Visit (All Calculators are functional.) Over 100 FREE online calculators to use.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Compromises on origins and marriage

Marc Ambler

Link between compromises on origins and marriage

After the abolition of apartheid, under the new ‘broom’ African National Congress Government, in 2006 South Africa became one of the first countries in the world to legalize the ‘mirage’ of same sex marriage. As Creator, God has the right to, and has already defined marriage, and so any claim to a union outside of that definition is just a chimera.

An argument often employed to justify homosexual marriage, was that discrimination against them parallels the discrimination against black people under the apartheid policies of previous South African governments, or the segregation policies prevalent in the U.S. until the 1960’s. South Africa’s first black President, Nelson Mandela, claimed to have turned from believing that homosexuality was wrong to supporting gay marriage based on this comparison.

It is a completely fallacious argument. The unjust policies of apartheid were based upon one’s skin colour (or as we have often pointed out it is shade of colour because all humans actually have the one skin colour). This is something as spiritually irrelevant in the design of God as the shape of one’s nose or eyes, or size of one’s feet. Resistance against homosexual practices is based on actions, on activity; men having sex with men (born with XY chromosomes) and women with women (XX chromosomes).

The truth is that we all discriminate against actions all the time even when it is argued that people ‘cannot help themselves’ feeling a certain way (orientation). Most people making this spurious argument would have no problem with discriminating against people stealing their belongings (trying to stop them or putting them in jail), or against those involved in the trade in rhinoceros’ horn. And so it is not a general argument against action discrimination, but the argument against this particular action of same sex, to which the gay lobby object. Of course, some but not all gay lobbyists argue that people are born homosexual. Besides the growing evidence that the idea of genetic causality in human behaviour is culturally rather than scientifically driven, the fact is that none of us are born having sex.

At some point in our lives we take an action, we choose to have sex with a partner; whether within the biblical confines of marriage between one man and one woman; or the license of pre-marital or adulterous or homosexual or polygamous or the many other perversions of sexual relationships the Bible condemns; which we fallen humans have invented, and to which we are prone, and increasingly excuse or condone in a politically correct charged environment. Article Continues Here
(Denying Evolution) Evolution = Millions Of Years + Your Imagination

Origins and marriage

Friday, April 29, 2016

What is "empowered water"?

What is empowered water?

I wanted to find out about the claim you can also drink it.

The stuff is a simple mixture of table salt and tap water whose ions have been scrambled with an electric current. Researchers have dubbed it electrolyzed water.

It turns out that zapping salt water with low-voltage electricity creates a couple of powerful yet nontoxic cleaning agents. Sodium ions are converted into sodium hydroxide, an alkaline liquid that cleans and degreases like detergent, but without the scrubbing bubbles. Chloride ions become hypochlorous acid, a potent disinfectant known as acid water.

A question was asked: is empowered water safe to drink as the company claims?

Why in the world would you want to drink a product that has a catchy name without knowing what is in it? Septic tank cleaning companies were known as the "Honey Wagon". Would you drink the liquid from that truck - obviously not since you know what sewage is, so don't fall for clever marketing as so many consumers are wont to do.

Can you drink empowered water?


I would not drink the zerorez "empowered" water. I think its a lot of hype that causes you to want to get your carpet cleaned using zerorez.

Is it better? I don't think so. Read the carpetguru10 blog below and research zerorez yourself.

Carpet Guru10 Has Much information about zerores and empowered water.

The low down on ZEROREZ® and their Empowered Water™

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Woodpecker Owl (Evolution doublespeak explained)

Woodpecker Owl Story

Whats the difference between a "woodpecker owl" and an owl catching a woodpecker. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Example evolution theory explaination of the "woodpecker owl".

The evolutionary relationships of the woodpecker and woodpecker owls are not entirely clear. What is certain is that they are very closely related; they may be considered sister lineages that evolved over millions of years retaining their characteristic woodpecker sound.

Click here to listen to a woodpecker owl: "Woodpecker Owl" Sound (screech owl)

Click here to see an Actual evolved "woodpecker" owl??

A screech woodpecker owl fossil from the Late Pliocene of Kansas (which is almost identical to eastern and western screech woodpecker owl) indicates a longstanding presence of these birds in the Americas, woodpecker owl fossils very similar to the Eurasian woodpecker owl that have also recently been found in Stephen Hawkings backyard!

Where did this idea come from? (The FineTunedUniverse Webmaster.)

I was talking to a lady about her recent field trip with some children out in the woods with a "guide". She was excited to have heard an owl making a sound. She asked the guide what it was and he said, IT WAS A WOODPECKER ?!?!?

I told her I never heard of a woodpecker that sounds like an owl. She said that she didn't think the "guide" was correct.

After I got home I looked up some information about owls and found out there is an owl that sounds a little like a woodpecker. It is the male screech owl. It EATS small birds of prey including woodpeckers. Just because there is an owl that sounds a little like a woodpecker don't get confused and really think there is a "Woodpecker Owl". Owls do eat woodpeckers and other birds.

(Note that I did not say I found a woodpecker that sounds like an owl but an owl that sounds a little like a woodpecker.)

Have you ever heard of a woodpecker that sounds like an owl? No you have not. You would stop and think how silly the idea is and how it is NOT LOGICAL.

My point is people who teach evolution will tell you its possible that a woodpecker could evolve into an owl over "millions of years" and become a "woodpecker owl" that sounds a little like a woodpecker on the basis of a fossil alone.

If you stop and THINK about the "millions of years" and how silly and illogical the idea is you begin to understand its no different that a "woodpecker owl" that makes NO sense.

"Historical evolution science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology.

Evolution theory is based on speculation about what is observable today plus millions of years. Evolution masks itself as "real science". It is NOT real science but speculation based on a world view of "millions of years". Evolution cannot design intelligence.

Evolution is a belief about history. It involves events that cannot be repeated or reproduced in the laboratory, so it does not depend on science in the usual sense of the word.

"Real science" is a term for any science that deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present

Evolutionists try to prove things have existed for millions of years through various ways including misleading carbon dating methods etc as real science.

Creationists try to prove what is observable today is validated by what the Bible tells us about Creation in 6 days. Real science helps validate the bible creation as God has revealed to us in Genesis.

Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same data. (They interpret the data based on their world views and what they believe.)

The evolutionists world view of "millions of years" must be included in their evolution theory explainations and cannot be validated.

The creationisits world view of 6-8 thousand years is validated by the Bible and real science.

The question is what will you believe? Evolution speculation of "millions of years" or what God has revealed in his Word?

The ultimate authority about Creation is the Word Of God and NOT evolution disguised as historical "science"

Evolution is a Religion (Taught in public schools as "science")

Evolutionists also overcome the evidence of creation and intelligent design by a redefinition of science that makes science and naturalism the same thing, and the evidence unimportant. The new definition is: "Science is the search for natural solutions,"People whose religion is naturalism are now widely using the new definition. by a redefinition of science that makes science and naturalism the same thing, and the evidence unimportant. The new definition is: "Science is the search for natural solutions,"People whose religion is naturalism are now widely using the new definition.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Transgender Bathrooms

(People can call themselves anything. They can identify with anything. A man who wants to be a woman calls himself transgender but he is still a man.

His genes and dna can't be changed. He was born a man and not a woman or a transgender.

The same is for a woman who wants to be a man. Her genes and dna can't be changed. She was born a woman and not a man or a transgender.

God didn't create a transgender. Her created a male and female.

Today as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah homosexuals/trangenders, blinded in the commission of sin are searching for transgender doors and wearing themselves out hoping to find someone they can prey on like an animal. They seek recognition and acceptance as a "New" gender creation. God has warned them in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.")

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?

The sin of Sodom

The first mention, and the first overt condemnation, of homosexuality takes place in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When the angels come to investigate the sinfulness of the people there, it is evident that Lot knows the angels are in danger because of the urgency with which he pleads that they spend the night in his house, and not in the open square. He may have wanted to get them inside before anyone noticed the newcomers, but word had spread to the whole town, and they gathered outside his house that night.

The universality of the description is impossible to miss—all of the men, rich and poor, young and old, gathered outside the house and demanded that Lot give up his guests. They bluntly demanded that Lot bring out his guests so that they could rape them. In that culture, hospitality was a sacred duty, and Lot was obliged to defend his guests, even if it cost his own life. So he goes out and pleads with them, even offering his own daughters instead of his guests. It’s possible he was making a bad choice endangering his daughters, or it’s possible he knew the crowd had no interest in women and he was simply trying to buy time. Either way, the crowd responded by trying to break in, but the angels protected Lot and struck the whole crowd blind.

Most people, if they were suddenly blinded in the commission of a heinous sin, as well as all their accomplices, would at least pause to consider the extraordinary coincidence. But this did not deter them—in fact, the text says that they went on trying to find the door for so long that they wore themselves out! The picture is certainly one of immorality run amok.

Some who want to soften the condemnation of homosexuality say that it was the intended rape, not the homosexuality, that was the sin, and point to Ezekiel 16 for a definition of the ‘actual’ sin of the Sodomites. However, we should not interpret Scripture in such a way to make it contradict itself. Ezekiel gives a fuller picture of the sin of Sodom, without contradicting the story of the city’s destruction:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it (Ezekiel 16:49–50).

The homosexual sin of Sodom is presented as a culmination of the growing sinful decadence of the city. Lesser sins preceded it, such as refusing to aid the needy when they themselves had more than enough. But the word “abomination” clearly refers to the homosexual sin which resulted in its destruction.

The New Testament also discusses Sodom in a few places:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority (2 Peter 2:4–10).

Peter was writing to encourage Christians who were experiencing persecution because of their faith. His argument proceeds:

God punished the angels who sinned, and destroyed the world with a global Flood, but preserved Noah and his family.
God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but preserved righteous Lot; therefore
God can keep the unrighteous under judgment and rescue the godly from trials.

Jude says:

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Jude was warning his congregation against false teachers, so he gave examples of other people who were judged for unbelief and immorality.

Peter and Jude don’t argue that Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked; they assume it based on everything the Old Testament says about them. So the entire testimony of Scripture is that Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked cities, and that homosexuality was the sin they were destroyed for.

These 4 sermons make it clear what the Bible says about homosexuality. If you are a Bible believer these messages will help and encourange you in your understanding of what God says in the Bible about homosexuals. It is a sin and will be judged by the Word Of God. Take the time to listen and learn.

These are MP3 files that can be downloaded also.  (Click On Links To Listen.)

Christian Perspective On Supreme Court Ruling On Same Sex Marriage Part 1 (1 HR 6 Min)  (Right Click To Save)

Christian Perspective On Supreme Court Ruling On Same Sex Marriage Part 2 (1 HR 21 Min)  (Right Click To Save)

Rightly Related to Sodom Part 1 (1 HR 8 Min)  (Right Click To Save)

Rightly Related to Sodom Part 2 (1 Hr 5 Min)  (Right Click To Save)

Monday, April 4, 2016

Shocking Results from Fluoride Tests On Top Brands of Bottled Water

Shocking Results from Fluoride Tests On Top Brands of Bottled Water


Water tested, with the results below.

Glaceau Smart Water was Distilled- .00 ppm (This is available at SAM's) No fluoride plus it is a zero calorie, vapor distilled, electrolyte- enhanced water (added electrolytes: potassium, magnesium, calcium)

The bottled water below have fluoride in the water. Fluoride is a poison. I once called my local water supplier and ask how much fluoride was in the tap water. He told me it was not as much as it used to be. I also asked him if he knew it was a poison. He said he did but that it was added in such a small amount that it should be ok.

The story is flouride is added to water to help prevent tooth decay. The real story is fluoride does not prevent tooth decay and water systems are a dumping ground for an industrial waste byproduct

Ice Mountain- .11 ppm
Family Gourmet- .14 ppm
Dasani- .16 ppm
Propel- .17 ppm
Deja Blue- .17 ppm
Crystal Geyser- .31 ppm
Fiji- .35 ppm

VOSS .25 ppm
Kiwaii .04 ppm
Aqua was .13 ppm

Kroger was .00 ppm (It is distilled.) This has no fluoride also.)

Evian was .00 ppm As well. (Natural mineral water) This has no fluoride also plus natural minerals ie electrolytes.) Evian Water

(When you drink water that has no electrolytes your body needs these replaced. It makes good sense to drink water that has electrolytes such as Glaceau Smart Water or Evian. You don't need to drink gator aid to get electrolytes, drink water that has electrolytes! These are what I recommend.)

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

Don't drink ANY tap water. It accumulates in the body so any amount you injest is a hazard to your health. Don't cook with it.

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001).

Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006).

Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic.

There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste.

Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.

The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical.

Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.


Fluoride: Highly toxic waste byproduct of "aluminum"

The main fluoride chemical added to water today is hydrofluorosilicic acid an industrial by-product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is what is added to drinking water. It is untreated toxic waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry added to city tap water, and has trace amounts of other toxins in the waste including arsenic and heavy metals. Fluoride is classified as a neurotoxin, just as harmful as lead and aluminum to the human developing brain

Fluoride given to rats has been proven to cause bone cancer, liver cancer, and a host of other physical ailments.