The South Napa earthquake was not near any active faults, and buildings were not prepared to survive it. Atheistic science is remarkably inept at explaining earthquakes, many of which are not near active faults.
ElyseE, newspapers are the most liberal source of information possible, and are written at about the 7th grade level. I hope you get your information from better sources. I get my information from Conservapedia, and the internet at large
Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.
[re: "Best of the public"]
Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.
It takes some getting used to, but I like "Holy Force." The term may appeal even more to teenagers. It may also gain traction with the physics-students-headed-for-atheism crowd.
Homosexuality shortens lifespan, and it's obviously not "homophobic" to criticize it. What's the next term for liberals to invent ... "drugphobic"?
Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the homosexual agenda who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.
Essay: Quantifying Vulnerability to Atheism
We quantify intelligence, health, athletic skills and even musical talent. But more important than those, especially for teenagers, is the vulnerability to atheism. A simply test can quantify one's vulnerability to atheism:
1. Do you frame arguments in terms of what is best for you, as opposed to others?
2. Do you spend more time thinking about yourself than volunteering for others?
3. Do you deny equal time to the Bible?
4. Do you oppose allowing classroom prayer even when everyone in the classroom wants to pray together?
5. Do you think atheists have achieved more intellectually than non-atheists?
(add more)
If your score (or the score of a loved one) is "yes" on more than half of the questions, then you (or a loved one) is highly vulnerable to atheism. Beware of the depression and anxiety that typically follows.
But FDR privately wanted the United States to enter into World War II to protect Britain against Germany. Britain had been badly weakened by decades of socialism, declining values, and rising atheism along with belief in evolution. Britain, weakened by decades of economic socialism and declining Christianity, was no match for the larger and much stronger Germany, and Britain needed America to save it.
A major liberal falsehood of the mid-20th century was that intelligent life in outer space must exist, and that America should spend billions looking for it. This falsehood had political overtones in favor of nuclear disarmament, globalism, environmentalism, government spending and atheism. Political and Atheist leaders who supported research into extraterrestrial life, or were strong advocates that intelligent life must exist in outer space were:
Jimmy Carter
Adolf Hitler
Carl Sagan
Belief in ET's is as strong among atheists and materialists as the belief in angels and departed saints by religious believers.
"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.
Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.
Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.
First, admit that liberals do deify government officials, which is undeniable. Second, liberal insistence on using the incorrect term "President's Day," which is contrary to law, defies any other explanation.
[I have friends and relatives from many parts of the political spectrum, and I can't think of any of them, liberal or conservative, who would give any president god-like status, or who worship government officials.]
You deny far too much, Hsmom. Join the "Economist" in losing credibility by refusing to admit that liberals deify government officials.
[More posters disagree]
Lots of vague denials here, yet no one will admit how liberals deify government officials, as communists did for Stalin and Lenin in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. To liberals, the "President" is an object of worship (or extreme scorn in a few cases). A liberal views the President as somehow above everyone else, and "President's Day" is in honor and recognition of that deification, despite the law expressly stating otherwise. Pathetic, I know, but atheists don't have the real God and this helps fill their vacuum.
[More disagreement]
ShawnJ, you lose all credibility when you say that you "disagree that liberals deify government officials." What you do think the deification of Lenin, Stalin and Castro is about? Or do you deny that deification also?
I repeat: atheists don't have God, and something inevitably fills that vacuum. The presidency plays that role for many liberals. Honor and worship!
["Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written?"]
God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This is completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.
As an example of the illogical view of atheists, they deny the existence of Hell. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.
[re: whether Jesus' instant healing power contradicts the theory of relativity]
Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would Isaac Newton and most great scientists.
As our Conservative Bible Translation project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful
Transphobia is a term made up by LGBT Marxists, who claim it is the "fear" of people who have willfully undergone anthropogenic sex change operations. LGBT agenda supporters use this non-existent "phobia" as an emotional smear term against anyone who opposes gender confusion, unnecessary surgical mutilation for the sake of "changing gender", and especially the intentional targeting of children by gender confusion activists to groom them and confuse them about their biological sex.
Gender-neutral terminology is used by politically correct liberals in a ploy to efface the natural differences between men and women, sometimes with absurd effect. Thus, although in legal texts the word "he" and "his" have been used for centuries to apply to both sexes, political correctness advocates insist on the cumbersome "he or she", "his or her". Sometimes people mistakenly use of "they" (or "their") despite the fact that this usage is grammatically incorrect. They also try to abolish terms as policeman, fireman, postman, fisherman, chairman, actress and waitress, claiming they are sexist terms. Use of gender-neutral language is a hallmark of overly liberal translations of the Bible.
Some languages use different words or suffixes depending on the gender of a noun, and attribute gender to non-people nouns. However, formal English does not ascribe gender to inanimate objects and defaults to the "male" pronouns or words when referring to either gender. For example, "All men are created equal," is correct English and the statement includes both males and females.
The fact that there are two different genders – male and female, based on one's biological sex – is affirmed through Scripture:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (ESV)
[Submitter’s note: yes, you’re reading this right- Andy and a cake metaphor vs. the Theory of Relativity]
The problem is that '''E=m2 does not meaning anythimg [sic] that makes sense.
[…]
Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.