All loaded up with baby blankets.

So, I loaded up the car with baby blankets. When I say loaded it up I mean it. The trunk the entire back seat and the passenger seat. All that was needed because I purchase another $3,000 worth of baby blankets to give to the Hospital.

I told my boss at the lab to not say it was from be but the lab as a whole. My idea is that maybe it will inspire other departments in the hospital to also donate and maybe get some friendly competition going.

Trust me, the different departments are actually quite competitive. So, I hope to start something here.

Scientific words and the definitions

In order to discuss scientific topics with me, you must utilize the same scientific language that is required in order to understand what is being talked about. As well, to prevent raising the bar, etc.… so you must be pedantic and use the correct terminology, and definitions of the words while accepting that’s what they mean when said. If you cannot, then you can’t say I, or science is wrong, only the strawman you created is and argue against is

Evolution

Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool of a population from one generation to the next.

Micro evolution

See Evolution

Macro evolution

Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species.

Abiogenesis

How life began from chemicals.

Evidence (Scientific evidence)

Evidence is a body of objectively verifiable facts that are positively indicative of and or exclusively conductive one available position over any other.

Proof

Proofs is something that exist with alcohol, as well in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both self-contained systems of propositions. When it comes to science, science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.

cladogenesis

See Macro evolution

Human

A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech.

Paleontology

The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms (Evolution from a historic perspective).

Theory

A theory is a framework of an explanation that explains observed facts. What this means is that the theory of evolution is that which explains the observed phenomenon known as evolution. Just as gravity theory explains the observed phenomenon known as gravity.

It’s A Women Body, So Men Have No Say On Abortion?

Inevitably, when you’re a male talking to someone who is female and is pro-extermination, AKA abortion. They will try to shut down the conversation, or should I say, shut the man up by trying to exclude men from the conversation. It may be worded differently, but generally they do this by saying that it is a woman’s body, and so a man has no say.

Screen shot of one such person saying this.

The problem with this idea is that, it’s not just her body that is affected. It’s the body of the unborn and the body of the man, the father who is affected aswell. Yes the father, the people who feel it should be a women’s choice to terminate a life, have forgotten that men are also human and the choice other people make can affect them as well. But like usual men are ignored, there no consideration aloud when it comes to men.

Yes, the baby growing inside the women does not have direct physical effects on the man who helped create them, like his belly getting bigger or a lack of energy. However, killing the unborn can have drastic psychological effects on him. Because to him, that life is his son or daughter, and he can be emotionally and psychologically affected by their death. Just as any mother would who wanted her kid and lost them.

Nevertheless, this sexist view that men are emotionless being and should be Okey with it is wrong. Men do care. They have emotions and just like a pregnant mother mate have an instant bond with her unborn, so can men. To lose that child can have drastic psychological effects on him, as to him, he just lost his child. They do not have to be born to be affected by this, just as a mother who wanted their baby yet had a miscarriage can be psychologically affected by the loss.

Men who lose their unborn babies Can and do feel grief and helplessness from the termination of their child. Men have even committed suicide because of how much this loss effects them. One man even killed himself in front of a plan Parenthood after they took the life of his unborn. Prior to that, he posted an obituary for his unborn child who said,

“Zachary Duncan Draper was beautiful as his mother, loved by God and others. My little baby boy didn’t make it to his Daddy’s arms. I never got to hold and kiss him, tell him stories or read him rhymes. I love you Zachary and look forward to seeing you in heaven.”

Clearly, this man was being psychologically impacted by this. Mark Horsted, was another such man who also took his own life just from her planning to do it. Again, clearly abortion does not just affect the women; it affects the men as well. So why should men not have a say about things that can and do affect them as well?

Then there is also how men and women both are thinking of the life of the unborn. As we see that the stuffing out of the unborn life, as affecting someone other then the mother.

Yet despite this, despite how it is not just men, but women, women who actually make up the majority of pro-life people. The people who think it’s okay to take the life of the unborn, show how they use their own sexist stereotypes of men to silence the opposing view when they use men as escape goats for why anyone would want to save the life of the unborn.

Ignoring how its about the unborn then, claiming that it’s about controlling women’s bodies. Effectively, it is a dishonest attempt to use men as excuse to continue justifying the killing of the unborn by demonizing men. Making them look as if it’s not actually about the unborn, but about controlling women. I going that its not just men but women, ignoring how they are motivated by saving a life.

The fact is, men are affected by abortion and therefore should have a say. And because we’re talking about another life is completely helpless, it is perfectly acceptable anyone man or woman should have a say in such an important thing as routing out an exterminating the life of an unborn.

Hillary is doing it too. She can’t say the word, ‘Christian’.

It’s not just Obama and the media who cannot use the word, Christian. It also Hillary Clinton cannot use the word, Christian.

Again, who is “worshiping Easter?” Seeing that she thinks it’s a holy weekend for many faiths, maybe she can tell me what other faiths is she talking about? Faiths that worship Easter and not the creator.

Seriously, who is she talking about and what do they have to do with the Christians who had been attacked? Why do “Easter worshippers,” whoever they are, need to be praying for and the Christians who are the victims don’t?

Oh, that’s right, she is talking about Christians, but can’t use the word, Christian. Even I’m one of her very next tweets when she at least uses the word church, she seems unable to use the word, Christian. Instead, referring to Christians as just, “worshipers”.

And no where did she say Christian or Stephen Catholic in her tweet here.

This is not a respectful way to treat us Christians, to not call us what we are. Using some other misleading description to describe us instead. Or to ignore who is affect the most by such tragedies

Obama can’t even say the word Christian

This Easter there had been attacks on multiple Christian churches in Sir Lanka. As usual, the politicians tell us how upset over the tragedy and/or give the victims they’re good wishes/prayers. Doing so is mostly political. Not doing would basically would be political suicide.

Obama is no different and so he tweeted about it. However, I noticed something about the latest post on twitter that stood out to me. He never said Christians, he said “Easter worshippers.” Makes you wonder, what is an Easter worshipper? Because Christians don’t worship Easter they worship the Creator.

So who are these Easter worshippers that were harmed? Well, it was Christians. Just for some reason, he didn’t use the word, Christian. It’s also possible that he chose Easter worshipper as a subtle way to attack Christians. To Christians Easter, and perhaps didn’t think anyone would notice.

I can already hear it now from people who will tell me that he’s a Christian man who has gone to church. I’m not ignorant of those claims. I am also aware of a lot of controversy surrounding the church he has gone to.

However, as a man who is a Christian you would think he would know it was not Easter worshippers that were the victims of these attacks, but Christians who had been. So he will know that the idea that Christians are Easter worshippers is wrong and anti-Christian, going against God’s teachings.

So this leaves two possibilities. He either knew what he said was wrong and said it anyway, or he made a mistake and just misspoke. After all, we are human and make mistakes from time to time. Saying things we never actually meant to say. I, however, don’t believe it’s a mistake and here’s why.

Look at this past. It is yet another recent tweet by Obama. Noticed that when a very famous Church caught fire, again no mention of Christians. Instead, he said people of France. Which would include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Sikhs, atheist, etc… despite this still being a loss in general for the general population, it’s a Christian church and he chose once again to omit the word Christians, or at least Catholics who would be the ones suffering the most from this loss.

He’s not the only one who did this. If you look at the media is reporting on this, it was as if they avoided the word Christian as if it would get there FCC license revoked the minute was said, even if by accident. Even using the word church was rare if not absent. It seems to be a new thing that I’ve noticed where the only time Christians are mentioned in Media and by many politicians is when they’re trying to portray Christians the negative light.

Now someone might want to argue that maybe Obama just didn’t want to offend anyone. Kind of like saying happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. However, we know he has no problem with using the name of a religion when they are the victim of a tragedy. At least when they are not Christian, but Muslims.

Here’s another very recent tweet from Obama.

It seems he can easily point out and say Muslims when they are the victim, just not when the victims happened to be Christians, choosing different words, poorly chosen euphemisms ( or intentional) or includes everybody of a nation over a specific group of people.

When Muslims are victims, it’s clear he’s able to be very specific as to who the victims are. Despite an entire nation suffering, he never said people of New Zealand or koran worshipers. Instead, he was very specific with who the primary victims are, Muslims.

Why is it he can say Muslim when they are the victim, yet cannot do the same with Christians which he claims to be? There’s something odd about this aspect of Obama.

A review of R.C. Sproul book, “What is repentance?”

After reviewing the last book by R.C. Sproul I was kind of worried the other books in the series would be the same. Reading his book titled “what is repentance” I found that this book was an improvement. Just not a really big one.

This time around, the book did not feel so much like it filler to just add more books to the series. The best part is unlike the previous book I reviewed he actually answers the question that is the title of the book, what is repentance? One of the things I really liked was that he delved into the meaning of the word repentance.

Anyone who knows me, knows I love looking into the actual words and their meaning. It has a lot to do with how I am pedantic with such things. I wish I was more pedantic when it comes to my grammar usage, and I think my readers do to. With that being said, I find that one of the best ways to really understand what’s being said is to look at the meaning and definition of those, even how they were used.
Something today that people don’t really even understand, is how words in the past may not always translate well into our own modern languages. So we may end up picking out a word that best fits, but the meaning may not exactly mean the same thing as the ancient word does. It’s causing people to be a little confused or misled. So, to have a better understanding of what’s really being said, we need to look at the words and how they have been used in context, learning what they actually mean. Because sometimes our English translation can be even misleading.

Anyway, the word study was something that I enjoyed. Though I suspect this is not something for everybody, as not everybody finds looking into original meanings fun.
Another aspect that what’s different in this book compared to his previous one I reviewed, was how the history he talked of actually had relevance to the question he was asking in the title. With each piece leading to the next thing. Where what he talking about help make sense of it all.
Though there were still things that made it a bit of a difficult read, the biggest and most notable was how it was still really quite boring to read. I didn’t feel like I was being drawn in. For me, I want a book that has me wanting to learn more about some aspect or subject that somebody’s talking about. That’s not how I felt reading this book. Instead, I felt more like I just wanted to get done reading it. I mean don’t get me wrong there are people who enjoy such things. However, I’m not one of them.
I like to get involved in the books I read. I like to see something that makes me want to learn more about what he (or she) is saying. Or better yet, something is said where I end up writing it down to go and do research on more about a particular subject a thing that was said. This book just didn’t do that. Instead, it felt like it just was going on and on.

That’s not to say that the book has its moments, it’s just not enough to keep a person interested I’m continuing to read it. The book and the message he was conveyed was still a good message. I just think he could have done a better job presenting the reader with that message. Not that I could do a better job but I do know when I read things that others have written. They can make me feel that I can’t wait see or hear about something that they’re talking about without me feeling like I just want to get to the next page or to the end.

It’s a hard to say if this book is one I can recommend or not. I think this book is dependent upon a person’s reading preference than anything. Some people probably will actually enjoy reading it because this is the kind of way they like information written down. While others, while probably feels similar to how I feel.

Reviewing R. C. Sprouls book: “Can I Trust the Bible?”

Continuing my Christian Book & Bible reviews series I thought I would review a book by R.C. Sproul. It’s actually one of many books written by the same author that I had recently received as a gift. Each book has a different topic that is discussed. The first book I am reviewing in this post is titled “Can I Trust the Bible.”

The book itself is small, only a few inches and consisting of just 61 pages. So I was expecting a book that just dived straight to the point and start presenting the arguments and evidence plus the explanation of it. However, that was not what I got. It seemed like the author was just trying to fill up pages, making the book as big as he could. The worst part is you never really answered the question which is in the title, “Can I Trust the Bible?”
If anything, the book was more of just a history of how the Bible was constructed. And was written more for people who apparently already trust the Bible. Which is disappointing because I was kind of hoping for something that I could give to an unbeliever that would give them a reason to believe the Bible.
To me it doesn’t make any sense to have a book that asks a question and doesn’t actually answer the question being asked. It also was a pretty boring read and it didn’t really draw me in or have me engaged where I want to go oh let me go look this or that up.
One thing that came as a surprise to me was how little scripture was even mentioned the 61 pages. Not that that’s a bad thing, it’s just kind of a surprise when you have a book on the Bible
As for the quality of the book it’s pretty good for a paperback book, holding up well good stitching. It had no issues no major typos and the book held together very well when I was rolling over the pages.
I can’t really recommend this one however, I’m hoping maybe one of the other books by the author are going to be a little better

Bible review: BMP waterproof Bible

Over the years I have amassed quite a few Bibles. I’m not just talking different interpretations such as the King James version and the English Standard Bible, just many different types. Not only that, but I have lots of different Christian books and commentaries. Anyway – I was flipping through one of my Bibles today and was thinking. It may be fun to do some reviews on the various Bibles and Christian books that I have.

So today, I wanted to start with one of my favorites. My waterproof Bible by Bardin & Marsee publishing. Something that was a gift from my aunt. She gave it to me after my baptism when she found out that I wanted one to take with me when I go canyonering.
Back then, I was in far better shape and spent many day away from civilization, hiking alone through slot Canyons. Needless to say I would often me soaking wet as I had to Wade through water sometimes you can swim long distances and any Bible had would be destroyed. Sure waterproof bags if you weren’t careful I forgot to seal the bag correctly or it just had a small hole the Bible would still get wet. So when I heard they made waterproof Bible I figured it would be perfect.
When I first got it the first thing I noticed was the weight. That she was much heavier any Bible of equal size. It’s at least almost double the weight. I quickly realized then, that although I imagine taking this on all my trips it really wasn’t going to be practical. At least nothing long distance. Especially since I was an ultra-light Backpacker/canyoneer.
The Bible was by far the heaviest thing in my pack and it was frankly heavier than many items I bring combined. And on long trips this weight definitely would have an impact. Sure, it’s fine on short day trips, or just a camping trip, but anything lasting 2 or more days of hiking and extra weight would takes its toll on your body. Needless to say I ended up not taking it off any long-distance trips.
The other thing is quite obvious that it’s not paper, so if you were expecting laminated paper that’s not what you get. It seems to be made out of of the same waterproof plastic paper that I would have maps made out of at the local map store here in Arizona. Is it feels the same. It’s hard to describe but basically it’s plastic in paper form. Which is why it’s so heavy, because it is some kind of flexible plastic. At least as far as I can tell that’s what it’s made out of.
It truly is waterproof you can dump the thing in a tub of water and take it out without any damage. Not only that, it is but it is hard to damage or rip papers. I’ve had it for years and not once have I accidentally ripped a page. However, It’s not indestructible, I left it out one sim apparently I’m a mouse decided to start nibbling on it. And the furry little friend did manage to leave some bite marks in it. As well, when Elijah was only a few years old he decided to leave me some art work in it.
Also, I’m not sure that would be something I would leave out in direct sunlight, let alone in a hot car. Because it is made out of plastic, I can only imagine after certain temperature it would melting, not just damaging the Bible but also the vehicle if I left it in there. It might even start to bleach in the sunlight.
The overall quality of the Bible is, excellent. I found no issues with the stitching/binding. I couldn’t find any manufacturing flaws at all.
One of the things I liked most was choice of fonts used and the spacing. Making reading it, even for long periods, very easy on my eyes.
All and all I recommend it. Especially if you are somebody who has a bad habit of spilling your drink on your coffee table where you keep a Bible. Or love to go take a boat out on thr lake.

Elijah, last Sunday, leading the kids worship service

So proud of my boy.

Late-term abortions is not the end they’re going to take it further.

Before New York passed its law allowing abortion up to the time of birth, I used to be told that it would never get to that point. That the so-called “pro-choice” side would at no time advocate for such a thing. I was told this because I used to say that it was going to be a slippery slope you give an inch, they’ll take a mile.

I was criticized heavily it called crazy, conspiracy theorist, etc.… all for pointing out these people will not stop an abortion 20 some-odd weeks in. It turns out, I was right. They did not stop they kept going. Just a little week or two here or there but all the way up to the moments with a baby is ready to take its first breath.

I don’t feel that my position is Vindicated because of this instead, I feel sick knowing that people are willing to do this with a child who’s fully capable of living on the outside. No doubt if there’s any “pro-choice” they’re going to probably want to inject that it’s only done if the mother’s life is in danger. So let me just address that real quick. No it’s not, they were already legally allowed to abort a child if the mother’s life was in danger, but this law did was expand upon it allowing for abortion for health reasons. Which means, if the mother feels is having a temporary moment of stress that her mental health is affected, and dusk kills The Unborn.

With that being said if you think that it will end with late-term abortions think again. Because these people don’t want to end it there, they want to take it further. They’ve actually been advocating to take it further for a very long time. If they have it their way the next thing you will start seeing is what a lot of people have called ‘after birth abortion.’

They’ve been slowly desensitizing us to these things, so we’re not rioting in the streets over it. Once you’re used to late-term abortion, they will start going for the after birth abortion. Hell, even the Journal of medical ethics puts forth papers justifying after birth abortion for the same excuses used today for abortion.

If the mom thinks having babies too stressful, terminated it. Financial burden, where’s that pillow at? The baby’s interfering with your career? Slit its throat.

They don’t even consider a baby, once born to be a person. They don’t want you to see it as that either. That way, they can effectively be dehumanizing these babies they want to kill. After all, if we don’t view them as people or humans, it makes it a lot easier to do horrible things to them. Justifying the extinguishing of their lives.

I said this in a past blog post, it was relevant then and it’s relevant now.

“Human history is riddled with a lot of disgusting and disturbing Acts. With Some of our worst moments having taken place when one group of humans had declared that others are not human, or are some kind of subset of humans. A kind of less developed human being.

Millions of Jews had been sent to the gas chamber. As they had been seen as Untermensch, a term that was used to describe inferior people.

Even slaves had been seen as not being human. Thus, it was fine to do what you wanted to with them.

However, it seems we have not learned from our past. Where millions of our most innocent have been killed because others have deemed them not to be human. Or are said to be a less-developed human.”

Millions of Jews had been sent to the gas chamber. As they had been seen as Untermensch, a term that was used to describe inferior people.

Even slaves had been seen as not being human. Thus, it was fine to do what you wanted to with them.

However, it seems we have not learned from our past. Where millions of our most innocent have been killed because others have deemed them not to be human. Or are said to be a less-developed human.”

The sad part is, I don’t even think it would end with the death of babies just a few months after birth either. These people literally have trained themselves not to see others as not being human. Hell, they have a hard enough time viewing people with different political views as human, using violence against them even today. While using excuses to for that violence.

In the end, this bar will continue to be raised and one day it may be to late and anybody can find themselves the dehumanized group facing a death.