scripter
Since Feb 3, 2002

view home page, enter name:
For sarcasm use &lt;/sarcasm&gt; as it creates: </sarcasm>

Forum   Pings   Mail


My favorite book of the Bible is Romans. My favorite chapter is chapter 8 and my favorite verse is Romans 8:1. Here's the verse in the New Life Version:
Now because of this, those who belong to Christ will not suffer the punishment of sin.
Obviously, the key is to belong to Christ. Are you interested in learning what this means? Freepmail me
and we can talk.


In all things, I am a Christian first. Here are some links you may find of interest.

How to Know God
Bible Gateway
Bible Research
Bible Places
Bible History
Biblical Archaeology
 
Interview with Jesus
Interview with God
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Creeds of Christendom
CARM
AIG
 
Christian Research Institute
Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt?
King James Only Resource Center
Cult 101
Freedom of Mind Center

 






The Homosexual Agenda

The homosexual agenda pushed by radical homosexuals should be a concern to all. The good news is the APA (American Psychological Association) has no disagreement with the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. More and more homosexuals are leaving the lifestyle. Checkout the links below.

Ex-Gay

'Groundbreaking' study shows 'gays' can change
APA Has No Disagreement With the Treatment of Unwanted Homosexual Attraction
How a 'gay rights' leader became straight
Venus Magazine
Michael Glatze ‘Comes Out’ of Homosexuality: former ‘Young Gay America’ Magazine Co-founder
I Do Exist
People Can Change
Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences
Factors Contributing to the Development of Their Homosexual Feelings


After years of studying this issue I have come to the conclusion that homosexuals are not born that way, and science supports that conclusion. Read the following links along with the ex-gay links above to learn more.

 

Science
What do clinical studies say?
NARTH Responds with 'Good Science and Demonstrable Clinical Experience' at the Annual Conference
"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project
The Three Myths About Homosexuality
New Evidence Found for Childhood Family Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation
Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation
The Study The Media Ignored
How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality is Genetic
The Importance of Twin Studies
The Gay Gene?
The Fading "Gay Gene"
The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science
The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone


The homosexual lifestyle is a dangerous lifestyle, as AIDS appears to discriminate against the homosexual. Checkout the following links from the Center for Disease Control.  

 

Center for Disease Control (CDC)

Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006 (Published in 2008)
Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2005 (Published in 2007)
Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States, 2004 (Published in 2006)
Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States, 2003
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Risk, Prevention, and Testing Behaviors --- United States, National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System: Men Who Have Sex with Men, November 2003--April 2005
HIV and Its Transmission
HIV/AIDS among Women


Parents, you really need to read the following links.  

Targeting Children
Targeting Children, Part 1: How the gay movement intends to capture the next generation
Targeting Children, Part 2: How the homosexual movement uses public schools as instruments of change
Targeting Children, Part 3: Activists encouraging experimentation
Targeting Children, Part 4: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation


The following are miscellaneous links. Some links provide an abundance of information covering the homosexual agenda.  

Misc

Ex-gay Video Testimonials
After the Ball: How America will Conquer it's fear and hatred of Gays
Homosexuality: What's all the fuss?
Scripter's Blog
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)
A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links
(backhoe's links)
What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"
How Christians Can Talk to Homosexuals
Former Homosexual: Christians Must Not Confuse Tolerance with Acceptance
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality




The Creation/Evolution Controversy

The creation/evolution debate can be heated at times. Many folks on the evolution side of the debate insist those who do not accept the theory of evolution haven't read anything on the subject or didn't understand what was read. Of course I disagree. To better understand the issues I purchased and read the following books by leading scientists:

  • The Origin of Species, Darwin
  • Brief History of Time, Hawking
  • Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins
  • Analysis of Vertebrate Structure, Hildebrand
  • Evolutionary Biology, Futuyma
  • Bully for Brontosaurus, Gould
  • Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould
  • Wonderful Life, Gould
  • Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, Gould
  • Time Frames, Eldredge
  • The Age of the Earth, Dalrymple
  • Science and Earth History, Strahler

If you don't see the evidence for evolution or have questions about some aspects of the theory, you're not alone. Luther Sunderland interviewed a number of well-known scientists and put the interview questions and answers in his book, Darwin's Enigma. Now, I'm not saying the scientists don't believe evolution is true, but what they admit behind closed doors is very revealing.

Before interviewing Dr. Patterson, Luther Sunderland read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it Patterson had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents and a letter was written to Dr. Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979 he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

Thanks for your letter of 5th March, and your kind words about the Museum and my book. I held off answering you for a couple of weeks, in case the artwork you mention in your letter should turn up, but it hasn't.

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps not: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job.

Thanks again for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Patterson

Here we have a scientist making some very honest statements about the evidence for evolution. Some try to state the above letter is out of context but the context is quite clear. And the following statement by Philip Kitcher in a television debate on March 3, 1984 confirms the context:
"Dr. Patterson, when he wrote that letter in 1979, he wrote that letter in complete ignorance of the political situation in the USA. He thought that he was writing a letter to a fellow professional scientist."
Unfortunately, it appears the politics of evolution are more important than the truth.

In Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland compiled some very interesting statements by leading scientists. On pages 26-27:

According to the generally accepted requirements of a theory in science, could Charles Darwin's theory qualify as a truly scientific theory? Dr. Patterson did not think so. In his book, Evolution, he wrote, "If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical)... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."

Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum (Natural History), 1978), pp. 145-146.

Page 27 continues

In his interview, Dr. Patterson said that he agreed with the statement that neither evolution nor creation qualified as a scientific theory since such theories could not be tested. He liked a quote from R.L. Wysong's book The Creation/Evolution Controversy that both ideas had to be accepted on faith. A quote of L.T. More's, corroborating Huxley's comments, was:
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational."
Dr. Patterson said, in referring to this quotation, "I agree."
From Darwin's Enigma, Page 39  

Dr. Raup thought that evolution theory was falsifiable but, when asked why it had not been falsified when no intermediate forms had been found in the fossil record, he explained that the theory had just been modified to fit the evidence: "Well, whether it's valid or not, it's still possible to rationalize the lack of intermediates - rationalize it by simply modifying the original Darwinian theory."

It was then pointed out to him: "In Debates, people say,'Sure, the original Darwinian theory has been falsified, but we'll come up with a new one as fast as you can disprove the old ones.'" He acknowledged that this was true: "I think that's true of any conventional wisdom."

Sunderland replied, "But that's not science. You've got to have a theory which is subject to falsification, and if it's falsified, throw in the towel. Now if you want to come up with a new theory, OK. But after it has been changed a hundred times and it is still falsified, at some point someone ought to throw in the towel. Maybe you could say it has been proven as well as any fact of science." Dr. Raup replied, "Yes, I'm sure you've seen how slowly conventional wisdom dies and it really takes overkill."

From Darwin's Enigma, page 116-117:

Norman Macbeth had some comments about the contribution of so-called population genetics to science:
Lewontin says some shocking things too, but some of these men are regarded as "enfants terribles" who like to startle people. The professor had in that article that Gene Fairley called both Gregory Bateson and Marshall Sahlins and asked them what they thought of his creation myth theory - that Darwinism was a creation myth and you don't question creation myths. These two anthropologists answered, "That's not a bad idea." Bateson said, "I've just written something on that myself" and he read off a very sarcastic note about natural selection. "Wonderful theory," he said, "it demonstrates that if things are the way they are, they tend to remain the way they are. It's about as stupid as that."

Sahlins in Chicago said, "That's not a bad idea. I never thought of it before, but it is all right. But why are you so excited about natural selection anyway? Natural selection is all bunk..." On the tape he said, "Science is like an eclair, it's firm on the outside but it is all mushy on the inside. It is good in the eating, however, so we enjoy it and go on with it." These are terrible confessions.

It was noted that those are the confessions of honest scientists and Macbeth replied, "They are outside the gang that have staked their life on it (evolution)."

Norman Macbeth, Darwinism: A Time for Funerals - An Interview with Norman Macbeth, Towards, Fair Oaks, California, V.2 Spring 1982

See also: A critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"

Below are some of my favorite quotes which you may see as taglines

"Take care of your body as though you will live forever; take care of your soul as if you will die tomorrow. " - Robert Fraley

"It ought to be the business of every day to prepare for our last day." - Matthew Henry

"Let temporal things serve your use, but the eternal be the object of your desire." - Thomas á Kempis

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliott

"The validity of faith is linked to its object" - Unknown

"It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible reading people" - Horace Greeley, 1852

"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis