Archives for posts with tag: science


There is a field of science that is not as well known. It is called information science, or informatics. No, not information technology, or computer science. Among other things, this discipline establishes the methods to classify the levels of information. This science is used in the search for extra terrestrial intelligence, in order to determine the filters to use in separating out the noise in the data, from the higher orders of information.

For many years, the search has been pursued to detect coded information from the heavens that has not been produced by mankind on Earth. It is rightly asserted that such codes must originate from an intelligent mind. Unlike the pulsar stars, which simply have a tempo, due to their spinning beam of radiation, this higher order of signal must have meaning and purpose that is clearly discernible. Random, or repetitive, chaos never produces this level of information that is truly evidence of intelligence. This is a fact of science that is not even controversial among information scientists.

The universe is so large that, if meaningful information could be produced by accident, then it certainly would, just because of the sheer volume of data. Thus, there would be no point in searching through all of this data, coming from the stars, to find evidence of intelligence. The fact that they are searching, is a veritable statement of agreement with this conclusion.

Here is an extreme example. If we found instructions for the protein chains of an entire organism, so that we could discern the amino acids and the sequence of assembly, then we would truly have information of the highest order. No one would argue with that. But, if this could have come about by chance, then there is no way to tell the nature of the source, and we still would not know if there was true intelligence behind it.

What information scientists have found is that random data can only corrupt true information. Random data cannot produce new information, thus, the amount of true information is never increased by accident.

Even though this view of the source of true information is irrefutable, there are some who don’t like such realities. Not because they dispute information science, but because they are desperate to cling to some explanation that tells us how we could have gotten here without a God. They want to believe that non-living molecules can, over the aeons, collect enough information to become the first DNA for a life form.

Even if this were possible, it does not come close to explaining all of the complex machinery required, so the DNA can reproduce itself. The final nail in the coffin, for such wild ideas, is that DNA is needed to construct the machinery as well.

If we simply use microscopes, instead of telescopes, then we have long ago found conclusive evidence of extra terrestrial intelligence. In any strand of DNA, of the simplest life forms, there is so much evidence, such immense quantities of complex information, that the only way to escape the conclusion of an intelligent heavenly source, is a strong bias against it. Angels are extra terrestrials also, but God is the ultimate extra terrestrial intelligence.

Want to hear more?


If two people disagree on the character of abortion, one believes it is murder, the other believes it is a question of social expediency, then any discussion between these two regarding abortion legislation is pointless. There is one exception, one point that can be discussed in this situation, that will be mentioned in a moment.

There are two levels of this topic that will be addressed in this post.

1) The character of abortion
2) Government policies on abortion

There is a deeper level, that has already been addressed in a previous post.

So, let’s start with the identity of the unborn child. Throughout history, there has been no debate that humans bear humans. Can we all agree that your mother’s progeny is human? If not, you can stop reading, at this point, and go back to reading “Alice in Wonderland.” Even though this has never been questioned, there is even more confidence now that it can be proven in a court of law, with DNA evidence, that a child is human, from the moment of conception.

Further, with the same DNA evidence, it can also be legally and scientifically proven that the mother and the unborn child are two distinct people. They are not the same person, since their DNA codes are unique. We already knew this also, but some want to claim that the unborn child is the woman’s own body, so they should be allowed to choose for themselves. Does this distinction in DNA happen gradually, as the child matures? No, the DNA code does not change at all, over time. From the moment of conception, the child is not, in any way, part of the mother’s body. You may choose to disagree, and place yourself in error scientifically, legally, philosophically, and biblically.

When does a human begin living? What is the definition of life? We know that life does not progress from partially alive to some point of being completely alive. You were no more alive the month after your birth than you were the month before your birth. You were no more alive the moment after your birth that you were the moment before your birth. The first cell of a new individual life is called the zygote. This cell is formed from the union of two gametes. No amount of protection and nourishment would cause either of these gametes to develop and grow. Yet, when they combine, the DNA is complete. This is the beginning of life, a new child. Stop hiding behind the word “foetus.” What is the definition of that word? A foetus is an unborn baby. Every abortion stops a beating heart.

To survive, a baby is dependent on those who provide protective care and feeding. You would not last long, if you were prevented from getting any food, clothing and shelter. If you take away the protection from harm, and the nourishment, from any person, they will die. Even if that is all abortion did, then it would be the pre-meditated taking of human life, without due process of law. That is the definition of first-degree murder. Maybe you need to be told that the process of abortion is far more brutal than simply allowing the baby to die.

What about the exception mentioned above? What can we discuss further, if we disagree about abortion being murder? There is one question that can be asked of a voter, or politician, who does not believe abortion is murder. What … if … you … are … wrong? Earnestly consider this! Are you so confident?! Are you so brazen, that you are willing to have the blood of innocent children on your hands?! If so, consider this story. The owner of a building has hired a demolition team, and addressed all of the legalities to permit this. When it comes time to ignite the explosives, there is one concern; the team is not sure if there is a child inside the building. Some witnesses are certain there is a child in the building. Imagine …

Complete the following sentence, “It is OK to kill a baby in the womb when …”

Seriously, can you finish the sentence? Can you honestly fill in the blank with a scenario when you would condone the actions of those who snuff out the life of an innocent child? If you can, then you are devoid of conscience and are unfit for holding public office or even voting.

Speaking to politicians, if you are willing to entertain the idea that it is possibly OK for government to allow abortion, we can have only one response, “You’re FIRED!”

Proverbs 24:11-12
11 If thou forbear to deliver [them that are] drawn unto death, and [those that are] ready to be slain;
12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider [it?] and he that keepeth thy soul, doth [not] he know [it?] and shall [not] he render to [every] man according to his works?

Proverbs 31:8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 27:25 Cursed [be] he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Genesis 9:6 … in the image of God made he man.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call Heaven and Earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in Heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

Want to hear more?


We got the chemistry videos by Wes Olson, because we were so impressed with the biology ones, and we were not disappointed! These come with our highest recommendation. The whole family can enjoy watching them together. We can’t wait to watch them all over again and we are eagerly looking forward to the next course.

If your innate love of learning has not been extinguished, then you are sure to enjoy these videos greatly. And, if you have lost that desire for discovery, then this program may even help it to re-ignite.

The structure of these science lessons are built with humour and entertainment, history and biography, trivia and wisdom, all established firmly on a foundation of God’s glory. At times we were laughing out loud, and at other times we were deeply moved. Young and old enjoy every bit of it.

Want to hear more?


You have been repeatedly told that science has disproved The Holy Bible. Do you believe these claims, or do you believe the Bible? Have you decided?

Some take another approach. Instead of deciding which one is true, they make a compromise. They change plain teachings of the Bible to suit the latest fad.

The Bible does not allow a compromise, since it claims to be the Word of God. If the Bible is not true, then you would do well to find a trustworthy source of teaching, rather than attempting to decide which parts of the Bible are true, and “adjusting” the portions you find disagreeable; putting your own authority above The Author.

Science does not require a compromise. When the claims, regarding science disproving the Bible, are examined, it is found that they are merely opinions about the implications of science. The assertions themselves are not properties of nature which are observable, repeatable, and testable, which disqualifies the claims as being science. Rather, they are ideology, yet another faith, the faith of Secular Humanism. No true scientific evidence has ever contradicted the Bible. The contradiction is in the interpretation of the evidence.

This humanist interpretation is to be expected from humanists. The foundational purpose of these assertions is an attempt to explain origins from a completely naturalistic, or materialistic, view point. It is a thesis striving to answer the question, “How could existence have arisen without God?” Thus, this atheist ideology will see all scientific evidence in this light.

If Atheism is true, then the Bible is not true. If the Bible is true, then Atheism is not true. There is no point in compromising between the two, or trying to harmonize them.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Want to hear more?