Are Atheists Really Fools?

by Roderick C. Meredith


I have before me two newspaper articles with which I strongly disagree. Although I generally love the Wall Street Journal and find its articles and editorials very helpful and stimulating, the articles I am referring to are written in my opinion-- by a couple of "educated fools" --well-known scientist Richard Dawkins and religion writer Karen Armstrong. In an article titled "Man vs. God" (WSJ, September 12, 2009), they "debated" evolution, science and the role of religion. Dawkins came down hard against the idea of a real God and against religion in general. He asserted, "Evolution is the universe's greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated."

Dawkins went on making fun of God and describing the glories of evolution. But is his kind of reasoning based on fact? Is his supposed "scientific approach" all neat and tidy?

No!


For in his remarks praising "Darwinian life" and denigrating God, Dawkins cheerfully said, "What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics. Nothing does (if anything did, physicists would just have to formulate new laws ' --it's happened often enough in the history of science). But although life never violates the laws of physics, it pushes them into unexpected avenues that stagger the imagination."

Do you see Dawkin's problem? He starts out with an already existing universe. This universe has basic "laws" which he admits are never broken! Later, he goes on to admit, once again, "Never once are the laws of physics violated, yet life emerges into uncharted territory."

Think
about this preposterous reasoning!

This supposed "great" scientist admits that "never once are the laws of physics violated." Yet he somehow fails to grasp that something or someone had to create these laws of physics and the entire universe that is filled with inviolate laws. It is obvious to most truly sincere and thinking persons that the interrelated and overlapping laws of physics, chemistry, and other areas of science must have been created by a Higher Power--an awesome Being--with a mind far above the human mind. He set in motion these laws and created the beauty, the delicacy and the constancy of this universe to sustain the laws that govern our lives.

As letter-writer Joseph Furman replied a week later in response to the article: "I only had two semesters of college physics, so I must have missed the part where Mr. Dawkins' much vaunted laws of physics began permitting man to love, laugh and cry" (WSJ, September 19, 2009).

Who indeed
brought about the creative mind which man alone possesses--and the ability to back off and laugh at himself, to love, and to sometimes give with no thought of a return, and to have a deep spiritual longing with recognition that there must be a higher power?

The so-called "scientists" who try to bypass the basic fact of an entire universe filled with consistent laws and a host of creatures and creations that interact with each other in a way that beautifully "works"--"these people are indeed lacking in understanding and wisdom. As the Psalmist wrote, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

For her part, religion writer Karen Armstrong wandered around with "touchy feely" ideas that frankly prove nothing. She stated, "The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words."

Indeed, she had a hard time rationally putting her ideas into words! It is sad that, in the name of "religion," this kind of response was chosen to supposedly rebut the atheist Richard Dawkins. For, her response showed no understanding of true religion--nor of a genuine approach to the God of the Bible.

Part of the problem facing these confused individuals is revealed in Aldous Huxley's statement in his well-known book, Ends and Means. This famous thinker and philosopher admits, "Most ignorance is invincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless" (p. 312).

Indeed, it is not "fashionable" to believe in a real God. For people like to deny the truth of revealed prophecy in His inspired word, the Bible. But the truth remains! If you have not already done so, write for your free subscription to our Tomorrow's World Bible Study Course. There, you will learn for yourself the truth about fulfilled prophecy. You will see, for example, how God inspired Isaiah to write about the activities of King Cyrus of Persia 200 years in advance--"events confirmed by secular history and your Bible! Yes, my friends, this is a real God! Is He real to you?

People soon will have to believe in God--for He is right now beginning to intervene powerfully in world affairs in very specific ways which we at Tomorrow's World have been telling you about for years! Fulfilled prophecy is very difficult for the skeptic to refute. For it not only has happened--as I indicated--"but you can now see it continuing to happen all around you, if you truly understand prophecy and read your daily newspaper or watch a television channel that actually gives world news.

This very Work--which produces the Tomorrow's World television program and Tomorrow's World magazine--is a continuation of the Work led by Herbert W. Armstrong--a well-known servant of Christ who died in 1986 at age 93. In August 1950, he wrote in The Plain Truth magazine, "No all-out full-scale war is prophesied between Russia and the United States. The famous prophecy of Ezek. 38 and 39 foretells a Russian invasion of Palestine, much later, not against the North American continent" (p. 2).

Remember, dear reader, that back then the vast majority of Bible "prophecy students" were proclaiming that Ezekiel 38 foretold a Russian attack on the North American continent! Often, as we have noted repeatedly, Mr. Armstrong stood alone in proclaiming the Truth of what actually was and is happening in world affairs.

Writing in The Good News in April 1952, Mr. Armstrong proclaimed (at a time virtually no one expected this): "Russia may give East Germany back to the Germans and will be forced to relinquish her control over Hungary, Czechoslovakia and parts of Austria to complete the ten nation union. Europe will have a free hand to destroy America and Britain as prophesied" (p. 16).

How could Mr. Armstrong possibly have known 37 years in advance that Russia was not to become America's greatest challenge--and was not to attack us directly? How could he have known that Russia would, in fact, give East Germany back to the Germans and be forced to relinquish her control over Germany, Czechoslovakia and parts of Austria?

Because, my friends, there is a real God who inspired this information in His Holy Bible! That same God is speaking to your mind now through this Work! We have told you that unless America and the British-descended peoples come to a genuine national repentance such as has never been seen before, they will continue their downward spiral! Almost everything will seem to go wrong. For the Eternal God told our forefathers that if we do not obey His commandments and statutes, He would bring upon us "terror" and then "wasting disease and fever" (Leviticus 26:14-17). We have witnessed--and will continue to witness--all kinds of terror, including terrorist attacks on our cities, our seaports, our airports, our railway stations and our other forms of transport. And we will soon be entering a time of "wasting disease" such as we have never experienced before.

God tells us that if we will not repent, He "will break the pride of your power" (Leviticus 26:19).

To understand these facts, please write for our free booklets, The Real God: Proofs and Promises and Prophecy Fulfilled: God's Hand in World Affairs. You need this vital information! You need to have the intellectual and spiritual honesty to prove to yourself that most of the "educated fools" around you who deny God's existence are the ones who are really "out of touch"!

And you need--with all your heart--to get "in touch" with the real God who gives you life and breath, who is now intervening in human affairs before setting up His very real Kingdom or World Government to finally bring peace to a very confused world. May God help you to be willing to face genuine facts. And may He help you to act on the precious Truth that He alone can provide!

 


Dr. Roderick C. Meredith is editor in chief of Tomorrow's World magazine. His article is reprinted from the Nov. - Dec. 2009 issue, "The Truth About 2012: Hollywood vs. Humanity". Republished here by special permission from the Living Church of God.


Mary Jo Kopechne

by Anonymous

A few days ago, from her grave, I thought I heard Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940-July 18, 1969) call. "This year, I would have been 67 years old. As my only wish, please refresh your memory of me and my murderer."

"Sometime around midnight, on July 18, 1969 Kennedy drove his Oldsmobile 88 off of a small bridge on Chappaquiddick island, into eight feet of chilly water. The vehicle landed upside-down. While Kennedy managed to free himself from the wreck and swim to safety, his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne was left in the car to drown."

{"Leaving the scene of an accident is a felony. If someone dies it might even be manslaughter. This would be even more likely if the person who died could have been saved by a simple call to a rescue team...the accident at Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick Island on July 18, 1969 probably cost Edward M. Kennedy the presidency. It certainly cost Mary Jo Kopechne her life." }

"Sen Kennedy told the police that he was driving Kopechne to the ferry after a party on the island when his car left the unfamiliar road."In the interview with John Farrar, the scuba diver who found Mary Jo, stated that engineers determined that Kennedy hit the water at between 35 to 40 mph, but Kennedy testified it was no more than 20 mph. Mary Jo took more than an hour to die, trapped in Kennedy's 1967 oldsmobile, in only 8 ft of salty water beneath Dike bridge.

Ted Kennedy drunkenly drove his car off a bridge, extricated himself, and left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown, Massachusetts, Bridge on July 17th, 1969 after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or the details of how Kennedy swam to safety, and then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he, Garghan, was behind the wheel.

"Right from the start, the reporters who arrived at the scene were skeptical of his story, skeptical even of how he claimed he got back to Edgartown that night. Markham and Gargan said when they drove to the ferry landing — the ferry had stopped running by then — Kennedy took them by surprise by jumping in the water, and swimming across the channel towards Edgartown. They assumed, they said, he would report the accident that night to the police. Instead Kennedy went back to his hotel, ostensibly to change his clothes but instead, went downstairs to complain about a noisy party that was going on. "

"Because no autopsy is ever performed on Kopechne's body (her body had been promptly whisked out of state) it is uncertain how long it took her to drown, if she wasn't killed on impact. Likewise, it is never established whether Kopechne was pregnant or exhibited signs of recent sexual activity."

Young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died (some medical experts saying two and one-half hours later), while this leading Democrat war critic rushed back to his family's compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Nor does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear in 1951 for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Nor why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

Albuquerque Red Light Camera Lies

by Brad Hines

"Want the scoop on Albuquerque's red light camera program?

Update 2/16/17   Redflex to pay $20 million to Chicago to settle lawsuit over red-light camera bribery


The City of Albuquerque has made over 14 Million dollars fining its citizens for red light camera violations and it has done everything it possibly can to jeopardize their safety in entrapping its citizens into these fines. It has done everything it can to diminish road safety, increase the number of tickets and accidents through the manipulation of yellow light timing and slipstreams, which has resulted in an overall increase in the number of accidents at camera intersections by 20% since the programs started. (Source: Albuquerque Journal, June 2006, Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments, 2008) If the city stands to gain money by having an inefficient traffic system, it will ultimately lead to frustrated drivers, vehicles wearing out faster, increased emissions, and yes, increased traffic accidents from vehicles attempting to stay in the slipstream.

Red Light camera lies..



Already, normally law abiding citizens are fighting back using reflective coatings and license plate covers on their cars. Some have even resorted to placing fake letters on the plate to obfuscate the plate numbers. Others still, have simply registered their cars under corporations or LLCs to make them impervious to the law which makes the program a complete joke. Many cities that have experimented with the Cameras have found them to be a huge boost to revenue. More responsible cities have found they also increase accidents at intersections. Responsible cities and governments have stopped these programs. What makes Albuquerque think its program is any different?

The attitude of city government seems to be to ignore these issues. I suppose as long as the city is making money, it's ok to cause more traffic accidents than they are stopping, right? I think it's difficult to make someone understand something if their job performance and revenue depends on them not understanding it. Let's get our slipstreams in gear and make sure our citizens get the protection and due process they deserve.

Check out RedFlex.com for the company information on the Red light camera program. Isn't it amazing the first thing the website mentions is profitability and offers ZERO safety statistics?



Comments

Comment notifications for this article:

Re: Albuquerque Red Light Camera Lies..


by Anonymous on Tue 03 Mar 2009 12:10 PM CST | Permanent Link

I don't trust anything about these cameras - they are an ATM machine disguised as a public safety initiative. My brother in AZ says they are everywhere. He bought this special GPS device called GPS Angel that knows where all the speed cameras and red light cameras are and beeps when he's near one.  http://www.gpsangel.com


Evolution's Better Arguments…but are they?

by Allen Williams


Evolutionists regularly invent new fantasy stories to account for the material existence of the universe. Often these stories are discontinuous threads looking at one segment of the universe while ignoring all others. Evolution's explanations seek to satisfy any immediate threats to the theory rather than to meet the overall system constraints which limit it.

The evolutionary mindset is entrenched, often fanatical in its denial of any possibility of Intelligent Design having created the universe despite the mental gymnastics that have to be performed to deny the obvious. The Anthropic principle states among other things that free bodies in space must conserve angular momentum, i.e. when a body breaks apart, the fragments spin in the same direction as the parent. Evolutionists disagree claiming:

"As for the angular momentum problem, that only deals with how the solar system formed. A lot has happened in the last few billion years. In the case of Earth, it was smashed by a proto-planet the size of Mars that gouged out enough material to make the moon. Something similar happened to Venus, except in Venus’s case it was a glancing blow near one of the poles that caused the planet to flip over, making it seem to turn the other way. It is actually still turning the same way, it is just the axis of rotation has flipped. Something similar happened to Uranus, which is now laying on its side (90 degree flip). And let me ask you, why would a creator decide to randomly flip some arbitrary planet over? What possible purpose could that serve?">

Be sure and remember angular momentum only deals with how the universe was formed the next time you inadvertently step in front of a bus. If the moon, with a mass one fourth that of the earth, were torn away in a planetary collision how are both objects relatively round given the vacuum of space? And only one heavenly body rotates and only one has an atmosphere after the collision?

How does something 'seem' to rotate in the opposite direction to the earth? It either does or doesn't. Amazingly, this ‘glancing blow’ collision that causes Venus to 'seem' to rotate in the opposite direction leaves no other indication of its existence, i.e no asteroid fragments or moon to orbit it. It simply disappears into the Sun’s gravity or careens off into deep space. And, this favored collision doesn’t involve conservation of angular momentum because the universe was already formed. How stupid is this!?

Perhaps an ordinary pocket watch holds the secret as to why a Creator might have flipped the rotation of a planet. Just as a watch’s gears turn in opposite directions to track time, so too might the universe be considered a giant clock propelled by gravity.

However, evolution's’ response as to why the earth and moon are round after the collision and earth’s atmosphere is intact is:

"That is because it melted Earth’s crust... I suppose you have never heard of gravity. It is something that causes objects to be attracted towards each other. It also causes objects that are large enough to form into spheres, or roughly spheres, since that shape minimizes the distance of any point from the center. Our atmosphere also has much less Nitrogen than the other planets. It seems like some huge catastrophe came along and stripped it all away... Of course water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen were trapped underground and escaped over time, but our atmosphere is still completely different than it should be compared to other planets, assuming there wasn’t some massive event that changed it."

Any gravitational force strong enough to ‘round off’ the jagged edges of a collision in the vacuum of free space would be strong enough to hold an atmosphere, yet only the earth has an atmosphere.

So the earth’s crust fused on impact with the ‘proto-sized’ planet right after the moon broke off but none of the life-giving atmosphere was torn away in the process. When one drops something, there is always more than one fragment, how fortuitous for evolution that either all the fragments ‘recombined’ to form the moon or only one piece broke off.

The evolutionist further notes that the atmosphere was all safely 'tucked' under the crust, a crust that fused all around the globe, not just at the point of impact. However, this scenario doesn’t resolve well with the evidence of large meteorites that have struck the earth in the past. They didn’t fuse the earth’s crust at the point of impact, they just created a big hole.

The 'fused crust' then allowed the trapped water and atmosphere to escape millions of years later when either the nitrogen selectively leaked away without any of the water or oxygen along with it. Or, the Nitrogen leaked away during some other future catastrophic event, which also didn’t result in the loss of water or oxygen which violates the known laws of diffusion.

And, of course, the tremendous hydrostatic pressure that would have developed under the earth’s fused crust in the entrapment of atmospheric gases and water not only didn’t split the earth apart but escaped slowly to form the air and sea. And, that collision neither changed earth’s orbit around the sun nor resulted in the heating or cooling of its molten core. And, don't miss the other equally improbable scenario, that molecules of gas 'leaked' out of the rocks over millions of years to slowly form an atmosphere after gravity had 're-rounded' the earth from the departure of the moon. Of course, the nitrogen escaped first because of its lower molecular weight as the earth wasn't fully round yet. {Excuse me while I laugh.}

Interestingly enough, evolutionists concede that green house gases were present in the atmosphere long before the appearance of man. How many years does it take to evolve from an amoeba to homo sapiens? Who was around to record the global warming?

"I should also point out that there are a great many chemical similarities between the Earth and the Moon."

But, the moon didn’t evolve an oxygen containing atmosphere millions of years later as earth did nor did other planets in this solar system. So, what other similarities matter?

Evolutionists regard logic as something true for only a finite portion of time rather than always, a necessary condition to allow the fitting of separate and otherwise incompatible event threads. So, in their world, the ‘null’ hypothesis has no real meaning, i.e. ‘A’ and ‘NOT ‘A’ , nor does the concept of falsification of any hypothesis: "

"Here’s a little experiment to try: Take three bowls of water. Add ice cubes to the first to make it nice and cold. Add some heat to the third to make it nice and warm. Let the second one remain at room temperature. Place your left hand in the first bowl and your right hand in the third, and leave them there for a bit. Say, a minute or so. Then put them both in the middle bowl. Voila! The middle bowl is both hot and cold! If hot is A, then the middle bowl is both A and NOT A!"

What kind of nonsense is this? Temperature is not measured by sensory perception; it’s measured through bodies in thermal equilibrium according to the Zeroth law of thermodynamics. Ask the Doctor to stick his finger in you rather than using his digital thermometer next time you’re sick. If ‘A’ is true, then ‘Not A’ is always false for the chosen case, not just for a finite period. This is the confusion that the 'no absolute' truth teaching brings to public education.

Next we have evolution's perversion of the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics:

"Or are you misusing the Second Law? That’s usually more typical. Creationists love to ignore the fact that if their "decay of everything" version of the Second Law was true, you couldn’t even grow wheatgrass in a cup, because wheatgrass has, like, information in it. Maybe God has to prop up even wheatgrass development in this whole physics-derived field of Okami evil spirit-like cursed decay."

Energy must be in a form that can be utilized by the recipient; otherwise we could all live on sunlight rather than organic nourishment. While plants do utilize the sun as an energy source, the gases they exchange increases entropy to the surroundings.

There's nothing stated in either the second or third law that says decay prevents growth of living organisms. The only requirement for growth is that the energy input be greater than the energy exhausted to the sink. Entropy is merely an indication of the energy decay experienced by that system, living or not. And, the fact that the sun imparts entropy to its surroundings doesn’t alter the fact that the earth is still decaying.

The best argument came from a response to the second half of the second law of thermodynamics or Nerst’s postulation, governing evolutionary processes, {update 5/2/12 - i.e. 2(b).

"It is the second law of thermodynamics that Creationists do not understand. The third simply states that the other two laws only apply at temperatures above absolute zero. The second law says that total entropy can only go down in a closed system. But the Earth is not a closed system, every tiny drop in entropy here is compensated for many times over by the constant, massive increase in entropy in the sun. You know, it being a massive nuclear fireball and all."

As a matter of fact, '2b' states that "..a system will move in the direction that increases the entropy of the system or the universe." This means that the net change in entropy, ‘Sin – S'out must be greater than or equal to zero. The term 'total' entropy as used by the evolutionist is a deception, inferring that 'Sin – S'out can be less than zero. How is a cooling body a net decease in entropy? And, is not the Sun decaying through its fusion reactions in radiating energy to space?

{update 2/12/09} The evolutionist's 'closed system' term is a misnomer. If entropy could only decrease in closed or ordered systems then how does snow melt? The answer is that the state condition depends on the net change in dS, or Sin – S'out. The evolutionist ignores the enthalpy, 'H' of the surroundings. Evolution requires 'spontaneity' for its abiogenesis changes to take place which can only occur through the generation of new entropy by the system, closed or open. It cannot utilize existing entropy from the environment, i.e. S>0 as it can with enthalpy, 'H' or 'dS' itself must be greater than zero. However, it can acquire necessary reaction energy from its surroundings and be spontaneous if 'H-TS' is an absolute minimum. Spontaneous atmospheric reactions like the open air oxidation (of carbon monoxide, CO to carbon dioxide and acid rain , i.e. 2NO + O2 -> 2NO2 occur because the 'H-TS' change produces a positive entropy, 'dS' as required by the 2nd law. Otherwise, neither would be an environmental problem.

The earth’s rotation has been shown to have slowed, loss in kinetic energy, over the last 6000 years and the atmosphere continues to radiate heat to free space according to the second law relationship, i.e. dq/T. Otherwise, everything would burn up from the accumulated energy input by the sun. Next, the evolutionist states:

"Look around next time it is snowing. Snow is a much lower entropy state for water to be in compared to the water vapor that it started at. Yet snow forms. The same goes for crystals, ice, water, and many other ordered systems that form spontaneously in nature. The same principles that allow these system to reduce their entropy also allows life to reduce its entropy."

The crystalline state of any substance in either a closed or open system doesn’t suspend the second law {2(b)} because  the net change in ‘S’ is simply zero not less than zero. If the net change in were found to be less than zero for a living organism or system then Nerst’s postulate would be invalid. There is no empirical or physical evidence that supports such a claim since the inception of the law. How can one reduce his entropy without bringing about death? Hypothermia certainly zeros out your entropy.

Evolution theory breaks under the sheer weight of its own convoluted arguments.