Welcome To Challenge2

Welcome to my Challenge2 blog site.  Here on Challenge2 we will be dealing with many of the things that we deal with on the Challenge2 email discussion list as well as the Challenge2 website.  We will be dealing with Christianity vs Atheism, as well as theistic evolution (aka Old Earth Creation).  The Bible tells us to “try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 Jn. 4:1).  This is our reason for existing, to try the spirit of atheism/agnosticism/theistic evolution, not only to see if they are of God, but in fact to show that they are not of God.

We do not have ill-will towards anyone, but we will not stand by while humanism ravages our world without fighting it.  We have debates on this site, both public and written, so that all may read them and make an informed decision about what to believe.  We will not be dealing much with textual criticism as that is a subject that is covered on our sister site Challenge2biblicalexamination.  If we can help you in any way please let us know.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry D. McDonald


			

Leave a comment

THE UK HAS BANNED CREATION IN RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

jerryThe two quotes that follow show us that creation has been banned in the United Kingdom in all schools, including religious ones.  This is a recent development, and one that is detrimental to us here in the United States.  Ideas that start in the UK usually end up taking hold in the US.  The first quotation shows:

“The UK Government has banned the practice of teaching Creationism as science in all UK schools, including the less-regulated, semi-privatised Free Schools and Academies. Previously, all state schools and most Academies and Free Schools were prohibited from teaching Creationism, but existing religious schools were exempted from the rule. Since the new year, the government has closed off these exemptions, and with the latest move, has closed all of them, meaning that no school may teach Creationism any longer. [Emp added jdm] However, state-funded nurseries and lightly inspected private schools are expected to go on teaching Creationism until further changes are made.  http://boingboing.net/2014/06/19/uk-bans-teaching-creationism-a.html

Some have understood that only public funded schools are affected by this law, but it is important to note that this law now affects all schools; public, private, and religious.  Some might talk about the “lightly inspected private schools” that are expected to go on teaching Creation, but you need to understand what is meant by “lightly inspected”:

“There are two types of private schools operating in Ontario:

 

Non-Inspected private schools include all private elementary schools as well as

any private secondary schools that do not provide courses offering credits toward

the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD). These schools are not required to

follow the Ontario curriculum, although they must still offer instruction in any of

the subjects in the elementary or secondary courses of study.

 

Inspected private schools are seeking or have been given authority by the

Ministry to provide courses offering credits toward the OSSD. This includes

private schools offering a combined elementary-secondary curriculum (in which

case only the secondary school will be inspected) and private schools offering

credits in an online environment” (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/privsch/PrivateSchools_PolicyManual.pdf.)

The manual that is quoted from is from Canada and the two types are non-inspected and inspected.  Thus the lightly inspected would be non-inspected schools; those that do not offer credits towards the Secondary School Diploma.  However, the article continues on to say “until further changes are made” which obviously means that these changes are coming.  At some time in the (probably near) future the UK government will ban creation in these lightly (non) inspected private schools as well.  But as for now any private school, religious or not, that offers credits for the Secondary School Diploma must teach evolution and must cease from teaching creation.

The second quote:

“Now the Government has also extended these rules to future Academies that are part of multi-Academy trusts, meaning all future Academies are covered by them. But in addition it has also introduced new clauses for Church Academies helpfully clarifying the meaning of creationism and the fact that it is a minority view within the Church of England and Catholic Church, but also stating that ‘the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.’

In other words, in the Government’s view, if an Academy or Free School teaches creationism as scientifically valid then it is breaking the requirement to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. As every Academy and Free School has this requirement in its funding agreement, the implication of this interpretation is that no Academy and Free School, existing or future, can teach pseudoscience.

BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal commented, ‘In 2011 our “Teach evolution, not creationism” campaign called for enforceable rules saying that creationism cannot be presented as a valid scientific theory in any publicly-funded school. Now the Government has extended such an explicit rule to all new Academies and Free Schools and made it clear that it believes that existing rules mean that no Academy or Free School can teach pseudoscience”

(https://humanism.org.uk/2014/06/18/victory-government-bans-existing-future-academies-free-schools-teaching-creationism-science/).

Here we see that creation is a minority view of the Church of England and the Catholic Church.  While we, here in the States, aren’t particularly affected by what is taught in the Church of England, we are affected by the teachings of the Catholic Church because 22 percent of Americans are Catholic.  The Catholic Church has 68,503,456 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States).  Since the last Pope came out endorsing evolution and President George Bush Jr. came out endorsing evolution American Catholics have started accepted evolution as fact.

The day is coming when religious private schools here in the US will be forced to teach evolution rather than creation.  Then homeschools will be forced to teach evolution, and then churches will be forced to teach evolution.  I can foresee the time when even the home will be forced to teach evolution, and if parents teach creation they will be arrested.  The day is coming when we will have absolutely no religious freedom whatsoever.  We might as well brace ourselves for it; that day is coming.

Is there anything we can do to stop it?  The only thing we can do is to be set for the defense of the gospel (Phil. 1:17);  contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3); fight the good fight of faith and lay hold on eternal life (1 Tim. 6:12).  We can pray (1 Thess. 5:17) and continue to study God’s word (2 Tim. 2:15).  The only other thing we can do is to join hands and brace against the onslaught.  United we stand, divided we fall.  Let’s join hands and stand united.

Leave a comment

Was the Big Bang Just Proven by Astronomers?

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Jeff Casual 2013 (3)Theory No More? Scientists Make ‘Big Bang’ Breakthrough with Find” (2014, emp. added). “Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang’sSmoking Gun” (Overbye, 2014, emp. added). “Big Bang’s ‘Smoking Gun’ Confirms Early Universe’s Exponential Growth” (Vergano, 2014, emp. added). “Scientists Find Cosmic Ripples from Birth of Universe” (2014, emp. added). These titles are a sampling of the headlines after Caltech publicly announced some of their groundbreaking research. The impression being given (and, based on the many that have contacted us since the announcement, being accepted) is that the Big Bang has been finally proven. It has been “confirmed.” As usual, many in the media have shown themselves to be irresponsible with their overstatements and wild implications. Since most people only read article titles and never actually read the details of an article, false impressions are immediately spread to the four winds, and usually, never to be corrected.

Under the Big Bang model, the Universe is theorized to be expanding outward from the point in space where the cosmic egg allegedly exploded. However, no direct evidence has ever substantiated the claim that the Universe inflated in the violent way implied by the Theory—only circumstantial evidence. According to the model, gravitational waves would accompany the initial, rapid expansion immediately after the “bang,” but until now, no direct evidence has ever surfaced for their existence. The new discovery is being hailed as the “first direct evidence” of Universal inflation (“Theory No More?…,” 2014; “Scientists Find Cosmic Ripples…,” 2014; Landau, 2014). Does that mean the Big Bang has been proven? No.

First, it should be emphasized that the media seems to be admitting in unison, parroting what scientists have told them, that until now there has been no direct evidence of Big Bang inflation. What does that indicate about all of those who for years have whole-heartedly proclaimed the Big Bang Theory as a proven fact? Is it not true that they were holding to a blind faith in the Theory? If so, why have so many believed in the theory and scoffed at those who believe in Creation, claiming (falsely) that creationists have a blind faith? What about all the other tenets of naturalism held onto with such vigor that scientists and journalists have yet to admit are matters of blind faith? How are we to distinguish truth from misrepresentation? We have long argued that nothing should be believed without adequate evidence (the Law of Rationality), and the Bible verifies the importance of that truth (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The Creation model is supported by solid evidence and does not have to be accepted blindly. In truth, even believing in the idea of the Big Bang after the recent discovery is still irrational. How so?

Notice that if you read the news articles carefully, ignoring the clear bias for the Big Bang Theory exhibited in the titles, you will see disclaimers about the find: “if confirmed” (“Scientists Find Cosmic Ripples…”); “The new results, assuming they’re verified…. The new results do have to be verified” (Lemonick, 2014).

Because of how potentially important these results are, they must be viewed with skepticism, said David Spergel, professor of astrophysics at Princeton University. The measurement is a very difficult one to make and could easily be contaminated. There are, as it stands, some “oddities” in the results that could be concerning, he said. “I am looking forward to seeing these results confirmed or refuted by other experiments in the next year or two,” Spergel said (Landau, emp. added).

Evolutionary astrophysicist Stuart Clark, writing in New Scientist, added his disclaimer, cautiously stating, “If the result is confirmed…” (2014, p. 34). Clark quoted several others who agree. Astrophysicist Duncan Hanson of McGill University stated, “Some sort of confirmation is definitely needed” (p. 34). Cosmologist John Peacock at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, UK said, “Assuming this is confirmed,” it would be quite a discovery (p. 34). Cosmologist Hiranya Peiris of the University College London noted, “[A]s a scientist, I have to be skeptical” (Clark, p. 34). Summarizing: nothing has been proven. So there is still no direct evidence of Big Bang inflation—implying that those who accept the Big Bang are still fideists.

Second, that said, actual, conclusive evidence of inflation would still not prove the Big Bang. In the words of one of the science reporters cited in the articles above, “There’s no way for us to know exactly what happened some 13.8 billion years ago, when our universe burst onto the scene” (Landau). [NOTE: Even with that admission, notice the blatant bias towards the Big Bang Theory, as though its truth is a given, when this very reporter admits in her article that the discovery in question is the first direct evidence ever found for gravitational waves, and even these results “must be viewed with skepticism.”] Clark admitted that “we can’t even be sure there was a big bang,” even if inflation is true, since “inflation effectively erases the details of what went before” (p. 35). Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves (the purported discovery in March) in his General Theory of Relativity years ago (Aron, 2014), as well as the idea of Universal expansion, and yet a recently discovered Einstein document highlights his resistance to the idea of the Big Bang Theory, which he at one point called “abominable” (Castelvecchi, 2014). While he accepted gravitational waves and the idea that the Universe is expanding, he was still hesitant to subscribe to the Big Bang Theory. So, clearly the Big Bang is not a required inference from expansion and gravitational waves—there could be other causes. Clark admitted, “Other theories can give rise to similar patterns, so their existence is not itself proof of inflation” (p. 34). No wonder New Scientist published a list of scientists who are skeptical and even doubtful of the Big Bang in 2004 (Lerner, 2004)—a list that has since grown to include several hundred scientists (“An Open Letter…,” 2014). In short, discovering the existence of gravitational waves says nothing about what actually caused them in the first place, and in truth, there could be many possible causes other than inflation. Consider the following example: if a three-year-old were to sneak into the kitchen and eat some chips, in all likelihood there would be crumbs on the floor. There are chip crumbs on the floor in the kitchen. So there must be a three-year-old who snuck into the kitchen and ate some chips. Really? While inflation and the existence of gravitational waves should be the case if the Big Bang model were true, the opposite does not follow: inflation would not imply that the Big Bang is true.

Clark stated, “Such a potential breakthrough is in urgent need of corroboration, not least because as things stand not everything adds up” (p. 34, emp. added). The data do not harmonize with what was expected according to the theory of inflation, and according to Hanson, the results indicate inflationists “may have to extend the cosmology” (as quoted in Clark, p. 35). Clark translated Hanson’s words: “By that he means dreaming up even more outlandish versions of inflation” to harmonize the evidence (p. 35). We might ask why, considering a plausible explanation for the origin (i.e., creation) of the Universe has been on the table for centuries, in no need of revision.

The Creation model does not exclude the idea of Universal expansion. God could have simply created the Universe in such a way that expansion happens. But the idea that the Universe was originally crammed into a little ball that exploded, rapidly inflated at a rate above the speed of light, and over billions of years morphed into the Universe we see today, complete with complexity and life, definitely contradicts Scripture (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Universal expansion, however, or the existence of gravitational waves, would not inherently contradict Creation. In fact, the concept of expansion might be exactly what is being alluded to in Isaiah 40:22, 44:24, Psalm 104:1-2, and Zechariah 12:1. The Hebrew word translated “stretches out” (referring to God’s activity on the heavens) in Isaiah 40:22, for instance, is an active participle which, according to Hebrew scholars indicates “a state of continued activity”—implying that the stretching might be continuing to occur today (Weingreen, 1959, p. 66). While Isaiah compares God’s activity to that of spreading out a tent to dwell in and stretching out a curtain, cosmologists who describe expansion today describe it like the expansion that occurs as a balloon stretches out (Davis, 2010)—a very similar concept to that of setting up a tent.

Bottom line: the Big Bang has not been proven. And further, it cannot be proven, because (1) the nature of the Big Bang precludes it from being verified, and (2) because a false idea cannot be legitimately proven. It has been shown to be false scientifically (May, et al., 2003). Further, a supernatural Creator is required in the equation, and naturalism, including the Big Bang Theory, does not allow Him (Miller, 2013). In truth, God told us how the Universe was created in a Book which proves itself to be His inspired Word, and it was not through a cosmic explosion (Butt, 2007). If the Bible is inspired, it must be right. True science will never contradict it.

REFERENCES

“An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” (2014), CosmologyStatement.org,http://cosmologystatement.org/.

Aron, Jacob (2014), “Einstein’s Ripples: Your Guide to Gravitational Waves,” New Scientist Physics and Math On-line, March 17, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25243-einsteins-ripples-your-guide-to-gravitational-waves.html#.UymnpYXDWRg.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Castelvecchi, Davide (2014), “Einstein’s Lost Theory Uncovered,” Nature, 506:418-419, February 27,http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-lost-theory-uncovered-1.14767.

Clark, Stuart (2014), “The End of the Beginning,” New Scientist, 222[2966]:32-35, April 26.

Davis, Tamara M. (2010), “Is the Universe Leaking Energy?” Scientific American, 303[1]:38-43, July.

Landau, Elizabeth (2014), “Big Bang Breakthrough Announced; Gravitational Waves Detected,” CNNTech On-line, March 18, http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/.

Lemonick, Michael D. (2014), “Cosmic Bulletins: Two Major Discoveries Rock Science,” Time On-line, March 17, http://time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/.

Lerner, Eric (2004), “Bucking the Big Bang,” New Scientist, 2448:20-22, May 22.

May, Branyon, Bert Thompson, and Brad Harrub (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1453&topic=57.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=%202786.

Overbye, Dennis (2014), “Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang’s Smoking Gun,” New York Times On-line, March 17, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/space/detection-of-waves-in-space-buttresses-landmark-theory-of-big-bang.html?_r=0.

“Scientists Find Cosmic Ripples from Birth of Universe” (2014), Fox News On-line, March 17,http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/17/major-discovery-smoking-gun-for-big-bang-expansion-found/.

“Theory No More? Scientists Make ‘Big Bang’ Breakthrough with Find” (2014), Fox News Mobile, March 18, http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=2582508.proteus.fma#quickPage_html_page_22995_content_102688773_pageNum_2.

Vergano, Dan (2014), “Big Bang’s ‘Smoking Gun’ Confirms Early Universe’s Exponential Growth,”National Geographic Daily News, March 17,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/14/140317-big-bang-gravitational-waves-inflation-science-space/#.UymgsYXDWRg.

Weingreen, J. (1959), A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1156&article=2273

 

Leave a comment

Rest In Peace?

After Farrell Till passed away I was unable to find his web sites or articles.  I figured that his family took them down.  Whether that happened or not is immaterial because some one put them back up.  On The Skeptical Review website someone wrote the following:

 

“J. Farrell Till

Editor and Publisher

In Loving Memory

Farrell passed away on October 3, 2012

1933 – 2012

Rest in peace, old friend”

(http://www.theskepticalreview.com/)

                                                      

Now I am sure that the first thing that comes to mind is “So What, Jerry?  What is so wrong with a person paying his respects to an old friend?”  Nothing!  Nothing at all, EXCEPT when you look at this critically, as Farrell Till always taught people to do, you find all kinds of problems with it.

  • First of all, Farrell Till was an atheist who by very definition did not believe in God, heaven or a soul.  So how could he rest in peace.  Paul wrote to the Hebrews and said “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (Heb. 4:9).  There is a rest for the people of God.  What is that rest?

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world” (Heb 4:1-3).

  • From this we see that there is a promise of entering into rest, and this comes by hearing and obedience to the gospel.  Those who hear and do not believe (people like Farrell Till) will not enter into rest, but those who believe will enter into rest.  Thus that rest is heaven itself.
  • Then Paul tells the Hebrews “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Heb. 4:11).  Work to enter into that rest so that you won’t fall into unbelief like those who refuse to obey the gospel (like Farrell Till). There is no rest for those who do not obey the gospel.
  • Finally atheists don’t believe in heaven or hell.  They believe that when one dies the conscientiousness dies, in other words, “it is like the little dog Rover, when he died, he died all over.”  For an atheist to bid another atheist to rest in peace would be akin to one atheist bidding Godspeed to another atheist; so out of character, and so inconsistent.

If there is no God, then there is no soul.  If there is no soul, there is no rest.  If there is no rest, then when one dies his/her body just lies in a grave and deteriorates.  All conscientiousness is gone forever, all memories are gone forever.  All hopes and dreams are gone forever.  So how can one atheist tell another to rest in peace?  In order to rest in peace one has to have the ability to rest and be at peace.  Is Farrell Till’s body resting?  Not hardly, it is just laying deteriorating depending on how good the mortician did his/her job.  But there is no conscientiousness to rest, the body is not resting, thus Farrell Till cannot rest; according to atheistic beliefs.  How inconsistent they are.  But according to God’s word, he is going anything but resting (Mt. 25:46).

Jerry D. McDonald

Leave a comment

THEY ARE AFTER OUR HOME SCHOOLS NOW! WHAT’S NEXT-CHURCHES?

jerryAlthough homeschooling has been around for centuries, the modern day home schools began back in the 1970’s.  Their purpose was to take control of what children were taught in the realm of religion, morality and even science–origins.  Evolutionists had made such inroads that allowed evolution to be taught as plausible theory, and Christian parents didn’t want their children exposed to it, so they started homeschooling their kids.  There were also private schools such as Christian schools, but the government cracked down on them because of their standards of who could attend and who could teach, and many of them lost their “tax exempt” status.  This caused many of them to have to close their doors.

In the early 80’s Abilene Christian began allowing evolution to be taught.  At first it was denied by students and faculty alike, but it has since been confirmed by atheists who used to be members of the church, who went off into atheism because of the teaching of evolution at ACU.  One of these former students wrote:

“When I was at ACU I took an astronomy course in fulfillment of one of my science credit hours requirements. I quickly learned how unequivocally it was known in astronomy that the Universe has been in existence far, far longer than any mere 6,000 or 10,000 years.  My personal realization/ awareness/ understanding of this relevant information led me to unequivocally reject young earth creationism for being a false idea about reality, and the rest, as they say, is history” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/120 45).

The atheist’s name is Todd Greene.  His father is a preacher in the Lord’s church and a 1970’s graduate of the Preston Road School of Preaching.  However, this did not stop here because a few years ago, 2009 to be exact, Biology professors in Religious Colleges, including ACU, lobbied to make evolution mandatory in Texas’ religious schools.  One of ACU’s professors said:

“’I hope to reach others on the weightier matters of the Resurrection, hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven while I work out how evolution does not have to conflict with Christianity,’” said Daniel Brannan, a biology professor at Abilene Christian University.

Brannan joined hundreds of scientists in signing a 21st Century Science Coalition petition that supports new curriculum standards for the state’s 4.7 million public-school students. The petition states that “evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Among other petition signers were science professors from Baylor, Hardin-Simmons, McMurry, and Texas Christian—all Texas universities with Christian ties.” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/april/1.18.html).

Since schools like ACU are tax exempt they have to go along with what the government decides is to be taught on this matter.  This is how people like Brannan are getting evolution into the religious universities.

So all we had left was the home schools, but even they weren’t safe from evolutionists.  In 2011 the director of The Great Homeschoolers Convention wrote and banned Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis–A Young Earth Creation Institute) because he spoke out against a supplier of homeschool material for slipping evolutionary material in to the Biology curriculum.

Now the homeschooling group Sonlight is firing away at Ken Ham because Ken pointed out that though the owner is a young earth creationist, he allows pro-evolution material to be sold with the rest of the package.  Ham quoted from an article from Christianity Today which stated:

Sonlight Curriculum is an exception. It offers a diversity of homeschool curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. “The YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement,” said Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes in a young earth. “That might be to our detriment.” She says students need to be able to evaluate different positions (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/new-creation-story.html).

The article started out with:

Christian homeschool science textbooks have long taught young earth creationism (YEC) almost exclusively. But observers say a growing number of parents want texts that also teach evolution” (Ibid).

It is a real surprise to me how Christians can rationalize their need for false doctrine.

I recently read one statement that said that evolution was not a salvation issue.  He said it was a gospel issue and therefore an authority issue.

Well if it is a gospel issue, it is true that it is an authority issue.  But if it is an authority issue then it is a salvation issue.  Paul wrote “ And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col 3:17).  Paul said that the gospel which he preached came not by men, but “by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12).  He then told them that if any man preached any other gospel than that which he had preached to them, to let him be accursed v:6-9).  So if it is an authority issue and a gospel issue, then it is a salvation issue.  We need to stand against evolution and call it what it is; a matter of one’s salvation.

Homeschools are just the next step.  It won’t be long until the government steps in and tells the church what it can and cannot teach.

It won’t be in the far too distant future when the evolutionists start lobbying to have evolution taught from the pulpit.  Mark My Words!

Leave a comment

challenge2

Most people think of abortion as service for women who are raped (to include cases of incest), or have ectoptic pregnancies (where the baby has started development in the fallopian tubes).  They don’t understand that over four thousand abortions are performed in this country alone, each and every day, and that most of these abortions are performed simply because the mother doesn’t want the responsibility of raising a child.

What you see in the above photo are aborted fetus parts stuffed in a freezer (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/21/the-philadelphia-horror-how-mass-murder-gets-a-pass/).  The photo is of “The ‘fetal material’-stuffed freezer at Philadelphia’s ‘Women’s Medical Society.’”  It accompanies an article written by Michelle Malkin in which she rightfully identifies one abortionist in Philidelphia as a “serial baby killer.”  Her article tells about the lucrative business known as abortion, and it is one that every person should read.  Abortion is BIG MONEY!  People get rich…

View original post 540 more words

Leave a comment

The Treaty of Tripoli and Our Founding Fathers

Does the Tripoli Treaty prove that the Founding Fathers were not Religious?  The preceeding link leads to an article on the Apologetics Press website.  It shows the deceitfulness of the atheist and liberal in trying to indoctrinate our youth with the idea that our founding fathers were not religious men

Leave a comment

RUNNING DEBATE ON ABORTION.COM PT 2

Abortion.com 7) Jerry – In all your blabbering you still did not answer the question. Your fairy tales have harmed your mind. We asked that you reveal proof the Woman was thinking that she was having an abortion for mere convenience. You have never come close.Why are all your statements so laughable and completely miss the point? Please pay attention to the question, tx!

about an hour ago · Like · 1

Abortion.com 8) Jerry apparently you know very little biology. Before we mentioned it you didn’t even know what a molar pregnancy was, a cornual pregnancy, a complete anencephalic pregnancy. …See More

about an hour ago · Like · 1

Abortion.com Lastly you make it obvious you have No knowledge of how to interpret peer reviewed refereed objective data. A common problem among right wing magic believing misogynists.

Are you…See More

about an hour ago · Like · 1

Jerry McDonald Yes I did deal with what the woman was thinking. Gianna Jessen’s mother told her what she was thinking when she got the abortion. Of course her telling Gianna this was done many years after the abortion. It was after Gianna tracked her down through private investigators. After Gianna survived the abortion she was put up for adoption and was adopted by her parents. When she was 20 she tracked down her birth mother. It was then that her birth mother told her why she got the abortion.

7 minutes ago · Like

Jerry McDonald I notice that you never did deal with the statistics that I gave with the Guttmacher Institute on reasons women get abortion. Why? Because you know that most abortions are done for convenience sake.

4 minutes ago · Like

Jerry McDonald I had not heard of molar pregnancy before now, but I did know what cornual pregnancy was, it is ectoptic pregnancy which is what I was talking about earlier, and I also was aware of anencephalic pregnancy as well. You have no logical response to what I have said, so you choose to attack me instead. How Ad Hominem of you.

2 minutes ago · Like

Jerry McDonald Boy, you sure are the first atheist to pull that one on me. No, wait a minute…Farrell Till tried that one years ago. Sorry, you’re too late. You have no logical response to what I said about the article on “After Birth Abortion” so you choose to attack me instead. How Ad Hominem of you.

a few seconds ago · Like

  • Abortion.com It is the ONLY legitimate reason?What about a Partial Molar Pregnancy? Isn’t that a reason too?Which way is it Dr. McDonald?

about an hour ago · Like · 1

Jerry McDonald Oh, you now go back to the place where I dealt with ectoptic pregnancy which was before we discussed Partial Molar Pregnancy. And as I have already stated that too would be included, but you have dishonestly tried to make it look as if I made this statement after our discussion on PMP. How dishonest of you.

13 minutes ago · Like

Abortion.com wrote: “Jerry you said Only ectopic. You were wrong.
Again very non christian of you to be so judgmental.

Jerry McDonald wrote: You know that I wrote that before I you brought up the molar pregnancy. Don’t lie! Here is the proof that I changed:

Jerry McDonald I believe I have already answered this, but Iwill answer again. Eptoptic pregnancy is the only legitimate reason for abortion and if we ever become technically able to save the child and woman here it would be murder to abort then.

Yesterday at 5:23pm · Like

Abortion.com Is Abortion OK for a Partial Molar Pregnancy?

Yesterday at 6:22pm · Like · 1

 

  • Jerry McDonald From what I understand about this most of these cases end in miscarriage. There is no way to save the child and there is a danger to the mother’s life, so in that case such would be acceptable.

Yesterday at 6:46pm · Like

Abortion.com Glad to hear that you think there are innumerable reasons that abortion is acceptable and that you are Pro Choice on this issue. Now you are making some sense?

Yesterday at 7:09pm · Like · 1

Jerry McDonald Any situation where there is no chance to save the child and the life of the mother is threatened then abortion would be acceptable, but these are rare. Most abortions are done for convenience sake and you know it.

Yesterday at 7:10pm · Like

 

Jerry McDonald I may not know all of the medical situations, which is why I say “any situation where there is no chance to save the child and the life of the mother is threatened.”

Yesterday at 7:11pm · Like

Jerry McDonald Oh, you now go back to the place where I dealt with ectoptic pregnancy which was before we discussed Partial Molar Pregnancy. And as I have already stated that too would be included, but you have dishonestly tried to make it look as if I made this statement after our discussion on PMP. How dishonest of you.

9 hours ago · Like

How can you continue to accuse me of saying that ectoptic pregnancy is the only legitimate cause when you know full well that I have backed up on that? That is dishonesty on your part.


Abortion.com
Did you answer about Complete Anencephalics?

Jerry McDonald: Yes I did answer about the Complete Anecephalic pregnancy. Notice what I said: “Jerry McDonald “The alleged benefit to result from induction of labor under such circumstances is to relieve the mother of the psychological trauma of having to carry a grossly abnormal fetus throughout the full term of her pregnancy” (http://www.safemotherhood.org/anencephaly/pregnancy.html). Since the reason is to relieve the mother psychological trauma and her life is not in danger, then abortion is wrong in this case.

Abortion.com

Did you answer why your religion is truer than other religions with any real data?

Jerry McDonald: I tried to answer, but you said that I couldn’t use the Bible which means that I can’t use it to prove that it is harmonious from cover to cover. I can’t use it for any reason, yet it is the very basis for my faith. However, you will use it to cut my faith down. You won’t listen to anything I write about my belief system because you want me to produce evidence that is separate and apart from my religious belief. I could use arguments from logic and philosophy to argue for the existence of God and then use the Bible to show who that God is, but you won’t allow that. So how would you want me to answer? You want some empirical evidence of God such as a picture of God? Find a picture of your conscience! You can’t, but you know that you have one.

Abortion.com
Did you provide your credentials to comment on matters you appear to know almost nothing about?

Jerry McDonald: I have no medical credentials, but I had no medical credentials when I underwent cancer treatment in 2000. But I studied all I could get my hands on about my cancer, and made my doctors discuss everything over with me. I was part of every decision that was made concerning my treatment. I am a high school graduate. I spent four years in the US Navy. I graduated from 3 Navy firefighting schools. I graduated from the Brown Trail school of Preaching where I studied logic, philosophy, Greek, comparative religions and Bible Geography (1980-1982). I went to DeVry Institute and took electronics, I did not graduate because I went back to full time preaching. I graduated from the A.D. Banker school of Insurance in KCMO. I graduated from the St. Charles Law Enforcement Academy 1993. I am in my senior year at the Online Academy of Biblical Studies where I study Bible. I have preached for 30+ years and spent 11 years as a police officer in Missouri. While I don’t have medical credentials I am not some imbecile who does not understand what he reads. I understand just fine. What are your credentials?


Abortion.com
Did you answer the question about a women with a stage 2b Cervical Cancer who is 2 weeks pregnant?

Jerry McDonald: The following is from the AMA discussing a woman with stage 2b cervical cancer who is 20 weeks pregnant. However, the treatment would be the same. At two weeks the fetus’ heart is already beating. It is not just cells.

 

“The counseling dilemma is complicated by the fact that no one knows what the prognosis is for stage II cancer of the cervix in a patient who delays treatment to achieve neonatal viability. There are several small studies of patients with stage I cancer of the cervix (where the tumor has not extended beyond the cervix) in which treatment was delayed until after delivery of a viable infant [3-5], and there was no untoward effect on survival related to such a delay. Because stage II cancer of the cervix in pregnancy is so uncommon, however, there is simply no evidence that 5-year survival of stage II cancer of the cervix in pregnancy is worse if treatment is delayed until after delivery.

Another option for Mrs. Smith to consider is chemotherapy during pregnancy followed by definitive therapy with radical surgery or radiation after the infant is born. Trials have shown benefit in combining chemotherapy with radiation for stage II cervical cancer [6], and a number of case reports of chemotherapy with cisplatin during pregnancy found no adverse effects on the fetus or newborn [7,8]. The rationale for such treatment is to avoid metastatic spread of the cancer during pregnancy while awaiting definite treatment with radiation or surgery after the birth of the infant. Still, the Smiths must make their decision based on a substantial degree of medical uncertainty.

To counsel the patient from a perspective of optimism and hope, it would be safe to say to the Smiths that, given the information we have about the lack of adverse effects from delaying treatment for stage I cancer of the cervix in pregnancy, it is reasonable to believe that a delay of treatment for stage II cancer would have a similarly benign effect. This counseling might draw attention to the benefits of having a son or daughter for Mrs. Smith and her husband” (http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/09/ccas1-0709.html).

You are too quick to abort the child. How would you counsel the woman? What if she wanted to keep the child? What if she didn’t believe in abortion, what would you do?

 


Abortion.com
Please answer the questions and stop evading them. You are very transparent in your lack of knowledge.

If you try to be intellectually honest you will only help your cause rather than harm it by appearing so judgmental (in a Christian Ethnocentric way) and disingenuous.

Jerry, we appreciate your input immensely as it reveals to everyone how poor the positions of anti abortion people are and how they are never able to support the most simple of positions.

Thank you for your assistance in this manner. It is appreciated.

You may enjoy commenting at

http://www.Abortion.ws/

as this is an easier interface to communicate, and there are more people there with your positions.

Wishing you the best in all your endeavors.
Praise the Baby Jesus.

Tx!”

Jerry McDonald: Are you saying that you want me to leave? Are you tired of dealing with me? I am fine right where I am at. Why would you praise baby Jesus when you said Jesus was nothing more than a mythical sky god?

 

Leave a comment