Fun Times

April 19, 2015 Leave a comment


Categories: Uncategorized

Happy Easter — 3 years ago

April 10, 2015 Leave a comment


Is science showing there really is a God?

January 17, 2015 Leave a comment

Is science showing there really is a God?

“Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term ‘big bang,’ said that his atheism was ‘greatly shaken’ at these developments…
…Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that ‘the appearance of design is overwhelming’ and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said ‘the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here…’ “


This is a great article below from Eric Metaxas (my big fat Greek hero!  …sorry…just kidding, Eric, I mean, Mr. Metaxas.).  I think it originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal last Christmas and then later appeared at other sites on the web (like here for instance). You know, my faith in Jesus, my Savior, the creator of the universe is not reliant and does not waiver on the reminiscences or conclusions of so called intellectuals and scientists in this world but when I first read this article I could not help myself from throwing my fist in the air and yelling a little “Woot, woot.” Anyways, please enjoy the article below and maybe you too might feel inclined to do a victory dance.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?

By ERIC METAXAS  Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

[Click here to see the original article at the Wall Street Journal]

P.S. Speaking of doing a victory dance and going “Woot, woot,” did you know that there is a  TIDAL WAVE OF MORE GOOD NEWS!?  Click here!

What Obama, Eric Holder and the Rest of Us Could Learn from the Magna Carta

December 31, 2014 Leave a comment
This is a great article from The  The Magna Carta is a sort of precursor to the later American experiment. The current American leaders and all of us in general could learn a lot about the pursuit of liberty through the seperation of powers from the study of the Magna Carta

by Hans von Spakovsky  

With the president and Congress out of town, Washington, D.C. is very quiet during the holidays, without the long lines one normally sees at museums and capitol attractions. So it was a good time last week to take my family to see a wonderful exhibit at the Library of Congress, jointly sponsored by the Federalist Society, of one of the only four existing manuscript copies of the 1215 Magna Carta signed by King John at Runnymede.

On June 15, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, one of the most consequential documents in the history of the law and liberty.   It was the basis for establishing the principles that led to the many rights that we take almost for granted today. These include due process of law, the right to a jury trial, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, and the theory of representative government.

While Magna Carta only secured the rights of the barons and “freemen,” as the exhibit carefully explains, “this medieval charter, through centuries of interpretation and controversy, became an enduring symbol of liberty and the rule of law.”

It really is amazing as one walks through the exhibit and reads the translations of certain parts of Magna Carta, to see the principles being outlined that have become such an accepted part of our rule of law 800 years later. For example, Chapter 39 provides no freeman will be seized, dispossessed of his property, or harmed except “by the law of the land,” a phrase that eventually became “due process of law.” This very concept is incorporated in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee that no “freeman” in America can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Chapter 39 of Magna Carta guaranteed that no freeman can be punished without “the lawful judgment of his peers.” This principle is the basis for our concept of the right to a trial by jury, which is guaranteed in Article III of the Constitution, as well as the Seventh Amendment.

Magna Carta also guaranteed immunity from illegal imprisonment. This principle led directly to the development of the concept of habeas corpus, the right to sue the government to force it “to produce the body,” an individual who has been illegally imprisoned without due process of law. This was so important that it was incorporated into Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which provides that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Most importantly, Magna Carta established the principle of the rule of law and checks on the power of the king (the executive in modern parlance). In other words, the concept integral to our own republic that no man is above the law, not even the president. Chapter 61 of Magna Carta stipulated that 25 barons would be selected to ensure that King John complied with the terms of the charter and if he violated the terms, they had the authority to “distrain” the king (seize his properties) until he complied. That principle became a “symbol of the supremacy of the law over the will of the king.”

King Edward I’s 1297 reaffirmation of Magna Carta (a copy of which is on display at the National Archives) said that any act of the king violating the charter “should be undone and holden for naught.” This fundamental principle was incorporated into the entire structure of our system of government as outlined in the checks and balances inherent in the Articles of the Constitution. And what King Edward I said must be done is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States does when the president exceeds his authority, as evidenced by its recent decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning,in which the Court held that President Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. Thus, the president’s action was “undone and holden for naught.”

Two of the people in Washington who might learn the most from visiting this exhibit and its explanation of the importance of the rule of law and the limits on the power of the executive are President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Unfortunately, as two of my Heritage Foundation colleagues explain in a recent paper, “abusive, unlawful, and even potentially unconstitutional unilateral action has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration.”

The exhibit at the Library of Congress displays the Lincoln Cathedral Magna Carta, which has been in the possession of the Lincoln Cathedral literally since its issuance in 1215, a concept a little hard for Americans in our relatively new country to quite comprehend.

[see the original and complete article at The]

RENEWABLE ENERGY: So Useless that Even Greenie Google Gave Up on It!

November 26, 2014 Leave a comment
Excellent article below from
At least businesses like Google know when to call it quits and stop throwing money down a rat hole. Too bad liberal-socialists-progressives in government don’t know when to quit, as they continue to throw hard-earned taxpayer money down any rat hole they can find. Actually liberal-socialists-progressives love to find some secret rat holes in which to throw tax payer cash and claim they are doing it for the common good. They would never, never admit to wasteful government spending and let citizens keep more of their money.  For example just look at liberal-socialist-progressive President Obama and his continually propping up many failed projects. I am now thinking about projects like Solyndra, that promised a bright future with renewable energy but failed in a big way. Anyways, read further the article below as it shows how Google experts have wisely given up on so-called renewable energy, at least for now.

22 Nov 2014 at

Some people call it “renewable energy” but I prefer to call it “alternative energy” because that’s what it really is: an alternative to energy that actually works (eg nuclear and anything made from wonderful, energy-rich fossil fuel.)

Now a pair of top boffins from uber-green Google’s research department have reached the same conclusion.

Ross Konigstein and David Fork, both Stanford PhDs (aerospace engineering; applied physics) were employed on a Google research project which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal. But after four years, the project was closed down. In this post at IEEE Spectrum they tell us why.

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

Why is renewable energy such a total fail? Because, as Lewis Page explains here, it’s so ludicrously inefficient and impossibly expensive that if ever we were so foolish as to try rolling it out on a scale beyond its current boutique levels, it would necessitate bankrupting the global economy.

In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work – steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage – that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.

Yet our political class remains committed to the fantasy that the emperor’s green clothes are perfectly magnificent. Earlier this week, for example, the British government chucked £720 million of taxpayers’ money into a cesspit labelled the Green Climate Fund.

In theory this UN-driven initiative is supposed to help Third World countries cope with the effects of climate change. In reality, all it will do is force on their struggling economies more of the costly, intermittent renewable technologies (wind turbines; solar; etc) which have proved such a disaster for the advanced Western economies.

If we really want to throw money at the developing world so it can combat climate change, then what we should really be doing is insist that it is spent on adaptation projects – not, heaven forfend, ones to do with “decarbonisation.”

[SEE full article at]

Sadie Robertson Shares Heart on ‘Sexy’ Rumba Dance

October 31, 2014 Leave a comment
There is no reason you have to sacrifice your morals no matter what pressures you are receiving. Sadie Robertson is proving that with her experience on Dancing With The Stars. Read about it in this article from Charisma News

3:00PM EDT 10/27/2014 MARK ANDREWS

Sadie Robertson of the “Duck Dynasty” clan shares what made her uncomfortable with preparations for her performance last week on “Dancing With the Stars.” (YouTube)

Sadie Robertson of the Duck Dynasty clan revealed in an interview that pressure from her dance partner to perform a sexy rumba on Dancing With the Stars caused her a great deal of stress, but she is pleased with the outcome.

“I guess you all could tell that last week was pretty hard for me,” Robertson said in an interview for “It was really stressful, and I wasn’t getting the dance down, and Mark [Ballas] had been telling me all week, ‘You’re not going to get good scores because you’re not doing a sexy rumba and that’s what they want to see.'”

Although the two butted heads, 17-year-old Robertson, a strong Christian, held her ground:

“I was like, that’s OK, because I would rather get a bad score from the judges than know in my heart that I did something that I’m not comfortable with. So, when we went out there and we did it, after the dance, I was so nervous because I just knew I was going to get ripped to shreds by the judges.”

But that’s not what happened. Robertson said she was pleasantly surprised to receive a score of 35 out of 40 from the judges. She said she was able to reach an accommodation with dance partner Mark Ballas by wearing a modest costume and keeping sexy moves out of the dance routine.

“So when they were so respectful of the dance and they loved it and appreciated me standing up for what I believed in, I just kind of felt like God blessed me with the judges liking the dance,” Robertson told “It just paid off to do the right thing, and it just made me really emotional to finally get the hardest dance so far, in my opinion, out of the way and just be done with it. It felt really good.”

Read full article at Charisma News



Live Like a Narnian: Christian Discipleship in C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles

September 30, 2014 Leave a comment
Another excellent talk from Joe Rigney. This time he talks about the subject of his book Live Like a Narnian. Click the video and listen in and journey through Lewis’ Wardrobe to learn how we can become better disciples of Jesus Christ

Live Like a Narnian: Christian Discipleship in C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles from Desiring God on Vimeo.

Live Like a Narnian: Christian Discipleship in C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles

September 27, 2013

©2014 Desiring God Foundation. Used by Permission.

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in its entirety or in unaltered excerpts, as long as you do not charge a fee. For Internet posting, please use only unaltered excerpts (not the content in its entirety) and provide a hyperlink to this page. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. ©2014 Desiring God Foundation. Website:


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,282 other followers

%d bloggers like this: