Change we can trust? An administration that said, "I don't want to run the auto companies"; "I don't want to run banks"; and "the recovery is working," now says their socialized medicine plan won't "promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care."
Really?
We've gotten a glimpse behind the curtain of the Obama administration's agenda, and what we've seen is unmistakably evil.
See for yourself. A glimpse behind "Cash for Clunkers" reveals not only car crushing that takes affordable used vehicles off the market for those who don't want the debt of a new car, but, more importantly, it was also a government computer grab.
As Glenn Beck exposed, look at what happened to car dealers who agreed to participate. It turned their computers and every file on them over to the government:
This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government.
Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS.DoT, and law enforcement officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. So "the U.S. Government" owns every file on your computer and they are free to intercept, monitor, record, copy, audit, inspect and disclose everything you have to law enforcement – even to "foreign officials" who will apparently have the new authority to monitor you.
But they got caught, so it was "officially retracted" for now. But we got a glimpse behind the Obama curtain, and what we saw was evil.
We also saw Obama's Department of Homeland Security declare veterans, pro-marriage, pro-life, pro-secure borders, pro-Constitution, pro-American sovereignty, law-abiding citizens who express their First Amendment Rights as: "the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States" and initiated domestic spying on them.
Oops. They got caught then, too. And so that plan to watch all of us has been "officially retracted." For now. But the glimpse behind Obama's curtain was unmistakably evil.
Former Gov. Sarah Palin exposed the rationing of Obamacare aimed at the sick, elderly and disabled: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." Gov. Palin is right: It is evil.
Home » News Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. Wednesday, September 08, 2010 By Terence P. Jeffrey
President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle as part of a cross-country campaign trip on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) (CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.
At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.
No, I have never been to Pakistan. No time, no money... One day when I have the time and the money and times are a little better there I will come visit.
My life has been changed by 9/11. As Americans how can our lives not be changed by 9/11. What a terrible day in history. We will always remember those taken...those who lost their lives that day. God Bless the USA!
Types of Mental Illness: List of Mental Disorders There are several types of Mental Illness, disorder of mind. The symptoms and treatment of these vary greatly from type to type. Here is the list of such Mental Disorders…
Enlarge ImageAds by Google Mood Disorder Read symptoms, causes & treatments for Bipolar and Mood Disorders. Healthline.com Schizophrenia Causes, Symptoms, Signs & Info We Have The Answers You Need mentaldisorderhelp.org Mental illness is a disorder of the mind. There are several different types of mental illnesses, with several disorders in each category. These vary from mild to severe and it is possible for these disorders to interrupt daily activities to the point that life becomes quite difficult.
The treatment for each mental disorder varies, with some counseling and therapy is enough, but with others medication is needed with the counseling, then with the more severe psychological disorders either short term or long term hospitalization is sometimes necessary because the patient is a danger to himself or others. This is a list of mental disorders that divides each mental disorder into different categories and discusses certain disorders.
There are four types of mental illness:
1. Organic brain disorders These types of disorders are the direct result of physical (throughout the body) changes and diseases that affect the brain. These all lead to some degree of confusion and delusions in addition to anxiety and anger. Some of these diseases are:
A. Degenerative diseases: 1. Huntington disease-a genetic disease that consists of abnormal movements, dementia, and psychological problems. 2. Multiple Sclerosis-An immune system disorder that affects the central nervous system (brain & spinal cord). 3. Senile dementia-Alzheimer’s type 4. Parkinson’s Disease-Nerve disorder that causes tremors and paralysis.
B. Cardiovascular disorders-These are disorders related to the heart, the main one being strokes, there are several others such as TIA and disorders related to high blood pressure.
C. Trauma induced-These are all related to brain injury, hemorrhages and concussions.
D. Drug and Alcohol related-Intoxication, drug and alcohol withdrawal symptoms.
No one needs to prove God exists since you all ready admitted to going to seminary. And now that you are an atheist there really is no point in trying to convice you of God. You chose to turn your back on God.. so you prove he doesn't exist.
Hi. Thanks for the reminder. That is the main reason I am not answering most people on this thread anymore. You are exactly right in what you said about Jesus. Thanks again.
Another Local Flood Theory by Brian Thomas, M.S. * A British researcher has offered yet another non-biblical explanation for the source of the global Flood account in Genesis. Archaeologist Sean Kingsley proposed that the story arose from the flooding of ancient and now submerged villages in the Mediterranean Sea southwest of Mount Carmel. Collectively called Atlit-Yam, these villages were inhabited long ago when the sea level was lower.1
Some scholars have proposed that the flood narrative was inspired by a long-ago breached dam that allowed the Mediterranean to flow into what is now the Black Sea. Kingsley argued that this event was too far away from the Holy Land to have inspired ancients to write what they did. He rhetorically asked The Jerusalem Post, “What's more convincing scientifically, a flood in the Black Sea, so far away from Israel and the fantasy of a supposed ark marooned on the slopes of Mount Ararat, or six submerged Neolithic villages smack-bang in the middle of the Bible Land?”2
But why would a flood affecting such a limited area be described thus: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered”?3 Even if the biblical record were absent, a host of scientific evidence seems to demand a worldwide flood.4 Noah’s Flood is the most scientifically sound causative agent for an Ice Age.5 And it was the melting of the continental ice from this age, some hundreds of years after the Flood, that likely raised sea levels to eventually inundate Atlit-Yam.
Israeli archaeologist Ehud Galili has excavated Atlit-Yam for decades and disagreed with Kingsley’s proposition. Many uniquely preserved artifacts—including animal bones, fish bones, and plant matter—have been discovered in the underwater villages. They do not indicate a cataclysm but seem best explained by “the slow rise of sea levels which occurred all over the world.”2 Such underwater, formerly coastal villages exist worldwide.6
Archaeologist Shimon Gibson told the Post, “The bottom line is that overall evidence of world submerged in flood does not exist.” In light of the apostle Peter’s warning,7 this kind of comment is to be expected.
Nevertheless, those who reject the worldwide flood event should be asked to provide reasons why this biblical historical narrative account is different from the otherwise scientifically reliable content of Scripture.8 They also need to explain transcontinental sediment transport, the cause of the Ice Age, fossilized sea creatures atop every high mountain in the world, the rapid burial of plants and animals required to produce the fossil record, the vast extent of some sedimentary rock layers, and the remarkable lack of erosion features at the contacts between strata9—all without Noah’s Flood.
The funny thing is (if it weren't so sad) how convinced you are of your own superstitions, and never for one second doubt the silliness of what you say.
Three things to keep in mind before you post here:
1. Is it true? 2. Is it kind? 3. Is it necessary?
The insults you have been throwing towards people is never kind or necessary.
It is ok to disagree but you can be nice about it. Remember there is always more than one way to look at something. And when people see things differently it does not make one stupid or pitiful.
Treat others the way you would like to be treated – with respect - be polite, considerate, with no personal attacks, name calling, harassment, bad language. This is a place for discussion, debate, even disagreements – but not arguments just for the sake of arguing or aggravation.
Be positive. If you don't like what someone is saying, leave the thread.
I am sorry you feel that way. Those so called silly ideas you think are mine.. are not mine but someone else's ideas. Maybe you ought to direct your comments to the people they are intended for.
As for you claiming the website I have posted you are wrong in that also. It is not my website for I am not the one who came up with the idea of that website nor am I one who maintains it. Once again you are wrong and should direct your comments to the people your comments are intended for.
Insulting the wrong people is really sad.. and I feel sorry for you.
I do ask questions, all the time. I just don't ask you because I don't want the wrong answers. All I have been doing in answering the questions that you have asked.
It seems that you don't like the answers that I get from other people to back up things you don't believe to be true. That is why I suggested you go to the source I did so that you can ask your questions there and argue the point with the people you disagree with.
Go back and read the article again. You must have missed this part.....
God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2–3; 7:8–9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.
wulfen Cospicua, Xlokk Malta View Threads View Posts Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:00 PM CST : Did you know Albert Einstein actually believed in God @ Faithfulness:
Where exactly in all that prattle you posted masquerading as articles did the author come up with a SINGLE point of evidence that fossils are not millions years old, and instead under 6000 years old, as your precious fairy tale book would have us believe?
By the way, in which point of genesis were the dinosaurs created?
Oh yeah, dinosaurs never existed, they were never on noah's ark right?
By going to this website you can question the people who wrote their articles for their reasons for writing what they did and why they wrote the articles they did. Why not go to the source of all your questions?
Also, I suggest that you think about what you write and about what you ask. At one point you told me that fossils are evidence of things that existed. So now my question is knowing that there are dinosaur fossils how can you say that dinosaurs never existed?
Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this.
What Did Dinosaurs Eat? The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.
Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1–7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.
The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29–30; Romans 8:20–22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1–4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.
After Adam’s sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14–19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.
Dinosaurs and the Bible by Ken Ham onNovember 5, 1999LaymanKeywords author-ken-hambibledinosaursfossil-recordfossilshuman-dinosaur-coexistenceAn aura of mystery surrounds the dinosaurs. Where did they come from? Did they evolve? Did they really live millions of years ago? What happened to them? Are there any living today? Has any human being ever seen a live dinosaur?
Children and adults alike are absolutely fascinated by these mysterious monsters. Numerous books and movies have been produced to satisfy a seemingly insatiable hunger for information on these puzzling creatures. The truth of the matter, however, is that there are no real mysteries at all, once you have key information that is not generally known and is withheld from the public.
Come with me as we take a walk through history and uncover some amazing facts that will answer many of your questions about these “terrible lizards.”
Did Dinosaurs Really Exist? Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked.
When Were Dinosaurs Found? The story of their discovery began back in the 1820s, when Gideon Mantell, an English doctor, found some unusual teeth and bones in a quarry. Dr Mantell realized there was something very different about these animal remains, and believed that he had found an entirely new group of reptiles. By 1841, about nine types of these different reptiles had been uncovered, including two called Megalosaurus and Iguanodon.
At this time, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name “Dinosauria,” meaning “terrible lizard,” for this is what the huge bones made him think of.
What Makes Dinosaurs Different? Other than the huge size of some dinosaurs, the major feature that really distinguishes dinosaurs from other reptiles (such as crocodiles) is the position of their limbs. Dinosaurs had posture that was fully erect, similar to that in mammals. Most other reptiles have limbs in a sprawling position. For instance, compare the way a crocodile “walks” with that of, say, a cow. Dinosaurs would have moved like a cow, with the limbs supporting the body from beneath. Crocodiles “waddle,” as their limbs project sideways from their body.
How Big Were Dinosaurs? Some were as small as chickens, and others were even smaller. Of course, some dinosaurs were very large, weighing in at an estimated 80 tons and standing 40 feet high! The average size of a dinosaur, however, was probably about that of a small horse.
The fossils say what?First published: Creation 4(4):33–38 March 1982
by Ken Ham
(Continuation)
This certainly is a turn around, and will provide evolutionary authors with years of rewriting. Nearly all books of evolution are rife with such phrases as ‘the lower animals’, or ‘the higher plants’ etc. These words ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ are references to this ‘onward, upward’ direction. The diagrams with man at the top will have to be changed to something similar to the one here [this is much the same as the diagram used in the Science Under Attack filmstrip series mentioned above].
Actually, it has always been totally inconsistent for evolutionists to say that man is the pinnacle of this process. In saying this, they have really borrowed the Christian teaching which states that man is the pinnacle of creation. For evolutionists to be consistent, man is no different whatsoever from the animals and there is no reason why he should be at the top of this process even if he was last to get there. I wonder if they will take it to its logical ends, which are seen in the evolutionary religions, where the cow has every right to walk through the kitchen and man is of no more importance than the mosquito.
With the ‘evidence’ for Neo-Darwinian evolution crumbling, what are evolutionists saying about their change in direction? The following quote from the Science Under Attack filmstrip series sums it up:
‘A major source of confusion in analyzing the creationist’s argument is the muddling of the distinction between evolution as fact versus evolution as theory. To begin with, virtually all biologists today agree that the process of evolution is a fact. In the words of Life on Earth, a textbook by Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, Thomas Eisner of Cornell, and others, “Evolution is a fact. It occurs. Biologists have watched and measured its progress at the level of the gene. They have created new species in the laboratory and in the experimental garden … must be regarded as one of the more firmly grounded and reliable explanatory systems in all of science.”’12
They go on to say that just as it is a fact that the sun shines, so evolution is a fact. But, just as we don’t know how the sun radiates energy, so we don’t know how the fact of evolution occurs!
At last we are starting to see evolutionists admit the real nature of their philosophy. It doesn’t matter what the evidence shows (e.g., the fossil record), they will believe evolution is fact regardless. As the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory crumbles, those who want to cling to an evolutionary philosophy do so no matter what the evidence is. It is not an argument about facts, but a conflict of worldviews—one centered in man: the other centered on the absolute and authoritative Creator God.
It is a fight of mutually exclusive faiths which both provide a solution to the observable problem of man’s guilt. Evolution offers man ‘freedom’ by denying that guilt exists. The Creator God promises to remove guilt if we will only humble ourselves, accept the death of His Son Jesus Christ as just payment for the sin which produces human guilt and then accept His right to be God and serve Him accordingly. Which faith is yours?
The fossils say what?First published: Creation 4(4):33–38 March 1982
by Ken Ham
(Continuation)
Another area where modern evolutionists are changing direction concerns man’s position in the evolutionary scheme of things. Most people have the idea that evolution is an ‘onward, upward’ process. This idea comes from the many evolutionary books that use such terms as ‘the ladder’ of evolution and the man is the ‘pinnacle’ of this process. We see many diagrams of evolutionary ‘trees’ with man at the top. We are told evolution is a gradual change shaped by more or less directional processes.9 Man is usually shown to be the climax of this process as we have been led to believe by authors such as the following: ‘Sometime about 3,500 million years ago the evolution of life began. Some two million years or so ago, ape man began to evolve into Homo … Now man is recognizing that as that as he reshapes the world and replaces the relentless but stabilizing action of physical selection with a new, cultural evolution and inheritance, he is taking control of the future. Therein lies the climax of all the aeons, the epochs and the years.’10
Diagrams typical for this type of understanding of evolution are similar to the one above.
However, all this is revised or redirected in a new anti-creationist filmstrip series produced by evolutionists. In the teachers guide to the programme entitled Science Under Attack, we read:
‘One common misunderstanding is that evolution involves change “upwards” along some prearranged scale, but the concept includes no such idea. In terms of biology, evolution is simply the idea that species evolve, or change over time, into wholly different species. The question of whether this change is “upwards” or “downwards” is not only irrelevant, it is meaningless.’11
The fossils say what?First published: Creation 4(4):33–38 March 1982
by Ken Ham
‘If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it will be no use prating on about what the fossils say!’8
Some of the most devastating attacks on evolution by creationists have been associated with the fossil record. Creationists have shown that the evidence of the fossil record is very consistent with catastrophism, and certainly fits the results one would expect from a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah. Until recently this argument from the fossils has been devastating to the theory of evolution, because evolutionists have openly stated:
‘The most direct evidence that evolution has occurred is presented in the study of the fossils.’ 1
‘The gradual development of life revealed by the fossil record has been called evolution.’2
‘Fossils help to build up a connected story of the past and show the parade of life through the ages.’3
‘Our knowledge of the history of life stems largely from the study of the fossils.’4
‘One of the main lines of investigation that reveals the time course of past evolution is paleontology, the study of fossils.’5
From quotes such as these, one certainly gets the idea that the fossil record is very important to the theory of evolution. However, recent articles indicate a change has occurred in the thinking of some evolutionists. Consider New Scientist, 25 June 1981, in an article entitled ‘Who doubts Evolution’: ‘The Evidence for Evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record’6.
‘A major source of confusion in analysing the creationist argument is the muddling of the distinction between evolution as fact versus evolution as theory.’12
The author later on in the article talks about: ‘… the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that Evolution took place… No good Darwinian’s belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution so nor will his belief fall by it.’7
This author then, plainly states that the fossil evidence is no longer important—in fact, it doesn’t matter what you find in the fossil record, it will never contradict evolution anyway. The author of the article also has some new advice for creationists: ‘If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it will be no use prating on about what the fossils say.’8
I guess one could conclude that the creationists’ arguments against evolution from the fossil record must have been successful!
Faithfulness Forum Posts (1,056)
RE: a world without religion
I am sure that some people who do not believe in God walk around in a trance now and are living a mystery now.