Friday, October 17, 2014

Ray vs Himself vs Jesus

Ray Comfort is one of those guys that is not only very sure of himself, but so sure of himself that he is blinded by just how terrible the arguments he makes are.

His usual street preaching tactic revolves around walking up to people and asking the same questions he's been asking for years....

Have you ever lied? If you answer 'yes' he will ask what you call someone who tells lies. His answer is 'a liar'.

Have you ever stolen anything? If you answer 'yes' he will ask what you call someone who steals.
His answer is 'a thief'.

Have you ever taken the lord's name in vain? If you answer 'yes' he says that's blasphemy.

Have you ever looked at someone with lust? If you answer 'yes' he tells you that Jesus said that he whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart.

He then concludes that the person is a lying, thieving, adulterous blasphemer by their own admission. But though Jesus who was sinless they can be saved.

But are these really realistic conclusions. I wouldn't personally define someone as a liar unless they lie all the time. If one lie makes one a liar, then I am a designer, mechanic, electrician, plumber, painter, mason, artist, writer, landscaper, doctor, dentist, film critic, columnist, chef, historian, veterinarian, conservationist, etc ad nauseam.

Is all theft really the same though? Suppose that someone's 'theft' is simply taking the last cookie that was supposed to be their brother's. Should that really count the same as embezzlement?

How exactly does one even say the Lord's name in vain? The 'God' in 'God damn it' isn't his name. And Jesus (as in Jesus Christ!) is but a translation of a translation. So neither is really saying the right name to begin with.

Ray Comfort conveniently leaves out that he's no saint since in his books and films he regularly edits video and quote mines, not to mention he just plain makes stuff up that anyone with even a basic understanding of the subject (usually evolution) would know isn't so. So Ray is at the very least a liar who also bears false witness.

Oh, but I guess that doesn't matter to Ray since he claims to be saved by the saved by the 'sinless' Jesus...

Jesus introduced the thought crime when he said that looking with lust equated to adultery. If that is true, then Jesus sinned when he fasted for forty days in the wilderness. Matthew 4:1-2 clearly stats that Jesus was hungry. If we follow the same logic that lust = adultery, then Jesus' hunger was equal to gluttony. There's one sin for Jesus.

Jesus turned water into wine, multiplied the fish and loaves, healed the sick, and raised the dead. Yet Deuteronomy (and many other places) clearly states that magic is an abomination. What are the
supposed miracles of Jesus if not magic?

How about when Jesus went berserk in Matthew 21:12? He entered the temple, got pissed, started flipping over tables and benches, and ran them off. He also curses a fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) for not bearing fruit out of season. Yet in Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus actually suggests that anger and violence are sins.

Then there's the fact that Jesus told a man wanting to bury his father to 'let the dead bury the dead' (Luke 9:60), he told people to hate their own families (Luke 14:26), and that he had come to divide families (Luke 12:51-52). So much for honoring thy mother and father...

What about Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (also in Matthew). That section features Jesus questioning God's plan to have Jesus die to take on the sins of all. Questioning God in this manner would be considered blasphemy if anyone else where to do it, so it's blasphemy for Jesus too.

So by the Bible and Ray's standards Jesus is an angry, violent, unreasonable, divisive, uncaring, gluttonous, blaspheming warlock. How's that for 'sinless'...?


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Reading, God, and the Bible

Believers love to tout the Bible, but what if you have a reading disability?
QUESTION: I know you tell people they ought to read the Bible, but I have a serious reading disability and have never been much of a reader. I just can’t get into it. Is this a sin? — J.N.
As a lover of knowledge and books, it saddens me when someone tells me they aren't a reader. But I suppose it can be understood if they have a reading disability.
ANSWER: God knows all about us, including both what we can do and what we can’t do – and He doesn’t look down on you because you have difficulty reading. After all, millions of people across the world have never had an opportunity to learn to read or hold a Bible in their hands, and God understands their situation.
Yes, God understands their situation so well that he will send all those non-Christians who never heard of Christianity straight to Hell when they die. He's so understanding!
But God has provided other ways for you to learn what the Bible says, and I hope you’ll take advantage of them (if you aren’t already doing so). For example, when you go to church, you’ll hear someone read the Bible, and hopefully your pastor will base his sermon on the Bible. Pay close attention, and even jot down the main points you hear.
Which denomination? Because different churches interpret the Bible differently. Also, what about the many parts of the Bible you never hear about in church because they show God being a bloodthirsty immoral monster, or display how ridiculously flawed the Bible is?

Relying on a preacher only telling you about God's 'greatest hits' is like listening to Take On Me by A-ha and thinking they were the greatest band ever.
Your local Christian radio station also may include programs with gifted Bible teachers who can help you understand the Bible’s message more fully.
Again, what counts as 'gifted'? Only Baptists like Billy? Or whoever just so happens to agree with him?
Why is the Bible important? The reason is because it is God’s Word
Yeah, but many holy books claim that of themselves and other gods. Show me the evidence that shows how the Christian claim is any more valid than all the others please.

I do hope that JN does manage to read the Bible, or learns everything in it that he can. After all, reading the whole Bible (especially with an open mind) is one of the most potent sources of atheism that exists. It really is that terrible of a book.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Death with dignity

On November 1, 2014 Brittany Maynard will die. Brittany is 29, recently married and unfortunately has found out she has a brain tumor. Even worse, in April she found that her surgeries had failed and the her tumor had only grown. She was given 6 month to live.

Doctors then suggested full brain radiation due to the size of her tumor. This would mean her hair would be burned off, he scalp would be replaced with first-degree burns, and her quality of life would plummet. Months of research led to the conclusion that no treatment would save her life.

She could waste away in hospice care, with her family watching her spend her final month with
unpredictable personality changes, loss of motor skills, and in progressively worsening pain. Or she could consider a second option...

That option is physician-assisted suicide. Since it is only legal in five states, the Maynard's decided to move to Oregon. Brittany had decided to die with dignity, rather than wasting away and causing her loved ones even more grief.
I plan to be surrounded by my immediate family, which is my husband and my mother and my step-father and my best friend, who is also a physician. I will die upstairs, in my bedroom that I share with my husband, with my mother and my husband by my side and pass peacefully with some music that I like in the background.
That certainly sound like a much better way to go than being consumed by a brain tumor don't you? But does everyone agree?
I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.

I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?
Why does it sound like this brave woman is defending her choice from criticism by those that say she shouldn't be allowed to end her own life? Because someone actually is. that someone is Matt Walsh (a conservative Christian blogger).
And given her condition, it will be easy for anyone to accuse me of being cruel and thoughtless for criticizing her choice. But, keep in mind, none of us would know about her choice if she hadn’t also chosen to publicize it.
So what if she's gone public about her story? She's fighting to make a choice that should be available an option for all.
She is a cancer patient, and she is also a very compelling spokeswoman for suicide. It is the latter point that makes it necessary for those of us who oppose the Culture of Death to speak up and say something here. Our silence could be deadly, literally and figuratively.
Culture of death? Suicide? She just doesn't want to suffer, or her family to suffer. She's dying anyway... Does Walsh realize that euthanasia is nothing like a teenager slitting his wrists because his girlfriend left him?
If there’s going to be any dissenting voices at all — anyone chiming in to mention that perhaps we shouldn’t treat suicide like a legitimate medical solution for cancer — now would be the time to hear from them. So far, the reaction and the reporting on Brittany’s case have been disturbingly one-sided.
The irony of this dude with tattoos telling you euthanasia is bad
'because Bible', when the Bible also says tattoos are bad.
No one is suggesting that everyone with cancer should just be killed. Brittany is dying anyway, she's just deciding the where and when.
Across national media and social media, I’ve been sickened to see that suicide is now most commonly described with words like ‘dignity,’ ‘bravery,’ ‘courage,’ and ‘strength.’ Popular refrains apparently only ever used to justify some form of murder and destruction have been trotted out once again: ‘it’s her body,’ ‘it’s her choice,’ ‘it’s her life.’
She is facing death head-on. Rather than hiding in the corner, asking 'why me?' or just slipping into a deep depression until she dies. That is incredibly brave whether Walsh think so or not.
If you are saying that it is dignified and brave for a cancer patient to kill themselves, what are you saying about cancer patients who don’t? What about a woman who fights to the end, survives for as long as she can, and withers away slowly, in agony, until her very last breath escapes her lungs?

Is that person not brave? Is that person not dignified? I thought we applaud that kind of person. I thought we admire her courage and tenacity. Sorry, you can’t advance two contradictory narratives at once. If fighting cancer is brave then it is brave PRECISELY BECAUSE she is fighting it rather than giving up and choosing death.

In other words, if struggling against cancer until the bitter end is an act of courage, then it can’t also be an act of courage to opt out and ‘leave on your own terms.’ What makes one courageous is that it is not the other. What makes one commendable is that the other choice exists, yet the heroic individual takes the more admirable route.

So which is it? Which path should we admire?
How about both... Either choice can be brave for their own reasons. It can be brave to accept the suffering and hope to last long enough to see a day when your condition can be treated. It can also be brave to face the reality that you are going to die soon and that there is nothing you can do about it. No one wants to die. Brittany has stated as such. But she realizes that she doesn't have a choice. She is dying no matter what. She has faced this harsh reality and come to terms with it. She is making the irreversible choice to cut her life a little short in order to spare her loved ones from having to watch what will happen if she doesn't. This is quite a brave act indeed.
Don’t you understand what you are saying? She is dying with dignity, which means dying of cancer is not dignified. You are accusing people who die of cancer of having no dignity. That is what you are saying. Own it. Confront it. Take responsibility for the words you use.
No, it isn't saying that at all. She's dying the way she chooses. A person that is given both options and decides to take the option of letting cancer run it's course is also making their own choice. Sometimes that choice can lead to terrible suffering, but they still got to make their own choice.
And what does it mean, anyway, to say that euthanasia is ‘leaving on your own terms’? Do we somehow achieve a victory over death by using it to escape the pain of life? ‘Your own terms’? The terms of the drug maker who concocted the poison pill, perhaps, but your own? Hardly. None of us get to die on our own terms, because if we did then I’m sure our terms would be a perfect, happy, and healthy life, where pain and death never enter into the picture at all.
How deluded... Everyone dies. It is an inescapable truth. To claim this is an attempt to beat death is absurd. The only thing being talked about here is offering the dying the option to die without suffering.
We can’t take possession of our lives like a two-year-old grabbing a toy from his friend and shouting ‘Mine!’ 
So we should allow Walsh to shout 'Mine!' and let him dictate our final days instead?

Also, her death will not be an ask of being selfish, but selfless. A huge part of why she is making this choice is to spare her family. To keep them from having to watch her suffer, and to keep the person they eventually have to bury from being someone other than the Brittany they know and love.
Now, I admit, if we are nothing and we came from nothing and will return to nothing, then I suppose suicide makes some sort of sense. It returns the body to our natural state of nothingness. It brings us home into the abyss, where there is no self, no reason, no existence. But most people don’t think that. Most of us are not radical nihilists.
For crying out loud! Euthanasia and waiting for death lead to the same damn place. Does Walsh not realize that? Choosing to forgo a couple months of terrible suffering does not mean that you think life is meaningless. She led her life and no doubt wishes for more. But being alive doesn't always mean you're living life. Being trapped in a bed, in constant pain, not yourself, and unable to move... Is that still life? Sure you are alive, but why leave life on an incredible low, when you could leave it on so much better terms?
So if God reached out from the depths of eternity to hand us this life of ours, how can we think it acceptable — or worse, meritable — to throw it out before our time is finished?
A god that you have never been able to produce evidence for... But lets skip that fact and talk about how this god set up a plan to come down to Earth just to have himself killed. He worships a god that set up his own suicide mission, but has a problem with assisted suicide? How does one have a problem with one and not the other?
 If you celebrate suicide, then you have answered these questions: life is nothingness, we are here for no reasons, and there is no point.
Wrong. This is not a discussion about if people should just kill themselves all willy-nilly. It's not about people thinking life is worthless and just killing themselves one day. This is about people that value their life and quality of life not wanting their final days to be a nightmare. They value life and want the end of it to reflect the better side of life rather than let it be marred by needless suffering.

Walsh goes on to argue that euthanasia is a conflict to healthcare. He acts like euthanasia is being suggested as a treatment for cancer. That the doctor has to agree that your life is 'worthless'. That it will lead from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia, and that patients should keep fighting to the end of the road.

To the surprise of no one, he just doesn't get it. And I have a feeling he's being deliberate in that regard. (Again) Euthanasia is not being suggested as a treatment, but an option when it is found that death is, unfortunately, the only outcome. Doctors still do everything they can in the states where it is an option, but not everyone can be saved. Euthanasia is also not about life being worthless. It is about coming to the conclusion that this life can't be saved. Though he claims otherwise, Walsh claiming doctors will just start deciding who should die without asking the patient is slippery-slope
fear-mongering.

And finally, people like Brittany are fighting to the end of the road. She had surgery, but it didn't work. She was left with the choice of getting radiation in order to trade quality of life for maybe an extra month or two, or dying on her terms. The end of the road is when the doctors determine that they can't save you. She didn't just get cancer and decide to die the moment she found out. She fought, she had the operations and procedures. But they didn't work, and there was nothing they could do to save her life. She reached the end of the road and then choose her fate.
Death is not a solution. Suicide is not dignified. Killing yourself to escape suffering is not brave. It is, in fact, the antithesis of bravery.
What a ghoul! So now Walsh is calling her a coward... How classy. She has made a brave choice. Sorry if it doesn't mesh with his religion. But as with all these issues, there is an easy solution...

Don't like assisted suicide? Don't get one.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married.
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.
...and the list goes on...

Please tell me why those against euthanasia are usually also for the death penalty. That just seems contradictory to me. Also, what happened to this Christian mercy I keep hearing about? It sure sounds to me that Walsh is speaking out against mercy.
I am terrified to think that my children will grow up in a culture that openly venerates suicide with this much unyielding passion....
Okay, I've had enough. Walsh loves calling this suicide. Just plain old suicide... But that's not what Brittany is doing. The issue is euthanasia. This is a standard practice in one medical field that any animal lover has probably had to, or will have to deal with. Euthanasia does not stop veterinarians from doing everything they can to save a beloved pet, so why are we supposed to believe that the same option will cause regular doctors to throw their hands up and not really try?

But back to euthanizing a pet. Anyone who's ever faced this choice knows it's a hard one. And almost anyone will tell you that what Walsh is suggesting is incredibly cruel. He would have you just let Fido suffer until he eventually died. This would be outright cruelty.

I faced this choice a few years ago. We had a wonderful loving cat in our lives for a short two years. She turned up as a stray one Winter day and we took her in. Luna quickly warmed up and showed just how sweet and loving she was. She adored us, would follow me everywhere, and we loved her right back. But one day she just went missing. We turned the house over looking for her only to locate Luna acting very sick and hiding in a dark corner of the basement.

After a few visits to the vet, it was diagnosed that her organs where starting to shut down and there was nothing that could be done. She could maybe live a little while longer, but suffering greatly. The other option was to say goodbye to my little friend and select euthanasia. She sat on that table looking at us with those amber eyes of hers like she often did.

Luna, we'll always miss you girl.
Her eyes full of the trust that she always gave us. That we would love her and do everything we could to keep her safe and keep her from harm. As terrible of a feeling as it was to cause those beautiful trusting eyes to shut for good, we couldn't betray that trust. We had to do what was best for her and free her from her suffering.

It would have been selfish and wrong to do nothing and allow her to suffer a few more days... Just watching her descend and suffer more and more by the hour... Allowing such a thing would be cruel and inhumane, yet that's the fate Walsh thinks every person should be forced to face. If it is inhumane to force an animal to suffer, then why is it not inhumane to force a person to suffer?

So make no mistake, Walsh is blinded by the black and white views that his unyielding grasp on his irrational and unethical holy book provides him. And despite what he says, Brittany Maynard is not a coward. She is bravely facing death and using her tragedy to try and get every person the option to at least make the same choice she did without having to uproot their family to another state.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Glimpsing life after death?

The Telegraph ran a story recently with the sensationalist headline of 'First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study'. That sounds like some pretty big news! Lets take a look at this ground-breaking story...
The largest ever medical study into near-death and out-of-body experiences has discovered that some awareness may continue even after the brain has shut down completely.
When it comes to scientific studies, the bigger the better. Tell me more.
And they found that nearly 40 per cent of people who survived described some kind of ‘awareness’ during the time when they were clinically dead before their hearts were restarted. 
Awareness? I thought there was supposed to be the first evidence of life after death in here. After all, 'clinical death' isn't the same as that big final death we all will face. But then again, maybe I'm speaking too soon. Continue...
“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.
What!? There's a huge problem here. We don't actually know that the brain stops instantly as soon as the heart does. It's actually pretty standard knowledge that the brain can, and usually does live for a few seconds after the heart stops and has been know outlive the heart by a few minutes pretty often. If you have the right drugs in your system, it could last longer. There is still oxygen in the blood to be used even if the heart isn't pumping. And if you are under stress these experiences of awareness could conceivably be down to increased blood flow before the heart stopped, and a high dose of hormones being introduced to your system.
But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
Wait, wait, wait... First he says the brain stops instantaneously, then he says it dies 20-30 seconds later. So he's contradicting himself in this story! Also, the brain working for three minutes after the heart stopped is far from unheard of. It's actually in the realm of what can be expected.
The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.
So? If his brain was working and was aware, then he could still hear. He wasn't even dead... Where is the mystery?
He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.
He seemed credible? So can habitual liars and sociopaths. 'Seemed credible' doesn't sound scientific at all.
One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room. 
The brain is an amazing thing. Even if we can't see something, our other senses can form a picture for our mind. What we've seen in life and on film can influence our expectations and those images as well. All of us have first-hand experience in this phenomenon whenever we dream.

The brain forms pictures for us that we aren't actually seeing. Bright light from a window or flashlight may become light at the end of a tunnel or the bright Summer Sun. The sounds around us can also find their way into dreams. How often has you alarm-clock buzzer played a different part in your dreams? I've had my wife talk to me when I was asleep, only to find her words influenced my dream. And I've found that the type of music I play while my wife sleeps has influenced the type of dreams she has as well.
Although many could not recall specific details, some themes emerged. One in five said they had felt an unusual sense of peacefulness while nearly one third said time had slowed down or speeded [sic] up. 
 If some had time speed up and some had it slow down, isn't that an inconsistency? If it was truly the afterlife, I would expect things to be the same for all. It actually sounds more like the subjective experience of an aware brain doing what it does.
Some recalled seeing a bright light; a golden flash or the Sun shining. Others recounted feelings of fear or drowning or being dragged through deep water.
Like when a doctor shines a light in the eyes of a patient to check for responsiveness? Or feeling like your airway is restricted due to having a respirator mask strapped to your face, injuries, chest compressions, or actually taking on fluids or having internal bleeding?
13 per cent said they had felt separated from their bodies and the same number said their sensed had been heightened.
Out of body... Take a look at dreams again. And as for the senses, shouldn't that be expected. A brain full of adrenalin means everything is heightened. Also, suppose the patients eyes are closed so they can't see. It's been well documented that some senses can become heightened and more sensitive when one is lost or unavailable.

Interestingly enough, the same group that did this test did another where pictures were placed on shelves so that they could only be seen from the ceiling so there was no way the patient would know they were there. So if the patient claimed an out-of-body experience and mentioned the picture, it would suggest that they really were looking down on themselves. What did the test show? That no one saw the pictures.
Of 2060 cardiac arrest patients studied, 330 survived and of 140 surveyed, 39 per cent said they had experienced some kind of awareness while being resuscitated.
Wait... So out of 2,060 people, only 330 survived. That means it was a 330 person study, not 2,060. 330 is quite a small sample size. And of the 39% that were aware... That's not surprising since the brain doesn't die instantly when the heart does.

This article claims that we've finally sniffed scientific evidence for the after-life, yet it shows nothing of the sort.The biggest news here is that the brain can live 3 minutes after the heart stops. But then again... We already knew that.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Monday, October 13, 2014

Bad relationship

Now Billy Graham is dishing out relationship advice? The advice is actually pretty good, but the irony is even better!
QUESTION: My niece is trapped in a really bad relationship (not married, but living together). It has no future, but she refuses to see this. We’ve tried to tell her to get out of the relationship, but she just gets mad. How can we help her? — K.W.
My wife and I have been there... Watching someone stick in a bad relationship while ignoring all the warnings they are given. It can be frustrating.
ANSWER: When someone steadfastly refuses to listen to wise advice, there may be little we can do – humanly speaking – to help them. 
Like a believer who will ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs?
They may simply be stubborn, or too proud to admit they’re wrong – or they may sincerely think they’re right and we’re wrong.
Sounds like believers who proudly say that nothing could ever change their mind, or say there is no chance that they could be wrong...
Whatever the reason, they refuse to heed our warnings.
Those who deny climate change because 'God told Noah he'd never flood the Earth again', or deny that they have been indoctrinated since their youth...
What can you do? First, let your niece know you love her and care about her –even if she doesn’t accept your advice. If your analysis of her situation is correct, eventually this relationship will end – perhaps painfully – and she’ll need your friendship. You might offer to take her out to lunch and listen to her side of the story, not arguing but gently expressing your concern and letting her know you care.
Then there's this rare glimmer... Allow us to bask in the glory of Billy actually giving some good advice for a change.
Then pray for her. God can do what we can’t do, and He can change even the most stubborn heart. Pray, too, that your niece will come to see not only the wrongness of what she’s done, but will also face her need for God’s forgiveness and guidance. Pray, too, for wisdom as you interact with her.
Finally, don’t give up on her. Even if your niece rebuffs you right now, your life is an example of how she should be living. She needs Christ, and God can use you to point her to His forgiveness and love.
And then he opens his mouth again and returns to his old judgmental self. Show's over folks, time to go home...


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Friday, October 10, 2014

Dinosaurs among us

It turns out that the Raptors in Jurassic Park probably should
have looked more like this.
We all know the story. Sixty-five million years ago a devastating impact from space killed off all the dinosaurs. The problem is that this isn't actually true. Yes, the vast majority of dinosaurs did die at the end of the Cretaceous period. But not all of them... Some survived and continue on to this day. When told this, some people may start thinking about lizards and alligators. But these reptiles are not actually descended from the dinosaurs.

In fact the dinosaurs among us are quite common. We see them every day. You may feed them, or even provide them with housing. People keep them as pets, and we've all had to deal with the mess when they poop all over your car. I'm talking about birds of course!

This may be surprising to some, but it's true. Today Polly may only want a cracker. But step back in time and Polly was a Velociraptor. We have been able to make this connection due to the fossil record. More recent discoveries have shown that the pictures or the very reptilian looking Tyrannosaurus Rex and Velociraptor were actually incorrect. It turns out that these guys were actually adorned with feathers. They weren't for flight as first. Instead they worked as insulation, as well as for display.

The famous Archaeopteryx. One important stepping stone
between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.
But the fossil record showed that dino-feathers would grow to be more and more bird-like over time. Specimens like Archeopteryx attest to the evolutionary path of birds from small feathered dinosaurs. What of the rest of the dinosaurs? Why did only the ones that became birds survive? Well, sometimes being small has it's advantages. You require less food, can be more versatile, shorter individual life spans, and the ability to have more young more often. It's a perfect recipe for evolution to craft the future generations to come.

Study of the skeletal structure has shown striking similarities between certain dinosaurs and birds. Bird-like ankles, braced hips, hollow lightweight bones, backward pubic bone, and even the presence of a wishbone show that many common bird features were carried over from a much different past. Collagen proteins found in a T-Rex bone most closely matched those of birds when it was tested. Not to mention that they also layed eggs as well.

Nope this guy totally doesn't look prehistoric at all...
And here's another very interesting bit. T-Rex is actually more closely related to modern birds than it
is to other types of dinosaurs such as Triceratops! That's because it's not dinosaurs as a whole that led to birds, but the sub group of Theropods. This is an important distinction to realize because some creationists will point to fossilized skin pressings that show a scaly exterior devoid of feathers. Not all dinosaurs are created equal though. Some classes of dinosaurs had feathers and some didn't. Not even all Theropods had feathers, but the important thing to remember is that the ones that did are the ones that survived.

So make no mistake, birds are a remaining member of the group called Dinosauria. It is rather fitting that to this day, birds of prey are still referred to as raptors. When someone claims that the dinosaurs are all dead and gone, it may be that you actually had one for lunch when you ordered that chicken sandwich. And with a known 10,000 different species of bird, dinosaurs may actually be doing better than ever! Behold the continuing age of the dinosaur...


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Death bed conversion

What of the old Christian claim of death bed conversions?
QUESTION: Do you believe in “death bed” conversions? My uncle never wanted anything to do with God, but hours before he died our pastor supposedly led him to Christ. I hope he’s in heaven now, but I can’t help but wonder. — Mrs. J.W.
I know you're dying, so allow me to fill your final moments
with me pestering you about personal religious opinions.
So JW forced her uncle to talk to a priest against his wishes on his death bed? That sounds beyond pushy and disrespectful!
ANSWER: God’s promise is clear: Every person who sincerely repents of sin and puts their faith and trust in Christ for their salvation will be saved – even at the last minute.
How quaint. So Hitler in in Heaven then. How could anyone ever have a problem with understanding that to be perfect justice...?
The tragedy is that some people think they can hold off coming to Christ until the last minute – but then they never do.
No, the real tragedy is that Christians around the world see this as a perfect and just system. Under these rules, it doesn't matter if you are a good person. You can commit literally any crime and still go to Heaven. Mass murder, rape, torture, stealing the savings of the elderly. Under God's rule none of that matters if you believe. A man can rape a child and be rewarded with paradise. But if that child is a Hindu, he gets sent to Hell. How can any rational or moral being stand behind such an obviously flawed and unjust system?


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter