Archive for September, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett

Monday, September 28th, 2020

I thank God for President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Finally, here is someone who “loves the Constitution” and will interpret it instead of legislate and change it. Maybe now we can firmly uphold the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, and someday stop killing our unborn children.

Many babies, after being put through the screaming trauma of an abortion, nevertheless, are born alive. It is standard operating procedure for doctors and nurses to have to squelch every normal human compassion and feeling, and let that baby die in some dirty sink in some linen closet until it gasps out its last pitiful cry. All of this is described as a woman’s right to control over her own body. She has the right to control what is done for her, but her infant has no right for anybody to control his parents who want to slaughter him.

Amy Coney Barret has a child with Down Syndrome. Some parents decide that they want such a child to die. That often is no longer just abortion, but it’s infanticide. It’s letting the youngster die after he is born, and after he is a living, breathing human being in a living, breathing soul. They say that this is done because this child cannot have a quality of life. That is the same arrogance in the realm of psychiatry and the realm of the psychology: that we can look at you and tell so much about you. When they talk, they’re only revealing their crudity and their bestiality, trying to impose their degraded lifestyle on society in the world that they envision.

Some people frantically champion the protection of animals while they cruelly abort babies. It used to be that only in the most barbaric pagan societies where this kind of slaughter has been and practiced and permitted. It all started when the abortionists said, “We want to do this for the poor girl who’s been raped and has this child; this case of incest within the home; and, this pregnant girl who has this trauma.” It was wrong even in those cases, but now it has gone far beyond that, and it is used to fit circumstances into the conveniences of the lives of selfish parents.

We have now established that the nations of the world have committed themselves so extensively to the practice of abortion that, worldwide, more human beings are murdered every year (a million-and-a-half in the United States alone) than could be killed by our worst scenario of nuclear attack; and that, from military authorities. The worst case scenario nuclear attack would not kill as many human beings as are murdered by abortion each year in all the countries of the world put together.

Now we must pray for the timely confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Why Trump Will Win Again

Monday, September 7th, 2020

In 2016, I correctly predicted that Trump would win, against the odds and the polls: 2016 Prediction. I am now predicting that he will win reelection in 2020. Again (as in 2016), I’m simply using history as our example.

First of all, history shows that it’s very difficult to defeat an incumbent president. In modern times, Bush 43, Carter, and Ford are the only incumbents who lost reelection, and (unlike Trump) they were all weak candidates.

Also, as you know, Joe Biden is a former vice president. No former vice president has ever defeated an incumbent president. Walter Mondale is the only former vice president to run against an incumbent president in recent years, and he lost in a landslide in 1984. Three others lost against non-incumbents in the past 100 years: Al Gore, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon (in 1960).

We have had only 14 vice presidents that became president. Of those 14 that became president, 13 of them did so in the term immediately following the term where they served as vice president, when the president was leaving office. The only exception to the rule was Richard Nixon, who didn’t become president until eight years after his term as vice president.

So, what was so unusual about Nixon’s victory in 1968? Well, President Lyndon Johnson had lost control of the Democratic Party, which was splitting into four fighting factions. The first consisted primarily of Johnson; Vice President Hubert Humphrey; and, labor unions, led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley. The second group consisted of anti-Vietnam war students and intellectuals, who rallied behind Eugene McCarthy. The third group was Catholics, Hispanics, and African Americans, who rallied behind Robert Kennedy. The fourth group was segregationist white Southerners, who rallied behind George C. Wallace and the American Independent Party.

We were deep into the Vietnam war, and it was one of many issues that splintered the party, and the nation. Johnson could see no way to win the war and no way to unite the party long enough for him to win re-election. Also, he had become more worried about his failing health, and was concerned that he might not live through another four-year term. In 1967, at the age of 59, he secretly commissioned an actuarial study that predicted he would die at 64 (which he did). Therefore, at the end of a speech on March 31, 1968, he shocked the nation when he announced he would not run for re-election.

So, logically (and statistically), Biden wouldn’t be able to unseat an incumbent president short of something shocking and historical. It would have to be something bad enough to make an incumbent president decide not to run — like the unpopular Vietnam War.

How Will He Do it?

Trump merely has to repeat his win in either Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Does Photosynthesis Contradict the Bible?

Friday, September 4th, 2020

Does the Bible Contradict Photosynthesis, Newton, and Snell? According to Genesis, Yahweh created the first light (Genesis 1:3); plants on day three (Genesis 1:11-13); the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19); and, the rainbow as a sign of covenant with Noah after the Flood (Genesis 9:9-17). Does this not contradict the law of Snell (1621), the decomposition of light (Newton, 1671) and Photosynthesis?

You asked about a possible contradiction where God created plants on the third day, but he didn’t create the sun (required for photosynthesis) until the fourth day. We are not given the answer to this in the Bible, but I see a variety of possibilities:

– The Bible says that God created light on the first day, although He didn’t create the sun until the fourth day. However, it doesn’t explain what this light was on the first day. Perhaps it was simply the light of Jesus Christ illuminating the universe, or perhaps it was yet another source of light. Whatever it was, maybe it served (perhaps temporarily) in place of the sun in the photosynthesis process.

РMaybe we can view the Bible’s first reference to light as being a general reference, while the following verses give a more detailed explanation of the source of the light (the sun). In other words, perhaps the sun was actually created on the first day, but it is not named as the sun until the fourth day.

– The requirement of sunlight in the photosynthesis process is based upon how science currently understands this process. Perhaps the problem is our lack of understanding, and someday science will discover the (possibly simple) answer to this question. For example, perhaps there are, in fact, other alternative sources of energy (in place of sunlight) for the photosynthesis process, but our knowledge of science is still too limited to understand this.

– There is much debate on the use of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Some Bible scholars believe that it was a 24-hour day as we know it today, but others believe it was a longer amount of time. Perhaps this was simply a 24-hour day, so the plants were created only 72 hours before the sun was created, and the plants (and the entire ecosystem) were able to survive temporarily for those 72 hours without the photosynthesis process as we know it today (especially in a perfect ecosystem). In this scenario, maybe for a short time period: photoautotrophs survived without creating their own food; they were not using carbon dioxide, converting it into organic compounds such as sugars; they were not releasing oxygen for aerobic life; and, there was some other source of energy for nearly all life on earth.

– Expanding upon the above theory, perhaps the plants were initially created as seedlings, even buried underground, and able to do without the photosynthesis process for those 72 hours before they emerged from the ground. You also asked about possible contradictions between the Biblical account and the law of Snell and the decomposition of light (Newton). In particular, you asked about the rainbow as a sign of the covenant with Noah after the flood. However, the flood occurred some 1,600 years after creation. Because of this, I do not see a possible contradiction similar to that with the process of photosynthesis (where the order of creation within the first six days was a factor). Also, we cannot definitively say when and how the properties of light were created; i.e., decomposition, reflection, refraction, etc.

– Or, maybe they just survived for three days without sunlight.