Friday, July 27, 2012

Abortion clinics in Pennsylvania must now meet outpatient surgical center standards

We think that clinics is where healing takes place. At abortion "clinics", healing is definitely not on the agenda, just the opposite.

What happened on June 27th is that Act 122 of 2011 went into effect in the state of Pennsylvania. Now, surgical abortion facilities in the state face tough new regulations and oversight that are forcing some out of business. Those that remain in the death business face serious scrutiny and regular inspections - the lack of which for nearly two decades led to the terrible Gosnell "House of Horrors" abortion scandal.

More than three-quarters of abortion clinics are located in black and minority communities. Abortion is the leading killer of African-Americans, greater than all causes combined.

It's hard to forget. Countless numbers of late-term babies were born alive, moving, breathing - only to have their spinal cords cut with scissors by this so-called "doctor," Kermit Gosnell or one of his underlings. Women died, or were left sterile, maimed or suffering from venereal diseases passed on through unclean surgical instruments. Multiple murder charges were filed, and trials are underway.

And the grand jury reported that "from the highest levels of former-Governor Ridge's administration," (in 1995) a decision was made not to inspect or oversee abortion clinics in Pennsylvania. Thus, this lucrative industry was given free rein for nearly two decades under Pennsylvania governors Ridge (Republican) and Rendell (Democrat).

Thankfully, neither of those "pro-choice" governors was still in office when the grand jury report came out. Pennsylvania's new governor, Tom Corbett (Republican), ran on a pro-life platform, and in one of his first official acts after being sworn in, he took swift action that included dismissal of some bureaucrats implicated, and instituted emergency inspections of all abortion clinics in the state. He also ordered more regular scrutiny on the clinics.

Last year, the Pennsylvania Senate Health Committee met to consider legislation. They found an expert OB-BYN physician, who provided compelling testimony. He made it abundantly clear that there was simply no reason that an abortion clinic should not have to meet the same health and safety standards that every other outpatient surgical center must meet. He had the facts and medical expertise to back it up.

Despite the fact the African-Americans are the group that suffers most from the abortion, their lawmakers are captive to special interests: their party, and the abortion industry. However, there was one African-American lawmaker who did vote for the new regulations. Rep. Margo Davidson (Democrat, Delaware County), made moving speech on the House floor. She said, in a quavering voice:

"I am supporting House Bill 574 on behalf of my cousin who was killed at the Gosnell clinic."

The bill became law, and starting on June 27th, 2012, it begins to bear fruit!

New legislation has now started moving to require abortionists to allow women to see the ultrasound image of their unborn child before an abortion (basic informed consent). Planned Parenthood and their allies cried "rape!" Really!

The news media parroted these charges of "rape," and emails from across the country flooded the Pennsylvania Capitol. Many lawmakers got cold feet.

Please pray for this cause to move forward. It is the cause of life, the defense of religious freedom, and for God's design for family and marriage.

(excerpted from Michael Geer, Pennsylvania Family Institute, June 27, 2012 newsletter)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

Friday, July 20, 2012

The atheist alternative to God: Exactly ZERO

The laws of physics could have created the universe from nothing, according to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss in his recent book.1

To support this idea, Krauss and other Big Bang scientists appeal to the well-known phenomena of “virtual particle” creation and annihilation, also known as a quantum fluctuation. These subatomic particles appear and then disappear over such short time intervals that they cannot be directly observed. The short lifetimes of these virtual particles are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which says that a short-lived state cannot have a well-defined energy. The greater the energy of the fluctuation, the shorter the time that it may last.  Without HUP, another Big Bang might occur at just about any time...

The universe itself is the result of such a fluctuation, according to Krauss and other evolutionary physicists. Of course, the energy content of the universe would be so large that the corresponding fluctuation time would be vanishingly small. Evolutionary physicists argue, however, that if the total energy content of the universe were exactly zero, then a universe resulting from such a quantum fluctuation could persist indefinitely without violating the HUP.

Exactly Zero is all that is required.

In order to verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have to account for all the forms of energy in the universe (gravitational potential energy, the relativistic energies of all particles, etc.), add them together, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero.

However, if you are not already committed in advance to the Big Bang theory, it is not at all clear that the universe’s total energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Zero chance, shall we say?

Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to somehow pop into existence.

Why do atheistic physicists naively assume that rules like the HUP would even apply when describing the universe’s creation? Since the HUP is known to be valid only within or inside our universe, it is not at all clear why they would assume that the HUP would even apply when discussing our universe’s creation. One can engage in all kinds of speculation here, but such speculation is not science.

These supposed higher laws of physics must have an existence apart from the universe. But this presents a dilemma for the atheist like Carl Sagan, who famously said “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”2

Despite the impressive academic credentials of those promoting the “universe from nothing” idea, the scenario is utterly unreasonable, and no Bible-believing Christian should be intimidated by these “vain imaginations.”

Christians believe in a great God who created all things ex nihilo (out of nothing).
Atheists are forced to believe in an Exact Zero that created all things out of nothing.


(selections from Jake Hebert, A Universe from Nothing? Acts & Facts, July 2012, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References (selected)

1. Krauss, L. 2012. A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press.

2. Sagan, C. 1985. Cosmos. New York: Ballantine Books, 1.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Conscience and Morality are proofs that God exists

Ray Comfort's book, How to Know God Exists, argues persuasively for the existence of God. Perhaps his best proof that there is a God is because of conscience and morality. Why are we the only species to have a clear sense of justice? No animal does anything like this. Why does a lie detector (polygraph) work so well to detect lies? The human conscience tells us lying is wrong and we react physically.

How to Know God Exists, by Ray Comfort (selections from book review by Reagan Schrock).

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the book review published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 4, Spring 2012)

If we are simply highly evolved animals, why and how do we know right from wrong? What makes us decide, for example, that murder is wrong? "The problem with atheism, is that it has a shifting morality. There are no moral absolutes. How can there be, when [according to atheism] morality is thought to come through human consensus, rather than divine mandate" (p. 87)? If humans are just biological machines composed of random chemicals that formed over millions of years, there is no reason to believe in moral absolutes.

This is one of the clearest differences between humans and animals. If humans are just animals that are more highly evolved than the rest, why are we the only species to have a clear sense of justice? Why do we punish wrongdoers? No animal does anything like this. If someone is wronged, most of us naturally want to make it right.

"We know right from wrong because the conscience is an impartial judge in the courtroom of the mind. It speaks to us irrespective of our will" (p. 87). This is why a lie detector (polygraph) works so well to detect lies. Our conscience tells us lying is wrong and we react physically. For example, a person's blood pressure and heart rate will spike when he lies and the polygraph picks up the changes. If there were no absolutes, the polygraph would not work because we would not have a conscience to tell us when we err.

Written for the layman and designed to equip believers with answers raised against Christianity, the book is a good evangelistic tool. An atheist who reads this book will have a difficult time holding on to his disbelief.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

Friday, July 13, 2012

Chinese Christians using "superstition" to undermine national law enforcement?

Chinese authorities were careful to confiscate musical instruments and choir robes when they shut down meetings of the Suqian house church and arrested Pastor Shi Enhao on May 31, 2011. He was detained under suspicion of "using superstition to undermine national law enforcement." He was later sentenced without the benefit of a trial in late July to two years in labor camp on a charge of "holding illegal religious meetings."

Members of the Suqioan church meet in small groups around their city. Pastor Shi's detention is evidence that meeting in smaller groups does not guarantee freedom from government interference. After Shi's arrest, police also confiscated donations equivalent to $22,000, according to China Aid Association.

Other church leaders arrested at the same time were released within 24 hours.

We can be thankful to God that now Pastor Shi has been released, in January of this year. It is not known why he was released early, but international pressure is one probable reason.

Shi is now at home with his family, but he remains under government surveillance.

(from Voice of the Martyrs newsletter, May 2012)

Saturday, July 07, 2012

Humanzee? No, scientific bias!

The story is that there is "nearly identical” similarity between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. Does good science support this?

It turns out that a wide assortment of key secular human-chimp DNA research publications have something to hide. All analyzed cases of reported high human-chimp DNA sequence similarity are based on biased data selection and exclusion techniques. DNA sequence data that are too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned are omitted, masked, or completely excluded. Furthermore, gap data within DNA sequence alignments are typically omitted, further biasing similarity estimates. These are the findings of a report by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman in the April 2012 issue of Journal of Creation.

Humanzee? No... Photoshop!
These highly selective data-discarding techniques, fueled by Darwinian dogma, lead to the commonly claimed 98 percent similarity in DNA between human and chimp. Based on the reanalysis of DNA similarity estimates using discarded data in leading secular research publications, it is safe to conclude that genome-wide DNA similarity between human and chimpanzee is not more than 81 to 87 percent identical. These numbers are in good agreement with the range of estimates obtained by independent research at the Institute for Creation Research.1

One must keep in mind that the chimpanzee genome is larger than the human genome by at least 8 percent (based on current data). Therefore, overall genome similarity between human and chimpanzee is most likely lower than 81 percent.

You may remember the "New Math". This is the "New Science" - if you have data that doesn't fit your theory, just hide it somewhere!

Good science should admit that an honest comparison of humans and chimpanzees points not to so-called "natural selection", but to an Intelligent Designer. Who could that be? We have someone out there who has already laid claim to that role - the God of the Bible!

(based on Jeffrey Tomkins, 2012. Journal Reports Bias in Human-Chimp Studies. Acts & Facts. 41 (6): 6.)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References (selected)

1. Tomkins, J. 2011. Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86-89%. Answers Research Journal. 4: 233-241.