September 22, 2018

Rob Skiba, The Genius of

Authored by Rob Skiba;

Contrary to the wildly active gossip mill, I do NOT believe one needs to believe the Earth is flat in order to be saved. That’s a stupid, strawman argument, perpetuated by ignorant people prone to accepting and spreading gossip. It’s like making the pre-Trib. Rapture doctrine a “salvation issue.” We can believe in LOTS of “non-essentials,” while still holding to the core essentials. Hence, we have tens of thousands of “denominations” all based on various NON-essential beliefs. For me, this is no different.

That said, I do agree that FE is an important (though NOT a CORE essential) topic. Why? Because a house crumbles if built upon a faulty foundation. If Genesis 1 is bogus, then with what sort of foundation are we left? And sorry, but there simply is NO WAY to get a spinning, heliocentric, globular Earth hurling through an ever expanding vacuum of space out of anything in Genesis 1 (nor anywhere else in Scripture).

But frankly, this is not the only difficulty people have with Genesis. In the Creation account, you have an entire universe created in six literal days – and it’s made primarily by WORDS. Then you have a man being formed from dirt. A woman coming from said man’s rib. You have magical trees and a talking snake who gets the first humans to fall into “sin” by eating some fruit, which will condemn all future generations… and all this just in the first 3 chapters! By any “scientific” worldview, this is all total nonsense. Yet, most of us claim it as self-evident fact and believe it.

Reading further, any reasonable scholar who looks at Genesis 6 (and the MASSIVE amount of historical supporting evidence) confesses to a belief in angels mating with women to produce giants. Then, there’s a world-wide Flood, which is survived by 8 people, who built an ark and put representatives of every animal in it for safety (along with all the plants needed for food). A few hundred years later, a dude builds a “high tower to reach into heaven” and YHWH puts a stop to it by confounding their languages. Not long thereafter, YHWH picks a dude to be His primary representative and tells him to cut off the tip of his penis in order to seal the deal. Yeah… like that’s not weird.

On the surface, let’s face it, the first 15 chapters of Genesis are patently absurd to the unbelieving, “scientific” world. And yet, it’s these same 15 chapters, which form the foundation for the WHOLE STORY that plays out through the end of the book of Revelation. It’s the Act 1 set up to the classic three Act story arc. And it is precisely for this reason that the enemy has done all he can to try and utterly destroy or marginalize what’s in those 15 chapters.

So, when we really get down to it, regardless of FE cosmology, if you really think about what we believe (and I didn’t even mention the talking donkey, floating axe, people chillin’ out in a fiery furnace or den of lions, a man walking on water, Who later willingly allows Himself to be murdered in the most painful way imaginable – in order to redeem the sin of eating a piece of fruit offered by a talking snake. This same Savior then raises from the dead and is later going to split the sky and come to us on a flying horse, followed by a massive floating city), at this point, it’s kind of hard for us to call anything “crazy” while still believing all of that other stuff. So, I’m of the “embrace the madness” mindset. When it comes to Scripture, it’s all or nothing for me.

But I might add, they (the secular “science” community) aren’t much better – what with their belief in beer bubble universes exploding from microscopic dots, creating man from goo to you by way of the zoo and a host of other related nonsense. They have just as many (if not more) waaaaay out there, crazy beliefs than we do. So, to be brutally honest, NO ONE has the intellectual high ground here. You simply have to pick which brand of “crazy” you think best.

As for me and my house, I’m going with Scripture. Let God be true and every man a liar. But in order to do so, I can’t wed Scripture to the nonsense of “science falsely so-called.” And that’s precisely what MOST Christians/Torah folks are doing when they embrace modern cosmology and try to defend it with Scripture. They are forcing star-shaped pegs into circular holes. It’s just not going to work. The two world-views are not even remotely compatible. And to try to force them into agreement is simply not good scholarship, nor is it being intellectually honest with the text, oneself, or the audience.

Share

Cancer Health Rant

Share

An Epiphany Outside of Environmentalism’s “New Approach” to Wildlife Management

With very little effort and a clear, open mind, it is obvious that when it comes to wildlife management things aren’t looked at in the same way as the tried and proven ways which created the foundation for the North American Model of Wildlife Management. It may, however, come as a surprise to many readers that this new environmentalist’s way of talking about wildlife management is a planned event and not something that just evolved over time – certainly not the result of real scientific research.

What is amazing, to me anyway, is when groups and individuals mired in the muck of environmentalism’s new approach to wildlife management, are forced to see what isn’t intended to be seen in this new approach. It shows itself as some kind of epiphany, as though because of lack of knowledge due mostly to a prohibition of access to historical documentation constructed from the actual scientific process, tested over decades and centuries of time, a moment of brilliance comes bursting through the muddled mess of what today we call modern wildlife management.

We catch a glimpse of this at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) where when it was discovered that winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) were numerous and killing off the state’s moose herd, modern wildlife management’s “new approach” declared the cause was global warming. Every echo chamber around the world wanted to reverberate the woes of man-caused global warming and yes, “we’re all gonna die!” Their emotional claims for cures demanded that the only way to mitigate this winter tick problem that is killing moose populations everywhere was to somehow find a “cure” for global warming – a condition that does not exist in the context of how it is being sold.

Maine began a moose study – determined, it was said, to get at the root causes of what was really reducing the moose population. I have been most pleasantly surprised to discover that Maine’s moose biologists dared break with the mold of “Climate Change ate my homework” and suggested what has been known for a long, long time what was stated by an Alaskan moose biologist in recent years, that the ONLY way to mitigate the winter tick problem is to reduce the population of moose.

In George Smith’s recent column he writes of a book, recommended to him by Maine’s Wildlife Division Director (White as a Ghost by Dr. Bill Samual) who is quoted as saying in his book, “As moose and tick numbers build, moose harvest by hunters is far more appropriate and humane than invasive harvest by winter ticks. We should be able to moderate some of the damage caused by winter ticks for moose by managing moose at below die-off levels.”

(Author’s Note: To dispell the critics who will want to claim that my call, and that of MDIFW’s, to reduce the moose population is rooted in the desire to hunt and kill more moose. For the control of ticks, it must be realized that once a “die-off level” is reached through controlled harvest, that die-off level will need to be maintained even while it changes and fluctuates up and down. That’s what real, responsible wildlife management is.)

Perhaps we can see a bit of this “new approach” to wildlife management in the attitude shown in what Smith writes: “And while this book was published in 2004, it is still very informative and pertinent to our moose/tick problem.” I find it a near incurable disease that has infested academia and every institution that employs science – a refusal to research historic documents, accounts, scientific research, etc. as though it was worthless because it is so old. In this case, the author seems to indicate that observations and documentation of Dr. Samuel aren’t dangerous to the new approach narrative of wildlife management even though it is an ancient history of some 14 years.

In my own research about winter ticks, because of the lack of any modern studies on ticks, I spent the majority of my time reading and studying the ones that have existed for many years. These old documents proved then that global warming could not be the cause of increased tick populations. This is valuable knowledge that should never be discarded because of age even if new studies want to suggest something else.

Some honest effort, with a goal of seeking the truth rather than propping up the new scientismic pathway, can reveal many useful things. This must begin with an attitude that historical scholarship isn’t useless, outdated material – it is the foundation of the Scientific Process.

Instead, we see here where it appears that some miraculous epiphany has caused the resulting talking points to become one of a need to reduce the moose population to solve much of the tick problem rather than wasting time with the mythological Climate Change fantasy.

Maybe the scientific process ruled in this case of the Maine moose study. Perhaps the efforts made and what appears to be a daring and honest assessment of what’s going on has helped to restore my faith that there are still glimmers of hope in wildlife management – that it hasn’t completely gone to the environmental dogs…yet.

These epiphanies present themselves as though a discovery was made, and something is written as old as 2004 supports that discovery. It should be the other way around. That is the scientific process. But, if you don’t know and have not researched the scientific process, this is what we see. In this case, it appears as though a correct conclusion has been reached despite lack of historic scientific knowledge.

There should be a great takeaway from this. We will see.

Share

Chemically Altered Apathetic Pathetic Intellectual Reality =Enhanced Stockholm Syndrome

Share

The Poison In Every Cup And Every Bite

Share

Why The Left Loves and Hates Science

Scienticism is science without skepticism. It takes the ideas of science and uses them to create an infallible belief system that gives our lives meaning and dictates how we should live those lives.

In other words, a religion.

Contrary to popular disbelief, a religion doesn’t need a god. It does need some things. A creation myth that explains our lives. An enlightened leadership. The conviction that every person’s actions matter. Redemption, salvation and damnation. Miracles. An imminent apocalypse. A prophesized golden age.

Scientism offers all these things and more. Its creation myths inevitably lead to philosophies about our place in the universe. Its miracles are technological. Its heroes have super powers or spaceships. Global warming is on its way to destroy us. And only recycling and green energy can save us from the climate apocalypse. Its truths are infallible because they are prophesized by PhD’s wielding hockey stick graphs.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Yahweh the one and only true Creator is cast as an incompetent idiot without wisdom and is to be replaced by the worship of men of Scientism. This namely is the root source of Atheism…”You Can Be As God..”

Share

Maine’s Bald Eagles Not “Big Game” So Worthy of Population Counting?

What a mixed bag of contradictory statements that come from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). We heard recently that MDIFW intends to shift its focus from keeping track of population densities of the state’s deer, moose, bear, and turkey and concentrate more on the health of these designated “big game” animals.

Evidently, Maine’s bald eagles are not “big game” nor are the piping plovers, as we discovered here, and so they deserve to be counted and kept track of in order that biologists can…can…can… better manage them? Because they are NOT going to be hunted?

A recent press release from MDIFW tells us that the Department is undertaking a bald eagle “survey” – something they do every 5 years. The release states: “Biologists are looking to determine the current eagle population; determine whether the eagle population has increased, slowed, or stabilized; evaluate changes in breeding abundance and occupancy rates and compare occupancy rates in traditional eagle nesting territories based on habitat protection.”

Sounds pretty smart to me!

Will this effort tell the biologists the overall health of the bald eagle? It would appear so. So why is MDIFW counting eagles and piping plovers and are not going to place as much effort on counting “big game” species? Is it because eventually, the move will be toward deer, bear, moose, and turkeys not being hunted?

If this focus on health is going to be the new scientismic approach to big game management, then, as the spokesman for MDIFW said, it gives the managers “more flexibility” in how they manage big game. We should then focus on the intent and purpose of “flexibility.”

Flexibility in government bureaucratic management historically has meant a chance to do whatever you want to do with less accountability for what it is you are doing. It also affords a chance to more easily cave into the demands of those whose power can make life uncomfortable. Of course, that “flexibility” is never presented in such a fashion. Instead, it is revealed to the public as some modernistic approach to new science that will make things better.

Unfortunately, this is never the case and will not be in this sense. It appears to me that seeking flexibility, or not having to account for numbers in wildlife as a baseline to successful species management, to go hand in hand with the continued migration of the purpose of wildlife management from supporting sustainable game herds to environmentalism’s non-consumptive over protection, is the real goal here…even if managers and biologists haven’t a clue as to what they are doing and for whom they are doing it.

Think indoctrination institutions!

However, the same press release indicates that perhaps MDIFW will decide whether or not they need to keep counting eagles: “The findings of this study will also be used to re-evaluate the future needs for monitoring of Maine’s breeding eagle population or determine whether to modify the 5-year aerial survey census that has been ongoing since 2008.”

If it is determined that there is no need to continue 5-year counting surveys, does that mean a shift toward general health evaluations instead? And if health evaluations are the focus, like with deer, bear, moose, and turkeys, I want to know how then managers will know how many of these creatures need looking out for? When they know numbers are low, counting is vital to the recovery of the animal. Is this then the new tactic – to wait until numbers of deer, moose, bear, and turkey “seem to be” so low protective measures must be implemented along with 5-year counting surveys? Are we not returning to the beginning stages of fish and game management of 150 years ago?

It would seem there is some middle ground here somewhere and perhaps that is what MDIFW is trying to do. But please, for those of us with a brain that works well enough to know the differences, do tell me that shifting management tactics from numbers to health offers more “flexibility.” I just am not going to buy it.

Can we back up and then move on?

Share

4 Ways The State Crime Labs Can Screw You

Share

Globe vs Flat Earth Debate

Share