put Google in the red, it represents a protest on the part of users increasingly concerned about international security.

In what was clearly a move to counteract the latest outcry about jihadi videos on YouTube, Google announced on June 18 that it was introducing a “four-step plan” to “fight terrorism online,” referring specifically to ISIS propaganda.

In an op-ed in the Financial Times and a subsequent post on “Google in Europe,” Google General Counsel Kent Walker wrote:

“Terrorism is an attack on open societies, and addressing the threat posed by violence and hate is a critical challenge for us all. Google and YouTube are committed to being part of the solution. We are working with government, law enforcement and civil society groups to tackle the problem of violent extremism online. There should be no place for terrorist content on our services.

While we and others have worked for years to identify and remove content that violates our policies, the uncomfortable truth is that we, as an industry, must acknowledge that more needs to be done. Now.”

The steps Walker listed were: increasing the use of technology to identify terrorism-related videos; increasing the number of independent experts in YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program; making it harder for videos that do not strictly violate YouTube’s “community standards,” but which contain extremist content, to be located on the site; and implementing a “Redirect Method,” to send viewers in search of radical content to videos that debunk jihadi recruitment messages.

Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, responded wryly to these ostensibly new measures, including those that MEMRI found have not been implemented over the years in any case:

“Google says it will put ‘warnings on those videos and make them harder to find.’ Ten to one these warnings will end up going not on jihad videos, but on anti-jihad videos.”

Monetary pressure and public outcries are the methods used in democratic countries to force Google to remove content that endangers lives. (Totalitarian regimes, such as that of North Korea and Iran, simply ban YouTube.)

There is a greater problem, however, which cannot be solved by monetary or technological means. The cultural (or multicultural) climate that has swept the West is clouding the definitions of “incitement,” “terrorism” and “extremism” in relation to radical Islam.

It is this willful vagueness that has provided Google and YouTube with a cloak against accusations that they are contributing to the spread of global jihad.

YouTube claims to be engaging in the “delicate balancing act” of supporting free expression while countering

“content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics… if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line.”

The message of jihad itself, which is being conveyed via video to potential Islamist terrorists the world over, clearly and concretely meets each of these criteria. However, since Muslims are treated in the West as a “protected group,” it has become safer to rail against and attempt to combat “Islamophobia” than Islamists.

This is exactly what has been happening since the June 19 attack on worshipers exiting the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London. The perpetrator, Darren Osborne — a Briton who hates Muslims and set out to kill as many as possible — is being denounced as an “Islamophobe” who was influenced by anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.K.

As Andrew C. McCarthy argued after the attack, however:

“‘Islamophobia’ is a smear label dreamed up by the Muslim Brotherhood, designed to demagogue any legitimate concern about Islamic doctrine as irrational fear and, of course, as racism. The man who carried out the mosque attack is … is a vile specimen of anti-Muslim hatred, [but] his hatred does not render Islamophobia real. It does not convert into hysteria our worries that a sizable percentage of Muslims — for reasons that are easily knowable if one simply reads scripture and listens to renowned sharia jurists — construes Islam to endorse violence against non-Muslims and to command the imposition of oppressive sharia.”

It is this atmosphere, in which liberals adopt concepts created by Islamist radicals to invert terrorism and its victims, which has allowed Google and YouTube to get away with promoting jihad for a profit, while disingenuously hiding behind the banner of free speech.

Their lip service is no longer acceptable. From now on, if they do not keep their word about combating terrorism, they must be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting mass murder.

Ruthie Blum is a journalist and author of “To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring.’”

Original Article

The CO2 Myth

The CO2 Climate Change Myth

by Chylene Ramsey

“…global warming is dressed up as science, but it’s not science—it’s propaganda.”
“You can’t say CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.”
“’If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the temperature will go up.’ But the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption—the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”
The global warming-climate change debate is one that drives society to extreme ends. Any evidence to the contrary, no matter how reputable the science, is hotly denied.
However, there is no reputable scientific evidence that the climate is driven by carbon dioxide (CO2), and as for thee premise of ‘climate change’— the earth’s climate has always changed, there is nothing unusual about it.
There are a number of scientists who don’t agree with the basic principle of CO2 driven climate change, and their voices are getting louder every day. What’s more, they have plenty of data proving that temperature is not driven by CO2 levels—indeed, there are times in the past where there were 10 times the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere, even at times during earth’s intermittent ice ages.
In addition, ‘climate change’ is the driving force to stop development in third world countries, yet scientists who speak out against the popularized rhetoric about the theories of global warming face censure and ridicule from their colleagues. It seems global warming-climate change has been pushed from a media scare to practically a religion, and those who disagree are treated as heretics.
But again—earth’s climate has always changed. The present warming trend can be traced back to “The Little Ice Age” of the fourteenth century. During the coldest winters of this period, the Thames in England actually froze! Then during the medieval warm period, even earlier, temperatures were actually warmer than they are today—England had vineyards, even in the chilly north! This was far from a time of climate catastrophe, however. It was actually a time of great prosperity.
So what makes us think that the situation in any different today? The fault it’s said lie with our industrialized society…we enjoy a leisure and prosperity unmatched in earlier human history, but the question is. Does it drive ‘climate change’?
Since the mid-nineteenth century, the earth’s temperature has risen only half a degree Celsius, and most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940—before the post-war economic boom that heralded a time of industrial development and technological advancement. During this time of a great increase in industrialization, the temperatures should have increased, that is, if the theory behind CO2 driven ‘climate change’ is correct. Instead, the temperature actually dropped, for four decades no less! This despite a great increase in CO2 levels. Obviously, the facts do not fit the theory.
How then did CO2 become the prime culprit in ‘climate change’? In fact, CO2 makes up such a small part of our atmosphere that it’s measures tens of parts per million, or ppm, and measures approximately 0.54%, and even a smaller part of that can be attributed to human development.
Greenhouse gases actually form a very small part of the earth’s atmosphere, and CO2 is an even lesser part of that. Water vapor actually forms 95% of greenhouse gases.
If it weren’t for greenhouse gases deflecting the sun’s rays from outer space, the world would soon become too hot to support life. If they did not trap the earth’s warmth as it rises, the planet would soon become too cold to live in. Therefore, greenhouse gases are actually beneficial.
The popular theory would indicate that if the temperature of the earth rises, the temperature of the upper atmosphere should rise also. The data, however, indicates that the upper atmosphere has actually dropped, and is not warming as quickly as the surface temperatures, a fact that perplexes scientists that buy into the theory that global warming is driven by greenhouse gases.
Looking at the ice core records, researchers have found a link between temperature and CO2, but not in the path expected. The temperature rises a few hundred years, then the CO2 levels rise following that trend. Therefore, CO2 couldn’t factor into the rise in temperature; it’s not a factor in climate change, it’s actually it’s product.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural gas, produced by all living things. It’s not a pollutant, no more than the oxygen and hydrogen in our atmosphere are pollutants.
Humans are not even the major source of carbon dioxide (CO2). Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the factories and vehicles combined. More comes from animals and bacteria which produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year, compared to a mere 6.5 gigatons produced by humans. Dying vegetation is yet another source of CO2. But the largest producer of CO2 comes from the oceans. Are they to be considered pollutants?
If CO2 doesn’t drive climate, then what does? The sun. More exactly, sunspots. Measuring sunspots produces more accurate results in predicting the weather than conventional means. Sunspots are intense magnetic fields, and astronomers in the past counted sunspots in that belief that the more sunspots there were, the warmer the weather would be. In fact, during earth’s “Little Ice Age”, there were hardly any sunspots at all. Researchers going back 400 years found sunspot activity significantly linked to temperature changes.
Clouds and the earth’s climate are also closely linked. Clouds are formed when cosmic rays from the sun meet water vapor rising from the oceans. Clouds are formed. climate is controlled by clouds, clouds are formed from cosmic rays, and cosmic rays come from the sun. The sun, then, drives climate change, and the effects of CO2 are insignificant.
Then, where did this myth of CO2 driven climate change come from? It’s a convenient theory to drive an anti-capitalistic, anti-development agenda. Socialism and communism were both great failures, and the left has to find a different agenda to drive their ideological spite. Global warming, driven by CO2 produced by industrialization became their focus.
The myth is propagated by the large amounts of money being poured into ‘climate change.’ It has become an economic driver with untold people’s livelihood depending on propagating the theory. Anyone who tried to go against the popular rhetoric soon finds themselves a subject of denouncement and ridicule.
The policies pushed by the popular consensus calls for a reduction of development and industrialization in both the developed and underdeveloped countries. This has, and will cause, a depressing effect on the world’s economies, but most disastrously to the poor in nations such as Africa.
With so much at stake, why does this myth continue to flourish? The ‘precautionary principle’ says that if there is even a small chance of global warming-climate change being correct, we should err on the side of caution. Another factor is human nature; we can’t do anything about cosmic rays or sunspots to control our environment, but we can work earnestly to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’. People receive gratification and even notoriety by succumbing to this public delusion.
CO2 driven climate change is not a fact, it’s more of an opinion, and it won’t be changed until enough voices are raised refuting it that this popular myth will be defeated.
Have any of these people who clamor for reduction of carbon and less fossil fuel use ever think about how their world and lifestyle would be significantly altered should fossil fuel use be significantly reduced? Could they even live in such a world, with no cars, no electricity, and none of the gadgets like cell-phones they take so much for granted now?
Wind and solar technologies cannot be depended upon, either. They are notoriously unreliable and expensive as well, which make them unaffordable to the world’s poor denizens.
The global warming alarm has become so prevalent, and the voices of dissent so effectively silenced, there may be irreparable damage done to our society before people finally accept the truth. By then it may well be too late. They will have caused the very catastrophe their convictions were trying to prevent.

 

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero
By Dr. Jerry Newcombe

Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.

This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.

The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.

A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.

Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).

A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.

The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.

Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?

Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse—filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.

Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.

Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.

“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.

“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”

Take just one aspect of life—amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy—on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)

And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).

In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”

Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.

Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”

The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Original Article

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero
By Dr. Jerry Newcombe

Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.

This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.

The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.

A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.

Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).

A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.

The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.

Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?

Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse—filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.

Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.

Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.

“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.

“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”

Take just one aspect of life—amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy—on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)

And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).

In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”

Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.

Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”

The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Original Article