"And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13

Search My Blog Using Key Words, Phrases, Names, Etc.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Who Killed the American Family?

The British press just reported the result of a new study by academics from Oxford and the University of London that children raised in stable marital homes are better behaved than classmates brought up by unmarried parents. Children raised by married parents show lower levels of anti-social attitudes and hyperactivity.
Recent U.S. surveys show that the U.S. taxpayers’ money appropriated to “close the gap” between higher-achieving and lower-achieving students has failed to achieve this goal. Contrary to conventional wisdom, poverty is not the principal cause of the gap, but whether or not children grow up in a family with their own mom and pop compared to kids who lack that advantage.
When the famous French commentator Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the U.S. in the mid-19th century, he wrote: “There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated.” Our society of nuclear families produced a prosperous Middle Class that was the envy of the world.
Much has been written about the decline in the percentage of Americans who live in a traditional nuclear family. The scholar Charles Murray has pointed out that the shocking rate of illegitimate births (now 41 percent) is the most serious social and fiscal problem America faces because it is the factor that drives everything else.
It has caused the dramatic rise in government spending. The nuclear family doesn’t need government busybodies to tell them how to raise their children or spend their money, but when mothers have no husband or father of their children to provide for them, they turn to Big Brother Government.
Who is responsible for killing the American family? My new book published by WorldNetDaily this month answers that fundamental question, and you may be surprised at the answer.
The perpetrators of this murder are not just the gays who have gotten so much publicity. Like the famous Agatha Christie mystery “Murder on the Orient Express,” the solution was everybody on the train had a motive for killing the victim.
Many groups had a motive for wanting to abolish the American nuclear family. The feminists’ rallying cry from the start was “liberation,” and they meant liberation from husband, family, and care for children because, they said, taking care of small children is a demeaning occupation for an educated woman.
In the 1970s it became popular to say that the “village” should raise the child. The liberal establishment defines “village” to include all sorts of government busybodies such as public school officials, hired consultants, psychologists, custody evaluators, women’s studies courses, and especially family court judges.
The New York Times reported that judges routinely decide where the children of divorced parents may attend school and even attend church, whether they may be homeschooled, what medical care they may receive, and even whether they play soccer or take piano lessons. The system of having family court judges make decisions about the raising of children has become so universal that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Family Court judges now control the private living arrangements of 46 million Americans and have the power to transfer $40 billion between households.
The rule that decisions should be made in the best interest of a child came to us from English law and clearly meant that the biological parents of a child were authorized to make decisions in the best interest of their own children. Nobody ever made any convincing scientific argument against that policy.
But now “best interest” is decided by judges. In a court decision this year, a federal appeals court even ruled that the best interest of children requires approval of same-sex marriage.
The best interest rule is totally subjective. Whether the decision is big such as where to go church or school, or small such as whether to play baseball or soccer, there is no objective way to say which is best.
Judges call on so-called experts to advise them, but there is no scientific evidence to back up the advice that the so-called experts are well paid to give. There is nothing scientific about their advice; you would be better off listening to your grandparents.
Political strategists advise candidates to stick to fiscal issues and not talk about social issues, but taxpayers’ money is spent on 78 types of taxpayer handouts to deal with social problems, including 12 food programs, 12 social services, 12 educational assistance, 11 housing assistance, 9 vocational training, 3 energy and utility assistance, school lunch and even breakfast, and 3 child-care programs. Nothing but marriage can cut these costs.
We cannot accept what Abe Lincoln called “that eminent tribunal” to redefine our centuries-old marriage law. My book Who Killed the American Family? gives you all you need to expose the killers of the American family.

Does The Creation/Evolution Debate Hurt the Gospel

The Christian Post recently reported on a podcast that featured GodofEvolution.com creator Tyler Francke. (Please note the first eight minutes of the podcast are extremely vulgar and the entire podcast contains offensive language. Because this podcast received exposure in Christian media, I had one of our researchers listen to it. After receiving a report on the vulgar nature of part of the discussion, I would not advise any of you to actually listen to this podcast. The fact that we have to give such a warning speaks volumes about the attitudes of those involved in this podcast.) During the podcast, Francke claimed that the creation/evolution debate is a “non-central,” “very-external-fringe issue” that actually hurts the spread of the gospel message.
The three hosts of the Bad Christian podcast set the tone for their almost two-hour long discussion by making disparaging remarks about Scripture’s value in understanding our origins. They also confuse historical science and observational science. For example, one of the hosts stated,
The problem we have is when we have religious stuff or the Bible, and it makes people say that science is wrong or disprove it. But it doesn’t offer anything useful or to do any science with. . . . There is no issue at all with people who completely day in and day out do evolutionary science, and believe in evolutionary science as far as that’s the best way to study genetics, to study stuff, to make predictions, to do cancer research, and to be a seven-day creationist at the same time. Those things are not even opposed to each other. One is a useful tool, and the other is your faith. There’s not another model that will help you do cancer research than the evolutionary theory.

Evolution Is an Attack on God’s Word

Tyler Francke explains that he considers himself to be an “evangelical, born-again Christian” and that he believes the Bible is true. He and the podcast hosts make the point that biblical creation is not a salvation issue. Now, I would like to point out that I agree with Francke that the creation/evolution debate is not a salvation issue. Like I’ve said before, salvation is dependent on faith in Christ Jesus alone and not on your view of origins. But this doesn’t mean that the debate is a “non-central issue.” It’s an issue that is central to the very gospel because it’s an attack on the authority of God’s Word—from which we get the gospel message! It’s a question of whose authority you’re going to accept: man’s ever-changing opinions or God’s authoritative Word? Now, Francke claims to be a Christian, and I have no reason to doubt his testimony, but, in the area of origins, he clearly has chosen to accept fallible man over God’s infallible Word. That’s the real issue in the debate!

Evolution Contradicts the Biblical Account of Creation

Francke stated, “Evolution can be everything that the scientific evidence indicates that it is and that Christianity can be everything that the Bible says it is and should be and that those two do not need to come into any kind of conflict.” But what he failed to tell his listeners is that evolution and the account of creation in Genesis are completely and utterly in conflict with one another. Evolution teaches that all life evolved slowly over millions of years; Genesis teaches everything was created in six, literal 24-hour days. Evolution has one kind of organism giving rise to another kind, but Genesis states everything was created to reproduce “according to its kind.” Evolution requires death and disease being around for millions of years, but according to Genesis deatharrived after the Fall as a punishment for sin. Evolution places certain land animals before birds; Genesis has birds before land animals. Evolution describes mankind as the descendant of an ape-like creature, whereas in Genesis man was specially created by God from the dust and woman from his side (as referred to in the New Testament also). Despite saying multiple times that there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible, Francke did not address even one of these theological problems!

Failing to Understand Science

Now, when Francke was asked to provide scientific evidence for evolution he brought up the same “evidence” that has been answered on our site for years: homologyDNA similaritiesorder in the fossil record and the newer argument of “endogenous retroviruses.” Moreover, he claims that science has disproven the idea that the earth is young:
[Science] can’t necessarily prove something, but it’s very good at disproving things. . . . It’s a very difficult thing to say that the earth is only a few thousand years old. There’s a lot of evidence that’s sort of disproven that idea. And I think that’s kind of the perspective that scientists are coming from, where they feel . . . a little irritated that this keeps coming up, that people are challenging them not based on the scientific evidence but based on a religious view.
What he fails to understand is the difference between two kinds of science: observational and historical. Observational science is the kind of science that we can test, observe, and repeat—its what gives us space shuttles and medical advancements. Historical science deals with the past and cannot be tested, repeated, or observed. Because of this, your starting point will determine how you see the evidence. It isn’t that creationists have this pile of evidence and evolutionists have that pile of evidence. We both have the same evidence—we just have different starting points. My starting point is God’s infallible Word; Francke’s starting point (in this area at least) is man’s opinions. Therefore we are both going to interpret the evidence very differently. That’s why I see DNA similarities as evidence of a common Designer who made everything to live in the same world, while Francke sees it as evidence of a common ancestor. It all depends on your starting point.

The Bible Can Be Trusted

My debate with Bill Nye this past February was briefly mentioned during the podcast, and I would like to point out that we have received numerous testimonies from people who were able to strike up gospel-centered conversations with coworkers, friends, classmates, and family members because of the debate. Contrary to being hurtful to the gospel, we are constantly hearing about hearts and lives that were changed for Christ because of our stand on the authority of God’s Word. We live in a culture that, by and large, no longer accepts the authority or truth of the Bible. For them to accept the message of Christ, many people need to be shown that the Bible can be trusted. If the Bible can be trusted when it speaks on Creation, the age of the earth, or the Flood, then surely it can be trusted when it talks about Jesus.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Computer Models Tell Us That This Ebola Pandemic Could Soon Kill Millions

We could potentially be on the verge of the greatest health crisis that any of us have ever seen.  The number of Ebola cases in Africa has approximately doubled over the past three weeks, and scientific computer models tell us that this Ebola pandemic could ultimately end up killing millions of us - especially if it starts spreading on other continents.  At first, many assumed that this Ebola outbreak would be just like all the others - that it would flare up for a little while and then it would completely fade away.  But that has not happened this time.  Instead, this epidemic has seemed to pick up momentum with each passing week.  Despite extraordinary precautions,hundreds of health workers have gotten the virus, and the head of the CDC says that the spread of Ebola is "spiraling out of control" and that it is "going to get worse in the very near future."  For those that have thought that all of this talk about Ebola was just "fearmongering", it is time for you to wake up.
Right now, the World Health Organization says that we could see the total number of Ebola cases reach 20,000 nine months from now.  But computer models created for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense are projecting that Ebola could soon be growing at a rate of 20,000 cases per month...
The Ebola epidemic affecting West Africa is predicted to last a further 12 to 18 months, according to U.S. scientists.
Epidemiologists have been creating computer models of the Ebola epidemic for the National Institutes of Health and the Defense Department.
The model they have created is a far less optimistic estimate than that of the World Health Organization (WHO), which last month said it hoped to contain the outbreak within nine months and 20,000 total cases.
The New York Times reports that various researchers have said the virus could grow at a rate that could be closer to 20,000 per month.
The WHO is sticking to its estimates, a spokesman said Friday.
Other scientists are even more pessimistic.
For example, a model created jointly by a researcher at the University of Tokyo and a researcher at Arizona State University has produced a "worst-case scenario" of 277,124 Ebola cases by the end of this year...
The Eurosurveillance paper, by two researchers from the University of Tokyo and Arizona State University, attempts to derive what the reproductive rate has been in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. (Note for actual epidemiology geeks: The calculation is for the effective reproductive number, pegged to a point in time, hence actually Rt.) They come up with an R of at least 1, and in some cases 2; that is, at certain points, sick persons have caused disease in two others.
You can see how that could quickly get out of hand, and in fact, that is what the researchers predict. Here is their stop-you-in-your-tracks assessment:
In a worst-case hypothetical scenario, should the outbreak continue with recent trends, the case burden could gain an additional 77,181 to 277,124 cases by the end of 2014.
That is a jaw-dropping number.
If we do see an explosion like that, how many millions of cases will we see by the time 2015 is through?
A different model has produced an even more jaw-dropping number.
An "econometric simulation model" created by Francis Smart at Michigan State University is predicting that a whopping 1.2 million people will die from Ebola in the next six months...
An econometric simulation model based on the assumption the World Health Organization and others will be unable to control the Ebola outbreak in West Africa predicts 1.2 million people will die from the disease in the next six months.
Six months is the minimum time the WHO projects will be necessary to contain the epidemic.
In his analysis, econometrics research assistant Francis Smart at Michigan State University took seriously the conclusions of Canadian researchers who proved the strain of Ebola in the current West African epidemic could go airborne.
The Ebola virus could be transmitted between humans through breathing, Smart says.
In developing the model, Smart began with WHO’s Aug. 28 statement that the Ebola epidemic in West Africa could afflict more than 20,000 people before it is brought under control.
That has got to be the worst possible number, right?
Wrong.
The other day a prominent German virologist came forward and declared that "it is too late" to stop Ebola and that five million people will die in Sierra Leone and Liberia alone...
A top German virologist has caused shockwaves by asserting that it’s too late to halt the spread of Ebola in Sierra Leone and Liberia and that five million people will die, noting that efforts should now be focused on stopping the transmission of the virus to other countries.
Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg told Germany’s Deutsche Welle that hope is all but lost for the inhabitants of Sierra Leone and Liberia and that the virus will only “burn itself out” when it has infected the entire population and killed five million people.
“The right time to get this epidemic under control in these countries has been missed,” said Schmidt-Chanasit. “That time was May and June. “Now it is too late.”
So which of the numbers discussed above are accurate?
Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, the U.S. federal government is feverishly preparing for the worst.
This week we learned that Barack Obama is going to ask Congress for 88 million dollars for the purpose of conducting "a major Ebola offensive" in Africa.
Granted, Obama will ask Congress for money at the drop of a hat these days.  He wants 500 million dollars to arm the allies of ISIS and his reckless spending has been one of the primary factors why the U.S. national debt has risen by more than a trillion dollars over the past 12 months.
But it is still noteworthy.
Even more noteworthy is the fact that the U.S. State Department has just ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits...
The U.S. State Department has ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits for Ebola, prompting concerns that the federal government is anticipating the rapid spread of a virus that has already claimed an unprecedented number of lives.
In a press release posted by Market Watch, Lakeland Industries, a manufacturer of industrial protective clothing for first responders, announced that it had signaled its intention “to join the fight against the spread of Ebola” by encouraging other suppliers to meet the huge demand created by the U.S. State Department’s order of 160,000 hazmat suits.
“With the U.S. State Department alone putting out a bid for 160,000 suits, we encourage all protective apparel companies to increase their manufacturing capacity for sealed seam garments so that our industry can do its part in addressing this threat to global health,” states the press release.
The huge bulk order of hazmat suits for Ebola has stoked concerns that the U.S. government expects the virus to continue to ravage countries in west Africa and may also be concerned about an outbreak inside the United States.
You don't order that many Hazmat suits unless you are anticipating an outbreak of apocalyptic proportions.
And the CDC has just issued a six page Ebola checklist to hospitals to help them spot potential Ebola patients in America...
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warning hospitals and doctors that “now is the time to prepare,” has issued a six-page Ebola “checklist” to help healthcare workers quickly determine if patients are infected.
While the CDC does not believe that there are new cases of Ebola in the United States, the assumption in the checklist is that it is only a matter of time before the virus hits home.
Let us hope and pray that these precautions do not become necessary.
Because if Ebola starts spreading like wildfire in this country, we are going to see pain and suffering beyond anything that most of us have ever imagined.
Just consider what a health worker on the front lines is seeing on a day to day basis...
I wake up each morning – if I have managed to sleep – wondering if this is really happening, or if it is a horror movie. In decades of humanitarian work I have never witnessed such relentless suffering of fellow human beings or felt so completely paralysed and utterly overwhelmed at our inability to provide anything but the most basic, and sometimes less than adequate, care.
I am supervising the suspect tent, which has room for 25 patients who are likely to have Ebola – 80-90% of those we test have the virus. We administer treatment for malaria, start patients on antibiotics, paracetamol, multivitamins, rehydration supplements, food, water and juice while they wait for their results. Sometimes people have arrived too late and die shortly after arriving.
In one afternoon last week I watched five seemingly fit, healthy, young men die. I gave the first a bottle of oral rehydration solution and came back with another for the second. In the half a minute or so in which I had been away the first man died, his bottle of water spilt across the floor. The four others followed in quick succession.
Ebola is truly a terrible, terrible disease.
The moment that cases start popping up in the United States, all of our lives will instantly change.
I hope that you are getting prepared for that.