From Anguish Languish to English Language: Trains-lading debt Furry Tail avowed Beers into a Fairy Tale about Bears

 It's been decades since I first posted Furry Tails to this blog, and since most of my readers are from countries other than the one in which Anguish Languish was first published, I thought I'd do them the favour of translating this one into Standard English. Here, then, is Goldy Locks and the Three Bears:

Wants pawn term dare worsted ladle gull hoe hat search putty yowler coils debt pimple colder Guilty Looks. Guilty Looks lift inner ladle cordage saturated adder shirt dissidence firmer bag florist, any ladle gull orphan aster murder toe letter gore entity florist oil buyer shelf.

Once upon a time there was a little girl who had such pretty yellow curls that people called her Goldy Locks. Goldy Locks lived in a little cottage situated at a short distance from a big forest, and a little girl often asked her mother to let her go into the forest all by herself. 

“Guilty Looks!” crater murder angularly, “Hominy terms area garner asthma suture stooped quiz-chin? Goiter door florist? Sordidly NUT!”

“Wire nut, murder?” wined Guilty Looks, hoe dint peony tension tore murder’s scaldings.

“Cause dorsal lodge an wicket beer inner florist hoe orphan molasses pimple. Ladle gulls shut kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol, an stare otter debt florist! Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle gull!”

Wail, pimple oil-wares wander doe wart udder pimple dum wampum toe doe. Debt’s jest hormone nurture. Wan moaning, Guilty Looks dissipater murder, an win entity florist.

"Goldy Locks!" cried her mother angrily, "How many times are you going to ask me such a stupid question? Go to the forest? Certainly NOT!"

"Why not, mother?" whined Goldy Locks, who didn't pay any attention to her mother's scoldings.

"'Cause there's a large and wicked bear in the forest who often molests people. Little girls should keep away from that kind of animal, and stay out of that forest! That forest's much too dangerous for a little girl!"

Well, people always want to do what other people don't want them to do. That's just human nature. One morning, Goldy Locks disobeyed her mother and went into the forest. 

Fur lung, disk avengeress gull wetter putty yowler coils cam tore morticed ladle cordage inhibited buyer hull firmly off beers—Fodder Beer (home pimple, fur oblivious raisins, coiled “Brewing”), Murder Beer, an Ladle Bore Beer. Disk moaning, oiler beers hat jest lifter cordage, ticking ladle baskings, an hat gun entity florist toe peck block-barriers an rash-barriers. Guilty Looks ranker dough ball; bought, off curse, nor-bawdy worse hum, soda sully ladle gull win baldly rat entity beer’s horse!

'Fore long, this adventurous girl with her pretty yellow curls came to a modest little cottage inhabited by a whole family of bears--Father Bear (whom people, for obvious reasons, called Bruin), Mother Bear, and Little Boy Bear. This morning, all the bears had just left a cottage, taking little baskets, and had gone into the forest to pick blackberries and raspberries. Goldy Locks rang a door bell, but, of course, nobody was home, so the silly little girl went boldly right into the bear's house!

Honor tipple inner darning rum, stud tree boils fuller sop—wan grade bag boiler sop, wan muddle-sash boil, an wan tawny ladle boil. Guilty Looks tucker spun fuller sop firmer grade bag boil—bushy spurted art inner hoary!

“Arch!” crater gull, “Debt sop’s toe hart—barns mar mouse!”

Dingy traitor sop inner muddle-sash boil, witch worse toe coiled. Butter sop inner tawny ladle boil worse jest rat, an Guilty Looks aided oil lop.

Dingy nudist tree cheers—wan anomalous cheer, wan muddle-sash cheer, an wan tawny ladle cheer. Guilty Looks set darn inner ladle cheer, bushy worse toe bag ferret, ant soddenly bustard.

On a table in the dining room stood three bowls full of soup--one great big bowl of soup, one middle-sized bow, and one tiny little bow. Goldy Locks took her spoon full of soup from a great big bowl, but she spit it out in a hurry!

"Ouch!" cried the girl, "That soup's too hot--burns my mouth!"

Then she tried the soup in a middle-sized bowl, which was too cold. But the soup in a tiny little bowl was just right, and Goldy Locks ate it all up. 
Then she noticed three chairs--one enormous chair, one middle-sized chair, and one tiny little chair. Goldy Locks sat down in a little chair, but she was too big for it, and it suddenly busted. 

Clamming upper stars tutor beer’s bet-rum, Guilty Looks dish-cupboard tree bets—wan grade bag bet, wan muddle-sash bet, an wan tawny ladle bet. Failing torrid, shay flunker shelf honor ladle bet, an, jester cobbler menace letter, worse sunder slip an snorting.

Climbing up a stairs to the bear's bedroom, Goldy Locks discovered three beds--one great big bed, one middle-sized bed, and one tiny little bed. Feeling tired, she flung herself on a little bed, and, just a couple minutes later, was sound asleep and snoring. 

Inner ladle wile, donors offer cordage cam beck firmer barrier-pecking extradition, currying baskings fuller rash-barriers. Whinny entity darning rum, Fodder Beer stuttered snuffing an gruelling tomb shelf.

“Warts ban goring earn hair?” crumpled dole beer, “Conjure small psalm-sing deferent a boarder horse?”

“Crashes!” crater murder beer, ashy castor quack glands adder tipple, “Hose ban muddling wet debt sop?”

Ladle Bore Beer stuttered crayon.

“Jest locket mar ladle boiler sop—oil garbled dope! An locket mar itchy pitchy cheer—oil bustard!”

In a little while, the owners of the cottage came back from their berry-picking expedition, carrying baskets full of raspberries. When he entered the dining room, Father Bear started sniffing and growling to himself. 
"What's been going on here?" grumbled the old bear, "Can't you smell something different about the house?" 
"Gracious!" cried mother bear, as she cast a quick glance at the table, "Who's been meddling with that soup?"
Little Bear started crying. "Just look at my little bowl of soup--all gobbled up! And look at my itty-bitty chair--all busted!"

Locking adder bustard cheer, Murder Beer bay-gander gat historical, an stuttered hurling tore horsebarn:

“Brewing! Brewing! Way gut BURGHERS inner horse. HORSE BURGHERS! Quack! Coiler place! Wail, dun stun dare lacking end-bustle during nosing! Coiler Place Deportment, quack!”

“Harmer garner coiler Place Deportment wen way dun heifer toiler-fun?” resplendent Brewing, inner trampling verse. “Set darn, worming, an cape quoit! Yore oil-wares thanking dare burghers inner horse!”

Oiler shame, Brewing worse jesters scarred aster udders; infect, haze niece war shagging.

Finely, Fodder Beer gutter grade bag short-gum, Murder Beer gutter muddle-sash haunting raffle, an Ladle Bore Beer gutter tawny ladle pestle, an oiler beers crypt upper stars, ware Guilty Looks worse line honor bet, sunder slip an snorting. Herring door beers, shay weakened, lipped otter door windrow, an dished aware harm jesters fascist shagged scrabble.

Looking at a busted chair, Mother Bair began to get hysterical, and started howling to her husband:
"Bruin! Bruin! We got BURGLARS in the house, HOUSE BURGLARS! Quick! Call a police! Well, don't stand there like an imbecile doing nothing! Call a Police Department, quick!"
"How am I gonna call a Police Department when we don't have a telephone?" responded Bruin, in a trembling voice. "Sit down, woman, and keep quiet! You're always thinking there are burglars in the house! 
All a same, Bruin was just as scared as the others; in fact, his knees were shaking. 
Finally, Father Bear got a great big shotgun, Mother Bear got a middle-sized hunting rifle, and Little Boy Bear got a tiny little pistol, and all a bears crept up a stairs, where Goldy Locks was lying on a bed, sound asleep and storing. Hearing the bears, she wakened, leaped out of the window, and dashed away home just as fast as she could scramble. 

Oiler beers tar darner stars, an ntoe locker doers an windrows.

“Fodder,” aster ladle bore beer, finely, “Wart worse debt discussing crasher honor bet? Wart worse debt ogling ammonol wet oil debt yowler far honor had, an hoe dint half nor far atoll honor beck? Wart worse debt hobble lurking crasher, Fodder?”

Fodder Beer shuttered.

“Comb hair, mar bore. Heresy gut lessen furrier! Debt discussing crasher worsen HORMONE BANG! Kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol! Dare nor gut! Warts mar, are dun wander catcher goring entity florist oil bar yore shelf. Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle beer!”

All a bears tore down a stairs, and started to lock a doors and windows. 
"Father," asked a little boy bear, finally, "What was that disgusting creature on a bed? What was that ugly animal with all that yellow fur on her head, and who didn't have no fur at all on her back? What was that horrible looking creature, Father?"
Father Bear shuddered. 
"Come here, my boy. Here's a good lesson for your! That disgusting creature was an HUMAN BEING!
Keep away from that kind of animal! They're no good! What's more, I don't want to catch you going into the forest all by your self. That forest's much too dangerous for a little bear!"

I translated this as literally as I could, exposing the weakness of the author's use of articles: he failed to distinguish between the definite and indefinite articles, sometime even confusing them with possessive pronouns. I gave him as much latitude as I could in a strict translation (probably even more, by translating 'sop' as 'soup'); using dynamic equivalence-- along the lines of the NIV--would make such inconsistencies disappear entirely. And there could be some dialect of English out there in which they wouldn't be phonemically distinct anyway.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem falsifies Atheism (something I found online)

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem states:

“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

To briefly state the implications of this:

All predictions about the future are inductive. Outside the circle. In Gödel’s language they are “undecidable propositions.” It’s probable you’ll still have your job next week… but maybe you don’t.

All scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws – and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

All closed systems depend on something outside the system.

You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

If you visit the atheist website Infidels, you will find the following statement:

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it."

But according to Gödel’s theorem, every system is dependent on something greater being outside the system. Draper's hypothesis cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause. A cause that is not bound by time, matter, or energy, because it is outside of all those, and they are subject to its control. A cause that cannot itself have any cause, because it is outside the widest circle. A cause that is infinite in every way, because it's not a system that can be encircled. You can call that what you want; I call it God.

Atheism's denial of God flies in the face of a basic law of mathematics.

A review of David Instone-Brewer's Bible Contexts Series - Chapter 20: Cain's "wife"

Dr. David Instone-Brewer is an eminent Bible Scholar in England, one of the experts responsible for the last tranche of changes to the NIV. He knows a lot more than I do about a lot of things, and since he makes it easy to access most of what he writes, I follow him to my advantage--especially in the area of Old Testament Studies, which is his specialty. What I've learned from him, however, are generally facts and insights I hadn't been exposed to before. I don't sit at his feet for much of what he weaves into his teaching, which are just standard tenets of atheism (although I admit, some of them are new to me as well). For although he identifies as an evangelical, he nonetheless looks to atheist scholars and their disciples to inform his interpretation of the Scriptures--and is thus oft led astray.

Dr. D is greatly hampered in his ability to gain insights from the book of Genesis, believing as he does that it was composed as a sort of religious fiction during the Babylonian captivity to inspire Jews not to lose hope in their present situation, or something along those lines. He doesn't believe that it is even intended to be a serious historical record, and certainly not that it was compiled from written eyewitness accounts. There is therefore no apparent limit to the imaginations his mind can supply from a reading of this section of the Scriptures, guided by the speculations of the atheists which lie behind much of his theology. And since he drinks deeply at the font of those who have no access to absolute truth, he all but admits that what he sincerely believes to be true today may be ridiculed a decade or a century from now, as atheist philosophers discard old and unworkable alternative explanations for how the world works, and imagine new ones yet to be disproven. This approach leads him far astray from orthodox understanding. 

Take, for example, his chapter on Cain's Wife. He already reinterprets the first two chapters of Genesis in an atheistic framework, starting with a random humanoid whose ancestral line went back to stardust. He then departs from the atheist narrative just a bit to give God credit for taking this human-looking animal, the pinnacle of billions of years of random evolution, miraculously granting him a human spirit, and then--in a most unusual departure from his involvement of the previous billions of years, and in a biological process we can hardly imagine, much less explain scientifically--splitting off a half-clone which became the first human woman. He then set the newly enlightened couple in special walled enclosure he called Eden and commanded them not to eat a certain fruit. They did so regardless, and as a result they were cast out of Eden to resume their evolutionary progress without any life-sustaining access to the fruit of the tree that conveyed some sort of immortality. And here enters Cain's Wife, who he proposes was a non-human, implying along the way that the host of present mankind must be descended from her.

I hesitate to critique Dr. D in any area of actual OT Studies, as he is an acknowledged expert in both the Hebrew language and rabbinical literature. But here he has left far behind anything directly related to the Hebrew Scriptures to dabble in Evolutionary Biology, in which he is no expert--leaving me on much firmer ground to dispute him. [Edit: he does claim biological expertise based on his undergraduate studies, but then, so could I, having sat for General Science in Bible College.]

I will be interacting in this post with Chapter 20 of his book Bible Contexts which, at least for now, can be found at his website http://www.biblecontexts.com/. He introduces the chapter as follows:

If Cain married someone living outside Eden, this would explain some strange details in Genesis. It would also explain how our gene pool contains so much variation.

---

His book is all about explaining strange details in Genesis with even stranger speculations. He sees a problem with God selecting just two humanoids--really, only one--to begin the human family tree. Although his God is capable of many amazing feats, Dr. D seems constrained by his acceptance of atheist teaching to place the Laws of Nature at a higher tier on the hierarchy than that occupied by Nature's God. The God who could split the first man in half at the sub-cellular level to produce the first woman was nonetheless stumped at providing this pair's descendants with enough genetic variety to produce the four blood types, so He needed to pull in some genes from the neighboring humanoids to pull it off. Thus, Cain's Wife. 

Now Mrs. Cain was not a Neanderthal, mind you--Cain had already inherited those genes from his long-dead humanoid ancestors. What she provided instead was access to the "rich gene pool" that had resulted from millions of years of primate evolution. Dr. D uses a modern analogy to explain why this was not only sufficient, but necessary, if humanity were to survive The Fall:

 Cain could, of course, have married his sister – though the Bible doesn’t say this happened. It is difficult to imagine her wanting to marry a brother (especially the nasty brother who murdered the nice one). Presumably this incest wouldn’t be dangerous like it is today because God could have made sure there weren’t any dangerous recessive genes in Adam’s chromosomes. However, our human race would be very weak if the entire gene pool had been limited to just Adam’s chromosomes. Restricted gene pools often cause problems in overrefined agricultural animals or crop lines because this makes them vulnerable to pests and changes in the environment. This is solved by interbreeding with wild species to reinvigorate the gene pool by introducing more variety.

Here he makes a mistake commonly perpetuated by pseudoscientists, assuming that a genetic bottleneck always results in a dangerously depleted gene pool. The reason modern agricultural crops and animals have depleted gene pools, and wild varieties don't, is precisely the result of human intervention to breed out unwanted variation. Absent that unnatural selection, a fairly robust set of genes will continue to be passed on, even in a small population. But racism is a powerful and primordial urge, such that organisms resist hybridisation and generally seek to mate with creatures most like themselves, resulting in further speciation, as any organisms that depart from the standard in the same direction tend to seek out each other for breeding, leaving an even more depleted genome to their descendants. Were it not for the balancing act of another primordial urge--that of men, having gone forth to conquer, seeking and finding sexual release amongst the females of the conquered races--humans would be much more genetically depleted than we are. 

If I were to hypothesize myself, I would say that God created Adam with two completely different sets of chromosomes, with each of the millions of gene pairs consisting of different alleles. Thus Eve was far more distant from Adam, genetically, than any two humans are today; at the time she was split off from him, she only shared 50 per cent of his genetic material. And if God were powerful enough to pull off forming yet another haploid set for the rest of Eve, then he only shared half of her genome--providing far more diversity than Cain could have brought into the young race by impregnating a distant descendant of the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Adam could well have carried one haploid gene for Type A blood, and one for Type B. We don't even have to split that in half again to get all three of the blood types just among their children, provided that Eve possessed the same. And if, post-Fall, any two of their children ended up with an allele that lacked the information for producing either the A or B antigen, Type O could emerge as early as their grandchildren's generation. It's a stupendous pity that Dr. D, with all his learning, didn't see how God could accomplish this without having Cain interbreed with a non-human. 

       Mutations occur very rarely, unless there are carcinogens present. This is good, because most mutations are dangerous – as seen by the effects of carcinogens. Reproductive cells are protected from mutations by DNA repair mechanisms, which make sure that accidental mutations are rarely passed on to our children. A few do get through – on average sixty-four mutations – though this is tiny compared to the three billion base pairs that are copied perfectly.⁴ However, some of these are so harmful that they result in miscarriage – about 10 percent of pregnancies end this way. So even a small increase in mutation rate would result in a lot more miscarriages.

Dr. D goes on at length to describe just how humanly impossible it would have been for God to actually get the human race going with just two people. Okay, and where does the book of Genesis imply that God can't do anything humanly impossible? This cognitive dissonance would be laughable, did he not with such sincerity lend credence to the atheist hypotheses. Of course, the way heredity works now, in our currently depleted human population, where any two humans on the planet share at least 99.9 per cent of the same genome, does not necessarily speak to how things would have worked back when they shared barely half of that. We don't really have any idea what a genuinely rich gene pool looks like, as the nature of genetic recombination means that some genes go missing with each successive generation, and after several thousands of years, every genome has become depleted to one extent or another--unnatural selection greatly accelerating the process. And since this goes against the collective wisdom of Evolution--which imagines, contrary to all evidence, the gene pool at large becoming progressively richer over time--Dr. D. just isn't going to hear this from his atheist mentors or their disciples.

So whom DID Cain marry? Well, as all scholars have noted, Genesis doesn't say. And why should it? If humanity began with only one man and one woman, and no ape-men to "enrich the gene pool," then of course he married his sister. Anyone with even half a human brain could figure that out with just a little help; there's no need to state the obvious. All we need is the succinct statement of the compiler of Genesis 3 that Eve was "the mother of all living." That leaves no room for any previous races to insert their alleles into the human genome, period. 

Dr. D should have stuck with interpreting and explaining the Bible, and left fairy-tale speculations to those who reject the Genesis account out of theological necessity. 

A review of Contact, an alleged work of science fiction: Part One

I recently had the opportunity to view Contact, a movie that was released over two decades ago—almost the amount of time it would take for a transmission of it to reach the Vega system. I was struck from very early on in the production by the similarities between it and Isaac Asimov's famous story, Nightfall. I have written several posts reviewing that story, which are available here. I suggest reading them now, for background, before going any further. 

Now, I'll start out by saying that although I was aware of the movie when it came out, and that it was discussed in the Christian Media at the time, I've had no thoughts about it whatsoever for the past twenty plus years, so I trust that everything I say here will be uninfluenced by any other reviews. As I review Contact, I'll continue to allude to my earlier observations on this topic, which remain very relevant. Inasmuch as it's a long movie, I'll probably do this review in several installments. But, to begin at the very beginning:

The movie opens with the iconic roar of the MGM lion, framed by the Latin motto, Ars Gratia Artis--Art for Art's Sake. Not a single frame of the actual movie has yet been shown, but already we are being set up to believe that what follows is just pure entertainment--science fiction. But is it? Might there also be a deeper agenda, Art for the Sake of Persuasion? 

We then move into the opening sequence, which is a juxtaposition of animated video and archived audio. The animation is a zoom-out that begins with a satellite view of Cape Canaveral, tracking westward as the sun overtakes it from the east. Meanwhile the audio track is a montage of news broadcasts interrupted by brief bursts of contemporary music, working backward from the present day as the camera recedes from Earth, both tracks accelerating: the animation rapidly passes the Moon, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, Ceres, and Jupiter—already moving much faster than the speed of light—as the audio track has already reached a quarter century before present, to the Watergate Scandal of President Nixon, then immediately on to M.L. King's March on Washington. By the time Jupiter and its moons recede into the background we can hear an announcement of the assassination of President Kennedy. Then, as Saturn fades into the distance, we race through another two decades, passing through the McCarthy Era all the way to the beginning of the American involvement in World War Two. What is being hinted at is that news broadcasts are traveling into space at the speed of light, with the very earliest broadcasts leading the way into the rest of the galaxy. A bit of a stronger hint comes after the disappearance of Saturn, as the sun itself blinks out and we see a rapidly receding series of stars and galaxies as the audio takes us back through the Thirties to the earliest days of Radio. Then the audio itself gradually fades to background static, as we continue to back our way through a dusty nebula and into intergalactic space, where total silence reigns. Other galaxies zoom by with increasing rapidity, until the screen becomes a total blur which resolves into the left eyeball of our protagonist, the young Ellie Arroway. Meanwhile, the audio picks back up again as background static, resolving into the signal of a ham radio she is operating, with her voice now in real time, attempting to make contact with “anyone out there.” Thus the stage is set for a lifetime of hovering over a radio, seeking not only a signal from another rational being, but, most importantly, the opportunity for interaction therewith. And we see her determination as she scans the dials in search of a response, getting encouragement from her father to keep trying—then, when she finally lands a station out of Pensacola, he congratulates her for achieving the “farthest one yet.”

Okay, at this point in the actual screen-acting, we already move from the realm of science to science fiction, because that's just not how the propagation of ham radio waves works. One does not start out pulling in nearby signals, then progressively move to the outer limits on the country, then farther out into the hemisphere, and finally, with “a big enough antenna,” to the other side of the world. The propagation of radio waves on the frequencies of the amateur bands is such that one is actually more likely to land a station a thousand miles away, than an hundred. But, not to let the facts of science get in the way of a good story, the scriptwriters expect us to believe that Ellie will start small, and keep progressing until she is at the point of asking radio operators on the other side of the Universe to “come back.” 

But that's not Ellie's only goal: in the very next scene we see her asking her father, with growing excitement, how far out it is possible to hear: California? Alaska? China? The Moon? Jupiter? Saturn? Suddenly she grows reflective, and asks her dad the question only a ten year old could ask: Could we talk to Mom?

Ah, now the subject of Religion intrudes, because young Ellie is asking an existential question, one immeasurably beyond the reach of the technology that so fascinates her. Science she knows, geography and astronomy she is beginning to understand, but of the Eternal State, she is much the innocent child, asking questions far beyond her ken. Here her father fails her—being unable to give her the answer she wants—because he, like her, only believes in Science, and Science has no answers to any of the deeper questions of life. And here the movie reveals its main argument. Having, at the behest of her father, dismissed the possibility of making contact beyond the grave, Ellie turns to the next best thing: making contact beyond the Solar System. And here we stop to consider the implications.

”Hey Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?” she asks, again in all innocence. “I don't know Sparks, but it seems like if it's just us, that would be an awful waste of space.” And is precisely here that the movie lands on its main theme: this phrase will be repeated at crucial points in the plot, to drive the message home that somewhere, on a cosmic scale, there is a sense that it would be wrong for Earth to be the only populated planet. This doctrine is never proven, nor is there ever even seen any need to prove it. Ellie simply accepts it on faith, and goes on to make it the guiding belief in her life's work, which is to search for, and find, signs of intelligence in outer space. She will run into many obstacles in that quest—the entire plot of the movie consists of her overcoming them, one after the other—but she will never be shaken in her core belief that there MUST be someone else out there—and an unstated corollary to that belief is that they MUST be so immeasurably greater than humankind, both in intelligence and technology, that they will be able to bridge the unbridgeable gulf between us, and make meaningful contact. It only remains for us to let them know we are here, and to devotedly await their response.

Do you see where this is headed? One thing this movie does, and does well, is to demonstrate that humankind is incorrigibly religious: everyone is forced by their very nature to believe in a higher order of beings, ones whose powers and understanding are beyond our comprehension. And the movie will go on to demonstrate our absolute impossibility of approaching these beings using our own abilities, or of comprehending them using our own understanding. Atheistic Science is turned on its head, and shown to be just another religion after all. 

I think that's enough for the first installment; we are now fully seven minutes into a two-and-a-half-hour movie, and in the next scene we will see Ellie instantly transition to Dr. Arroway the astronomer, having finally achieved the ultimate in her muttered ten-year-old goal of "get[ting] a bigger antenna."

The Elizabeth Smart Effect

 Elizabeth Smart is an amazing woman. Abducted at age 14 through her bedroom window one night by a drifter whom her father had hired for some odd jobs, she spent the next nine months being raped several times a day. When she was finally found by investigators hidden in plain sight on the streets of Sandy, Utah, she had been so utterly brainwashed that, thinking her family would never take her back, she initially refused to even admit who she was.
But from that low point, she made an amazing comeback. After making up the year of school she'd missed, she went on to graduate from BYU and flew back from a Mission in France to testify at her abuser's trial for kidnapping and rape. Then, incredibly, she became a journalist for NBC, interviewing women like her who had been kidnapped by sexual abusers. Unlike abuse victims who desire anonymity, she has never been afraid to tell her story and in fact used it to catapult her to national attention, using that platform to advocate against sexual assault.
In honor of Elizabeth and her willingness to share every facet of her horrifying experience, I'm naming a little-understood phenomenon after her: The Elizabeth Smart Effect. Simply put, this is the tendency of traumatic rape victims not to have functioning reproductive systems during the time they are under the control of their abusers. Despite the daily rapes, Elizabeth never fell pregnant until after she had married her legal husband. How could this be?

Some may offer the obvious answer that her abuser wasn't fertile himself, and was thus unable to impregnate her. But what about numerous other victims who demonstrate the same effect? In The Slave Across the Street, Theresa Flores relates her experience of serving as a teenage concubine to an entire underworld crime network for over a year--without ever falling pregnant. And the anecdotes are countless; despite pregnancy resulting from single rapes that happened to coincide with a woman already being fertile, rapes that are part of an ongoing abusive situation really do sometimes seem to shut down a woman's reproductive system, so that she never does go through a fertile cycle until the abuse ends.

More study on this is definitely needed--but will it ever come? The political establishment, particularly the pro-abortion wing, clings desperately to the idea that women who are raped NEED the option of snuffing out of any life that results from that rape, and anyone referencing the Elizabeth Smart Effect is likely to get shouted down--or, in the famous case of Todd Akin, even voted out of office just for mentioning it. If there is a biological phenomenon behind the Elizabeth Smart Effect, isolating it, describing it, and publishing it will face some formidable political hurdles.

Why there's no such thing as a Stone Age Tribe

This post has been percolating for many months, so I decided to go ahead and give it a go now, but subject it to revision as I continue to ponder the question.
Two videos have brought about this rush to print: one a series actually, to which I will get shortly; the other being this National Geographic Special about the Waorani tribe of Ecuador. In a documentary like this, the narrator typically gushes that they live as they did 20,000 years ago, and are just now finally emerging from the Stone Age.
These claims not only have no historical basis; they defy logic. The lifestyle of the Waorani is totally incompatible with the evolutionist's claim that they are descended from people who crossed the Bering Straight tens of thousands of years ago. They make their living by using darts (made from one palm) dipped in poison (scraped from the bark of a certain vine, and only deadly if injected) shot through a blowgun (made from another palm). That, for their meat supply; their vegetable staple is manioc, a domesticated crop that only grows in the tropics. Granted, they have been doing this from time immemorial, but only since their ancestors took up residence in the rain forest of the Amazon. It's impossible that their ancestors could have lived any such way before arriving there--and the forensic evidence from this video series (especially beginning with video #10) indicates that their ancestors only arrived there a few centuries earlier than the conquistadors--and that the people whom they displaced were accomplished agrarians.
Just one of the bits that jumped out at me from the movie was that the "uncontacted" Waorani no longer use stone axes or earthen pots--they trade for steel versions of the same. Only the oldest man in the community can even remember how to use a stone axe, and he made a startling revelation---the tribe had no knowledge of where stone axe heads even came from!  They found the heads abandoned in the jungle by a previous civilisation--just as my sons like to comb newly plowed fields every spring for stone arrowheads--and assumed that they fell from heaven or something. A "stone age" tribe equally dependent on outside civilisation for their axe heads, whether they be of stone or steel--incredible!
Elisabeth Elliot, half of the first team of outsiders to live among the Waorani and record their culture, reported that the Waorani told her their ancestors also had worn clothes, but had eventually abandoned all clothing but for a single string around their loins, and perhaps--to dress up--one around each arm. Obviously their ancestors would have needed quite a bit more than that to make the trek to North America!
The native ability of evolutionists to suspend the use of logic continues to astound me.
Another bit that jumped out to me: an anthropologist, who learned the language from the Waoroni civilised by their contact with Elisabeth Elliot and Rachel Saint, led the documentary team eastward to contact their downriver relatives. His research indicated that 70% of the males in the past five generations had died of homicide (oral history traces this murderous tendency back to a falling out over a tribal celebration about ten generations back). Clearly outsiders who bring in diseases that kill off a quarter, a third, or even half of the population are not the major threat to their continued existence. And those who do survive modern diseases will tend to pass their resistance to the following generations.
Again, a wee bit of logic would be helpful. How could a tribe that has lived on this land, disease-free for centuries, still only number in the hundreds--while the descendants of just a couple dozen men on the Mayflower now number in the tens of millions? Obviously murder, from conception onward, is a serious threat to population growth--in the case of "uncontacted tribes" still numbering only a few hundred individuals, clearly the greatest threat. It is notable that, the documentary reports, word filtered back to the uncontacted members of the tribe--along with the steel pots and axes--that there's no need to kill each other any more; so they've stopped the carnage (else, obviously the team would have never made it back out alive with their footage). Note: Mincaye, who had been one of, if not the oldest man in the tribe for over sixty years, has finally died of old age in his 90's. He manged to live long enough to give up his murderous lifestyle shortly before his life expectancy ran out, and "walk Waogongi's path" for the next two-thirds of his life, and on into the hereafter.
Everything in the documentary trumpets the same thing: this is not an ancient tribe peacefully perpetuating the lifestyle of their ancestors--a way of life under threat only by outside intrusion--but instead, a degenerate community in serious danger of completing the process of self-extinction if they are NOT contacted by outsiders.

Is Answers in Genesis a Christian Ministry?

It's been along time since I wrote about why I won't be going to the Creation Museum, but I recently ran across a public post by a young woman on social media that explains why one of their employees quit and won't be going back. I reproduce it here in full:

My experience of employment at Answers in Genesis

In December 2016, I began work in the housekeeping department at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. I worked for three years as a seasonal employee (working up to 10 months each year, usually 40 hours per week, no benefits) and then the last month, December 2019, as a technically full time employee.
I generally enjoy cleaning, did some fun projects, and liked talking with guests from around the world. But it was often physically demanding and the hours that I worked were always difficult. For the first two years I worked shifts that varied daily from as early as 07:00-15:30 to as late as 13:00 to 21:30, and for the third year I worked 3rd and 2nd shifts.
As a child I grew up visiting the Creation Museum, reading Answers in Genesis books and magazine, watching their videos and even attending the conferences in my teens. As a 20 year old I was very excited to work at what I believed to be a Christian ministry.
During my employment, I did have many positive experiences and made good friends with some very kind people. Workmates helped fix my car, went to the doctor with me, or gave hugs and spent some time with me.
However, there are serious problems with the way that Answers in Genesis operates and especially in the way that it treats employees. I personally experienced and/or had workmates who experienced dishonesty, bullying, overwork, illegal discrimination, harassment, and blackmailing. Here are a few of many examples that I personally experienced:
June 2017. The Creation Museum is open on Sundays, and most employees who work on Sundays are unable to attend church, which forces hypocrisy because they are required upon hire to sign a statement promising to faithfully and regularly attend church.
There are several reasons that I and many workmates thought the Museum and its employees would benefit by being closed on Sunday. One day as we discussed this and considered bringing up our thoughts to management, one of my workmates said a joke about going on strike on a Sunday. We made it clear that we were NOT for a strike, but because we simply said the word “strike”, we were falsely accused of attempting to incite a strike. People who knew me well enough to know that it was something I would not do spoke up for me, and I only received a warning.
January 2018. There was a time during my employment that I struggled with serious physical and mental health problems, to the point that I was suicidal (unfortunately I felt too afraid to tell anyone). As I mopped the bookstore early one morning before the museum opened, a lady who was stocking shelves asked how I was doing and stopped to pray for me for 2-4 minutes, then we both continued with our work. It was going to be a slow day, and no one was in a rush to get things done.
She received a warning from management for “being idle and chatting” for praying for me.
May 2018. Once when my car was broken down, a workmate who happened to get off work at the same time as me gave me a ride home. I’ve known this man for years and have always felt completely safe and comfortable with him. He got into trouble with management for it for zero reason other than that he was alone with a woman, and was forbidden from giving women rides in the future, even when off work.
It would’ve been okay if it had been his own choice, but it was nonsense for AiG to force the Graham rule on him. It resulted in inconvenience for me, and totally unnecessary shame for him.
December 2019. I injured my back one evening while lifting bags of trash. I had to lift them out of a deep container that goes up to my waist, which made it impossible for me to lift while bending my knees rather than my back. I had to lift them out of the container and onto a cart. Most bags had an average weight that I was used to but one was much heavier than usual (it probably weighed more than half my own weight).
I filed an injury report and asked for a rule to be made limiting how much the bags could be filled (I was told that cafe workers filled that bag as much as possible to save themselves time), or that they would have to notify us of unusually heavy bags so that a stronger person could be the one to lift them.
Several days later when I was unexpectedly asked to be on trash duty again, nothing had been done and... so what that I had recently been injured doing that task.
Being short-staffed was always a problem that worsened. For quite some time I was the only person on housekeeping night shift when there should have been 3-4 people, and got very overworked and lonely (it was worth it to me at the time for consistent schedule). By the time I left I was the longest remaining employee in the department besides the manager.
At the end of December 2019, I broke down with a mental health crisis and the physical pain from the back injury, suddenly making me literally unable to work.
I’m glad to finally be out of that situation and wish I had gotten out sooner. I’m not sure how and why I stayed for so long. Part of it was the seasonal opportunity which enabled me to take a couple of months off each year for overseas missions trips. Also, I was used to similar environments and treatment from the past so it felt normal to me. I have a usually quiet and submissive personality, am highly motivated and gave my best effort for work.
I often looked for other jobs in the area, especially so that I could afford my own place to live (AiG is known for its low pay). Except for a couple of times that I stayed with friends who were safe and kind, my living situation was incredibly stressful and is a long story itself.
I also tried a few times to transfer into other positions within AiG and always got either turned down for unknown reasons or talked out of it.
Answers in Genesis has been confronted by many people for mistreating employees, and given professional counsel on how to change. They haven’t cared to listen, and continue to be a corrupt organisation that subsists on manipulation and unconditional submission to authority.
My main purpose for writing this, rather than to confront AiG, is to promote awareness and freedom of thought among the employees. I want them to be able to protect themselves and realise that their personal well-being is massively more important than AiG and its true ambition. A person is a worthy image-bearer created by God, an organisation is not.
Those who know me know that I’m personally very much for making sacrifices for the Gospel, but at AiG the sacrifice is for upper management’s dream to build something “bigger and better than Disney” and awe the public.
“It’s God’s work.”
The talk is contradicted by the walk and even by itself.
I haven’t approached AiG as described in Matthew 18. AiG couldn’t have made it more clear both to myself and to others that it is closed to any criticism or dialogue. While there are some Christians who work at AiG, I do not consider it to be a Christian organisation.
Christians are individual PEOPLE, not families, organisations, or governments.
I haven’t heard this discussed before and think it should be discussed: AiG claims that questions about evolution cause young people to leave Christianity/church. First, leaving church is not necessarily the same thing as leaving Christianity. Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian. Not going to church doesn’t make you not a Christian. It is entirely possible to worship God, listen to Bible teaching, and get regular fellowship/discipleship without attending church services. I’m glad for Christians who attend church services, but I have a problem when they accuse those who don’t of disobeying God.
Second, AiG is the only place that I’ve heard that claim. Since my early teens I’ve talked about Christianity with many people who grew up Christian and later left it, but never has one told me that evolution had anything to do with it.
I think that creation ministries, while they can be somewhat useful, are way over-prioritised and are a huge distraction from helping young people in ways that we actually do need help. The problem of evolution has been turned into a distraction from the real problems in Christianity... whether intentionally or not, I don’t know.
Close friends out west are helping me with a place to rest, heal and get professional help. I’m so grateful for them and for my friends who patiently talk and empathise with me. Trying to process the pain and confusion is quite unpleasant, and at this point thriving is mostly unimaginable to me. I’m honestly struggling in my faith, but I’m sure that with time my relationship with God will be strengthened and I’ll be back to working and sharing the Gospel with people.
I apologise to anyone who feels surprised by this. I didn’t want to openly talk about this because I don’t want to be negative and because of the personal things in it.
I won’t think less of anyone for choosing to use AiG resources, visit the attractions, or work there, however if you actually try to excuse or minimise the abuse then I won’t trust you. AiG preaches good messages and makes a positive impact on some people, and I wish for that to continue. But it does not justify their bad actions against some other people. Only cults teach that good can outweigh bad, and only those who have things to hide have fear when silence is ended.
I love and miss my friends and former workmates at the Creation Museum and am so thankful for you and everything you’ve done to show me kindness. I think of you every day.
Please do think and speak for yourself. It is very hard to recognise the damaging effects of any religious and authoritarian group while being in it.
Be brave. You are meant to live free!
A caution to anyone currently working at AiG: this post will be monitored by AiG. If you publicly comment on or react to this post, you could be targeted by management as others have been in the past.

What is medicine's 5 sigma? by Richard Horton, Published in "The Lancet" 11 April 2015

The following excerpt is taken from a magazine we've covered before, written by the editor himself. I'd link to the page, but I don't expect it to stay up for long.

 “A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations. * The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fi t their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofi t hypotheses to fi t their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct. * Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research red tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profi le errors, the particle physics community now invests great eff ort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication. By fi ltering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 × 10–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are). The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system. Richard Horton richard.h orton@lancet.com

"Evolutionary Hymn," A Poem by Clive Staples Lewis, annotated and explained

I came across this poem attributed to a 1954 letter from C.S. Lewis to Dorothy Sayers and published in Part 2 of his collected poems. Its online text is remarkably pure; besides capitalization and misplaced or missing punctuation marks (as well as == for 'equals'), the only variants I found are the presence of an introductory indefinite article in the title, and the majority error of "Oh" for "On" at the head of the last stanza. I give here my critical compilation:

EVOLUTIONARY HYMN

to the tune Mannheim, a parody of “Lead Us, Heavenly Father, Lead Us"

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair;
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
In the present what are they
While there's always jam-tomorrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
 By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

On then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present,
Standards, though it may well be).

I was surprised that none had succumbed to the temptation to change the first instance of 'god' to 'goal', but apparently this poem has only been passed on by prudent scribes; I suspect the major variant is from the oldest cyberscript, and has only been corrected because internal evidence is so overwhelmingly against it.

You can see allusions in this poem to the Greek classics, Scripture, and Lewis Carroll. "Chop and change" is an old English idiom for 'peddle' found in early translations of 2 Corinthians 2:17, but Lewis is using it here in its modern meaning. "Jam to-morrow," referring to a promise that can never be fulfilled, is a pun on a feature of Latin Grammar immortalized by the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass.

In this poem Lewis mocks what he called "The Evolution Myth" in which every genetic change is believed to be inevitably for the better, maugre all evidence to the contrary. And he points out what evolutionists themselves are rue to admit, that the struggle to survive runs contrary to the cultural norms that are the very fibre of civilisation, there being no other evolutionary standard than that of survival by whatever means necessary.

Lewis, who started his career as an ardent evolutionist and often co-opted evolutionary theory to explain his theology, clearly became quite disillusioned by its empty promises as he entered his latter years, this poem coming out in his final decade of life.

A self-contradiction in Evolutionary Theory--and what they've done about it

I've been musing some more about fatal flaws in Darwinism--specifically, the element of the Theory that an overriding motivation in all living organisms is to pass on their genes to the next generation (a la "The Selfish Gene"). Contrast this with the reality that throughout the animal kingdom, mothers have to protect their young from being killed by their own fathers.  For example, in his book Ring of Bright Water, Gavin Maxwell shares his friend's frustrated attempt to raise offspring of the Scottish Wildcat. He reports that wild toms would mate with housecats, but would then return to slay their offspring the moment they were born.

Ah, says the evolutionist, but the Wildcat thrives, therefore the toms must not be killing their purebred offspring. Yes, since the Wildcat is about twice the size of a housecat--this is only because the Wildcat queens are able to defend their young against the same predatory toms. But this begs the question of where the first Wildcat came from in the first place. If toms always kill their hybrid offspring, then the first Wildcat tom, whoever he was, would have been driven to kill his offspring, the first set of half Wildcat kittens. Evolutionist hold to two irreconcilable axioms: First, that animals are driven to propagate only their own genes; and secondly, that new genes spontaneously arise in the offspring of animals that didn't have those genes. Thus, under a real-world scenario, as soon as a female gives birth to offspring with new genes not present in either parent, one or the other parent will be driven to kill it, to ensure that only offspring carrying its own genes survive.

Evolutionists are certainly stumped by this contradiction, but their steadfast belief in Evolution drives them to the even more contradictory belief that there must be some evolutionary benefit in partially extinguishing the next generation--to the point that they would actually believe that some unseen hand is guiding the cannibal parents to weed out the least fit of their offspring ahead of any indication of such fitness, in order that the most fit--the most likely to push Evolution along--have a better chance of survival.

In this article, we can read how a computer model was used to demonstrate this! How convenient. If one can't find actual animals to portray the behaviour one wants to observe, just create some on a computer and program them how to act. These are the levels to which true believers will stoop, rather than give up their useless religion.

In which Kin Selection Theory is unsupported by real-world evidence

One of the pillars of Darwinian Theology is the doctrine that every organism is driven by a compulsion to pass on its own genes to a future generation. Now, meiosis means that only half of the parent's genes can ever be passed on at any given time. Famous evolutionist J B S Haldane alluded to this when he was asked if he would give his life to save his drowning brother. He is supposed to have said: "No, but I would to save two brothers, or eight cousins."

But what human realistically could be expected to make such a calculation? By this line of reasoning, the discovery that a pregnancy consists of twin fetuses would suffice to change any parent's mind against getting an abortion, when in fact we know that multiple pregnancies are even more likely to bring up the question of termination to those who hadn't otherwise considered it. And this report is just one of many to that could be offered in refutation the doctrine:

Eight-year-old Tyler Doohan will be laid to rest on Wednesday as the most honored of honorary firefighters, saluted by his local fire company as one of its own who made the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. . . . Tyler then heard calls for help and realized that his disabled grandfather and step-great-grandfather were still inside. Tyler had a particular bond with the grandfather, who was the kind of guy who was always quick to assist a neighbor or to help somebody in need even though he did not have all that much himself. The grandfather, 54-year-old Steven Smith, had lost part of a leg and got around in a wheelchair or on crutches.

So: a pre-pubescent organism risked, and as a result lost, his future ability to procreate in a rather ill-fated attempt to save the life of his grandfather, who was not only past the point of procreation, but even of the sort of organism that is typically selected for culling. Why would he do such a thing? There is no Darwinian explanation for his motivation, but it is exactly the same motivation behind the attempt of a father to save the life of his son--or a grandfather to save the life of his grandson. The evolutionary explanation is nothing but the hopeful figment of an unbeliever's imagination, and posts like this one show that even some evolutionists see Kin Selection Theory as simply a case of wishful thinking: a hypothesis in search of actual evidence.

What is Transgender? A Societal Answer

Earlier I started a series on the topic of Transgender, starting with the Linguistic definition, followed here by the Societal Definition, and culminating, I believe, in a Legal Definition (whenever the latter is finally settled).

I don't recommend any of my readers listen to this video, due to the foul language (the relevant parts at least are subtitled), but I will sum up its content in one sentence: As of October 2016 in Ontario, it only takes one hour to go from being a woman with a female photo identity card to a woman with a male photo identity card--issued by the government no less. It's much easier than changing one's name; many women spend as long just changing their clothes.  She probably needed more documentation to prove her new address than her new gender identity.

Now, think about that for just a minute. Women have been changing their last names for many centuries--far longer than Western civilization has existed on these shores--but it's not even been the span of a single lifetime since they could change their gender, and now it can be done in less than an hour, with no physical exam, no court hearing, no sworn statement, not even any witnesses present? It's even easier than getting legally married!

Now, this is not all entirely new. Homosexual behaviour was so common in first century Western Civilization that the Apostle Paul included it several times in various lists of sins. We even get our word 'lesbian' from the behaviour common to female inhabitants of ancient Lesbos Island in Greece. What is new is the legal fiction that male and female are social, rather than biological, constructs.

Allowing one's feelings to trump biological reality is at once a social, and a legal, decision. During a time in which a majority of people are reluctant to start calling a woman 'he' just because she identifies as male, it soon becomes a legal matter. As was pointed out in the uncensored video, a law is pending in Canada which will make it a crime punishable by jail to call a woman--who calls herself a man--by female pronouns. Thus, at least for a time, the legal and social definitions are hopelessly intertwined.

But the groundswell of murmuring will simply not be legislated away. Witness the grumbling by female athletes at this year's Olympics over the  IAAF's decision not to disqualify athletes from competing as women, even if they have characteristically male testosterone levels--which means that by the next Olympics, female competitors who aren't doping up on testosterone won't stand a chance of winning, at least not against a Russian athlete.

The societal definition of transgender in Western civilization is certainly in flux, more so than it has been since the fall of Rome. But everything eventually trends toward the mean, so the current societal ambivalence will eventually give way to biological reality. In the meanwhile, buckle your seat-belts: we are in for a wild ride.

Thinking about the future

Looking at an examination of the implications of Moore's Law, in which the map becomes the territory, we see that it is a human tendency to achieve exactly what has been expected, until the free market comes into play--than progress can actually be accelerated. In the absence of the free market, progress slows back down at once.

The very idea of having a government Department of Innovation is thus pseudoscientific.

The Weather Channel Joins the Conspiracy

Checking the weather this morning of December 20, 2014, I saw an ad for a video clip called "Mystery of John F. Kennedy's Plane Crash Solved?" and, of course, watched it.

Incredibly, the video text itself made no claim whatsoever to have any new information on the 15-year-old crash. In other words, there was no news--just a lot of lies: JKF Jr. didn't have his instrument rating, therefore, 'when other planes remained grounded,' he took off in the growing haze to the doom of 'all three on board' after the advice of an unnamed onscreen expert to 'get more training before flying solo' "fell on deaf ears."

It's amazing how many boldface lies can make it into a single video minute. As a pilot, I know that flying on instruments is part of basic flight school. If you can't fly through haze without 'spiraling out of control,' you're never even going to get your private license. And the video shot of 'all the other planes that remained grounded?' Well, 'remaining grounded' is another way of saying 'parked at the airport,' and that's what the majority of private planes spend the majority of their time doing, regardless of the weather.

Now, it's true that JFK did not yet have his instrument rating--just as my adult daughter does not yet have a driver's license. Big deal; she has been driving for years, but has to clear so many legal hurdles to be able to 'drive solo,' the paperwork has yet to catch up with the reality of her being a capable, experienced driver.

Thus with JFK Jr. He had all of the training, most of the experience, and almost all of the paperwork needed to be a full-fledged instrument-rated pilot. No way was he still at the level where he would go into a spin at 2500 feet while on approach to a lighted runway; instrument-rated pilots have to be able to safely navigate within 100 feet of the ground without being able to see it. But he still used an instructor every time he flew in unfamiliar conditions.

So, the video hits all the talking points of the original cover-up, whilst ignoring the salient fact that rescuers were intentionally misdirected for an entire day:
1. JFK Jr. was not competent to make that flight (he was).
2. He was warned not to fly solo in hazy conditions (he never flew solo in hazy conditions).
3. The plane spiraled out of control (the plane's engine was turned off and it was flown into the sea).
4. There were three on board (the fourth person on board was removed by a covert dive team, seat and all).

Why, Weather Channel? Why?

Two responses to serious charges

There are two ways to respond to a serious charge of wrongdoing:
1. Refute the charges. This is how it's handled in a courtroom by a defense attorney.
2. Claim that the charges are so ridiculous, they aren't worth responding to. This seems to be how such things are handled everywhere else--at least by those who can actually afford the first option.

The US Government chose the second option when confronted with the charges in my most recent post.

Dispensing with the Ambulance

I've made several forays into the field of textual criticism where it involves cybertexts, so I'll not bother to trace how this particular version of an old poem developed into what you see here, other than to say that this scribe made an alteration or two of his own before passing it on. This poem was published at least as early as 1912, and is usually attributed to Joseph Malins, who titled it, The Fence or the Ambulance." An ambulance, back in 1895 when he reportedly wrote it, was a glorified battle wagon drawn by a team of horses.

The Ambulance Down In The Valley

'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke, and full many a peasant.

The people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally.
Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

The lament of the crowd was profound and was loud,
As their hearts overflowed with their pity;
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day
As it spread through the neighboring city.

A collection was made, to accumulate aid,
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave dollars or cents - not to furnish a fence -
But an ambulance down in the valley.

"For the cliff is all right if you're careful," they said;
"And if folks ever slip and are dropping,
It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below - when they're stopping."

So for years (we have heard), as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would the rescuers sally,
To pick up the victims who fell from the cliff,
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Said one, to his peers, "It's a marvel to me
That you'd give so much greater attention
To repairing results than to curing the cause;
You had much better aim at prevention.

For the mischief, of course, should be stopped at its source,
Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally.
It is far better sense to rely on a fence
Than an ambulance down in the valley."

"He's wrong in his head," the majority said;
"He would end all our earnest endeavor.
He's a man who would shirk his responsible work,
But we will support it forever.

Aren't we picking up all, just as fast as they fall,
And giving them care liberally?
A superfluous fence is of no consequence,
With an ambulance down in the valley."

The story looks queer as we've written it here,
But things oft occur that are stranger;
More humane, we assert, than to succor the hurt
Is the plan of removing the danger.

The best possible course is to safeguard the source,
Attending to things rationally.
If we build up the fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Demythologizing the Santa Scripture

I've been away from my blog since the month before last, and since I committed to posting at least once every three months until I die, here's one for today.

The following is a letter, allegedly written by a mythical creature known as Santa (short for Santa Claus, derived from Sinterklaas, a Dutch-American appellation for Nikolaos of Mura):

"Dear children, regrettably I bring bad tidings. For some time now, melting ice here in the North Pole has made our operations and our day-to-day life intolerable and impossible and there may be no alternative but to cancel Christmas. I have written personally to President Obama, President Putin -- all world leaders. Sadly my letters have been met with indifference. Needless to say these individuals are now at the top of my naughty list. My home in the Arctic is fast disappearing and unless we all act urgently then I have to warn you of the possibility of an empty stocking forevermore. Please help me."

I wrote earlier about the alarming icemelt during an Antarctic summer, but this is the first time I ever read about the Arctic ice melting in the winter. As far as I know, no one has ever traveled to the North Pole during the Northern Winter, any more than to the South Pole during the Southern Winter.
[UPDATE JUNE 2016: As I write, a daring flight to the South Pole is underway, just three days before the onset of Southern Winter. Only one flight to the pole has ever been made even in the Southern Autumn, in April of 2001.]

Santa shouldn't be so distressed. With the unlimited carrying capacity of his sleigh, he could pull a reverse on the Arctic Tern and just move his whole toy-making operation to the other Pole during the ice-melting season (he'd have to get permission from President Obama, though, who claims sovereignty over the South Pole). Furthermore, according to his evolutionary beliefs (assuming that 'Santa' here is just a pseudonym for a Greenpeace copywriter), there would be no coal to put in stockings if it hadn't been for a powerful global warming trend jillions of years ago.

Is AIDS a curse on homosexuals?

In an earlier post, I wrote how animism and AIDS are a deadly combination, as animists continue the behaviour that gave them the HIV even when told that AIDS can't be caught by someone putting a curse on them.

In May of 2023 I got the following comment to that post:

"I've always wondered about this. So would this prove that homosexuality is in the end wrong? Bisexuals being the worst for spreading it around to women and then to guys like Magic Johnson who had sex with hundreds of women. Right? or am I wrong?" --Anonymous 5/07/2013 11:37:00 pm

I decided to delete my reply and that comment and instead devote an entire post to a more thought-out answer. In order to do so I will address the comment in sections.

"Basically most gay people would have died out if not for condoms."

Condoms have not helped keep people from dying of AIDS, if for no other reason than that a lot of people engaging in HIV-spreading behaviours don't use them. The main reason that people in Africa and elsewhere have stopped dying from AIDS is that they have been taking antiretroviral drugs, which keep them from developing AIDS even after they have the HIV.

"Bisexuals being the worst for spreading it around to women"

Well, by definition a bisexual is someone who engages in risky behaviours with both sexes, and AIDS did originate with males. But the bisexuals aren't to blame for most of the spread of the HIV, unless you include all prostitutes within the definition of bisexuals (and quite a number of them do fit that definition by their behaviour). HIV mostly spreads by means of risky behaviour between an infected prostitute and his/er thousands of (typically male) clients. So you are wrong in making this particular charge.

"guys like Magic Johnson who had sex with hundreds of women."

Yes, Magic is probably responsible for passing on the HIV to many of his female risky-behaviour partners. But I don't know as that has ever been alleged or proved in court, so at best it's a reasonable assumption--all the less reasonable if he was consistent at using a condom.

As more and more American money is spread around Africa in the form of free retrovirals, the death rate from AIDS will go down regardless of animistic influence on behaviour. But in the mean time, AIDS will continue to strike animists disproportionately, especially since animists are reluctant to even be tested for AIDS, which of course is necessary to be entered into a retroviral treatment program. 

"So would this prove that homosexuality is in the end wrong?"

Well, that's a moral question, and how you answer it depends on your moral foundation. If you don't believe in The Creator, than your only foundation is the Survival of the Fittest. Since homosexuality doesn't pass on one's genes, it's morality is already seriously suspect from that point of view. Bisexuality would be just fine for one of that moral persuasion, other than that bisexuals are even more likely to pass on the HIV as homosexuals.

But in the end, the fact that animists are more likely to die from AIDS than rationalists has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, regardless of your moral foundation.

Okay, so much for the comment--now to the actual title of my post--"Is  AIDS a curse on homosexuals?"

In order the answer this question with a specific 'yes' or 'no', we must first establish several things:

1) Is there anyone with both the ability and the motivation to design and send a disease on someone?
Well, as far as design is concerned, only The Creator has that power. If you don't believe in The Creator, then you can stop your investigation right now, and answer the question with "no." You may not be right, but at least you'll be certain.
If you do believe in The Creator, then you can go on to wonder whether The Creator would do such a thing. Now you are inquiring into the Nature and Character of The Creator, and to get anywhere in that sort of investigation, you will need to find out whether there is any first-hand information that addresses that.
Well, the Bible does give information on the Nature and Character of The Creator, but if you don't believe the Bible, you may as well stop right there and say that at best, you don't know the answer to the question. If you do believe the Bible, then studying it will get you a long ways towards your answer as to whether God would, or did, design and send a specific disease targeting a specific sinful behaviour.

2) Is the HIV designed in such a way as to specifically target homosexuals and/or their behaviour?

3) Is the HIV effective in targeting homosexuals to the extent that it only harms them and is incapable of transmitting widespread harm to the population at large?

I think once you get this far in the investigation, you will realise that AIDS cannot be a curse on homosexuals--that's too specific a charge. Change the question slightly, and ask if AIDS could be a curse on fornicators in general, and you're much more likely to end up with a positive answer.

Kent Hovind on defending the King James Bible, from the very seventh word

Having written earlier on Mike Pearl's King-James-Only cosmology, I now note Kent Hovind's report that he came on board this bandwagon 15 years ago. I can't seem to link to his site (2peter3.com) so I quote it here in full:

Open letter to Brother Tom Ish- Editor of Creation Illustrated

 Thank you for your excellent magazine!  I have been a long time supporter of and advertiser in it and recommend it to all.

 With that said, I must object to an article in your Winter 2013 issue: "Creation Day 2" by Paul Taylor.  In this article Mr. Taylor objects to the teaching of a canopy above the atmosphere in the original creation.

 I don't recall ever having met Mr. Taylor but when I was given my "extended vacation" by the feds (for some illegal, bogus and hotly contested reasons you can read about on www.2peter3.com if you wish) I asked my son Eric to manage the Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) Ministry in Pensacola, Florida until my return.  Within a year he began a new ministry called Creation Today.  Soon thereafter he hired Paul Taylor to come from England and join his team and they have been doing a great job of spreading the creation message.

 I in no way wish to hinder anyone's outreach for the Lord or harm their reputation or hurt anyone's feelings but I also cannot sit silently after reading the many errors in that article!  These errors and the flawed premise they are based on may not only cast doubt in the minds of your readers about what I believe and teach on other issues, since I teach about the canopy in Seminar #2, they may also adversely affect my son's thinking (and your readers) on two critical topics as I will explain below.

 I try to be constantly alert for false doctrine.  I understand it can come from ANY source- even within myself- and it spreads quickly like a virus and can infect healthy organisms if not stopped and treated in time.  After all the years and money I invested in my son and the creation ministry in Pensacola I've got to stay vigilant as God gives me strength and insight to be sure it is not undermined or derailed in my absence.  I have paid a HIGH price for my convictions and won't let anyone destroy them now.  Jesus rebuked Peter (Mt. 16:23) when he taught something wrong.  Peter seems to have received the rebuke and correction.  I pray Paul and Eric will receive mine.  Nehemiah had to set a few things right after his extended absence (Neh. 13). So did the Apostle Paul (I Cor. 11:34).

 In the article Paul explains some problems with a canopy model that I don't think anyone believes or promotes today-I don't.  He is right that 20 inches of water above the atmosphere would not be enough to flood the world.  I sure never said it would. Beating up a "straw man" image you set up does NOT mean you have beaten the real man.

 His article starts with a false dichotomy when he says, "What I am about to suggest to you may be argumentative to some while others will wholeheartedly agree with my research."  Obviously this type of statement gives two false choices and makes it look like you either: A-argue with him or B. agree with his "research."  As if those who may disagree with him do not also do research.  The obvious third option is that his "research" has led him to the wrong conclusion or the forth option is that he researched the wrong canopy model or a fifth option that he was using the wrong Bible to study this topic.  It is rather like the Russians who first circled the moon and concluded there was no God since they didn't see Him out there during their "research."  Ah...not good logic fellas!

 So, I will address 3 points:
1-Which Bible should we use to determine ANY doctrine including the canopy?
2- The problems with Paul's article.
3- The canopy theory I teach.

1- Which Bible?

 I fully agree with Paul when he says that "No opinion on it (the canopy) should be elevated to the status of biblical inerrancy."  He also says, "God's Word is unchangeable and never up for review."  I actually REALLY believe that but from his frequent use of other versions and his criticism of the King James I don't think he really does. I would love for him to send me a copy of what he will stand by as "God's Word" which is "unchangeable" since the one he quotes from for the article has THOUSANDS of changes from the one I use and the one the church has used for over 400 years.

 For example: Let's look at Genesis 1:1 where we can't even read 7 WORDS without spotting a "change" in God's "unchangeable" Word.  The change I will point out is critical to lay the simple foundation for a discussion of the "canopy theory" in part 3 so bear with me please.

 Moses (1,400 BC) collected and edited Genesis from 10 eyewitness accounts (see seminar #7) and then wrote the next 4 books Ex.-Dt.  The Jews then CAREFULLY copied it thousands of times and spread it to all their synagogues.  They were concerned with every "jot and tittle" (Mt. 5:18) as they copied.  They also wrote scores of commentaries about the Torah.  Let's see if the copies were kept pure and "unchanged" in just Genesis 1:1.

 Genesis 1:1 in the Jewish Torah (OT) says, "In the beginning God created the heaven..."  Hmmm?  Heaven is in the singular and has been for 3,400 years in Jewish literature as well as the thousands of copies scattered around the world.

Early English translations of Genesis 1:1.

1384 John Wycliffe- "In the bigynnyng God made out of nouyt heuene and erthe." Heaven is Singular.
1525 William Tyndale- "In the begynnynge God created heauen and erth."  Singular
1535 Miles Coverdale- "In ye begynnynge God created heauen & earth."  Singular
1537 Matthew Bible- "In the beginnyng God created heauen and erth." Singular
1539 Taverner Bible- " In the begynnynge created God heuen and erth." Singular
1540 Great Bible- "In the begynnynge God created heuen and earthe." Singular. Gen. 2:1 The heauens also ...plural
1568 Bishops Bible- Gen 2:1- "The heavens also the earth were finished..." Plural in 2:1
1579, 1599, 1606, 1611 Geneva Bible- heaven singular in 1:1 and heavens plural in 2:1
1587 Geneva Bible- " the heauen " Singular
1609 Doway Bible- 2:1 "The heavens therfore ..." plural
1611 King James Bible- "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Singular
1750 Challoner DRV Bible- "...created the heaven " Singular  heavens plural in 2:1
1885 English Revised "...created the heaven " Singular
1886 Parallel RV/AV "...created the heaven...." Singular in both columns and plural for 2:1
1895 and 1898 English Revised "...created the heaven..." Both have Singular

French-
1555 1:1 Diev crea au commencemet le ciel & la terra. Singular- Les cieux... Plural in 2:1
1561 1:1 ...le ciel & la terra." singular, Les cieux donc... plural in 2:1
1562 1:1 ...le ciel- singular.  2:1 Les cieux donc... plural
1956 1:1 Au commencement, Dieu crea le ciel et la terre. Singular (La Sainte Bible Tranduite en Francais sous la direction de L'ecole Biblique de Jerusalem.)

German-
1535 Gen. 1:1 "Amanfang schuff Gott Himel und Erden." Singular
1540 Dietenberger Bible- hymmel- singular
1556 Himel- singular
1591 Himmel- singular
1599 Luther Bible- Hemmel- singular

 The FIRST "bible" I can find that uses "heavens" plural in 1:1 is the 1553 Spanish "Inquisition Approved Old Testament" -"En Principio crio el dio alos cielos y ala tierra."  Plural. Catholic Spanish Inquisition... Hmmm?  Satan plans lo-o-o-o-ong term!

 The first English one I can find that says heavens -plural- in Gen. 1:1 is the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) which was based on the recently completed perversion of the Bible by two British cultists (and Darwin admirers) named Westcott and Hort in 1881.  They chose the manuscript found in the Vatican basement in 1481 (on leather in "EXCELLENT SHAPE") as the basis for their text in spite of the fact that it did NOT have: the first 45 1/2 chapters of Genesis, Psalms 106-138, I & II Tim. and Titus, nearly 5 chapters from Hebrews and all of Revelation.  It was also missing numerous individual verses and had thousands of individual word changes.  It had been rejected as corrupt by most scholars.

 They filled in the missing chapters from 2 even MORE corrupt Egyptian texts and ignored the reading in over 5,000 ancient texts because they didn't fit their theology!  Since those two evil men resurrected and synthesized the 3 corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and published it in 1881 there have been nearly 1,000 English translations of this altered and perverted text. NIV, NKJV, etc. There are SCORES of great books on the King James controversy for those who wish to look further.  I know full well that some don't WANT to "look further" into this issue because they LIKE the freedom to alter God's "unchangeable Words" if need be and they LIKE the feeling of power and prestige they get when people have to come to THEM to know what the Word REALLY says on a topic.  But, IF you are honest and seeking truth see www.chick.com & www.avpublications.com for starters or my Seminar Part 7.

 ALL new Bible (per)versions I have seen after 1901 including the "New King James" Paul quotes in his article have "heavens" in the plural in verse 1. Hmmm?  I can't even read 7 WORDS into the Bible without finding that somebody changed the "unchangeable" Word!  This is NOT a minor point! (I used to think it was) Which Bible you BASE your theology and SCIENCE on reflects on scores of things later, including the "canopy theory" as we will see.  Just that one letter "s" changing singular to plural totally changes the meaning.

 Satan took just three words- "God hath said..." and only changed the ORDER to "Hath God said...?" and fooled Eve in a PERFECT world!  ALL the new "bibles" I have seen (even NKJV) change ONE LETTER in Rev. 13:16 and 14:9 from saying the mark of the beast goes "IN the hand" to make it say "ON the hand."  Ya think Satan will use THAT to fool folks into getting "micro-chipped" soon?

 LITTLE details like a small "O" ring on the space shuttle can make a BIG difference!  Ask NASA!

 Jesus said "netS" and Peter left off the "s." See Lk. 5:4-5

 Ya'll can do what you want, and you will, but I'm not going to sit by and let ANYONE change ONE letter in my Bible.  Satan is too slick and he can even get good, godly, sweet, mild-mannered, kind, intelligent men who "love the Lord" to work for him.  He did it with Peter.  Even if NO other creation ministries want to take a stand on the Bible version issue I WILL!  Any ministry I have will not only "defend the Bible from the very first verse" but will be able to hand you a copy of it.

 "Heaven" is SINGULAR in Gen. 1:1 in the REAL unchangeable Word of God and THAT is a beginning point for discussing the canopy.  "Heaven" is used 7 times in Gen. 1 in the KJB.

 Genesis 2:1 in nearly ALL versions I have seen including KJB have "heavens" in the plural so the translators listed above who used "heaven" singular in Genesis 1:1 certainly KNEW the difference between singular and plural.  Why did they ALL choose the singular?  Were they stupid?  Were they waiting for a "modern scholar" to show them the truth and the light?  OR, did someone change it?

 If God's Word is "unchangeable" how did it change from singular to plural found only in a few corrupt Catholic versions?  Which is right?  Before we get into a discussion or debate about God's Word and what it means on ANY topic (including the canopy) we must first be sure we are all on the same page and talking about the same Bible!

 In my Seminar Part 4, I explain the importance of defining the slippery word "evolution" BEFORE proceeding with the discussion.  It is ESSENTIAL to define terms in a discussion or debate.  Do WE have authority over the Word of God or does IT have authority over us?  Do I need some guru to tell me what the Word REALLY says or can I just read it on my own and not be misled?  To discuss or debate the canopy only to have the opponent say, "What this verse really means..." is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall!

 For about 28 years of my Christian life I used, promoted and defended many of the new "Bible" versions.  I have a huge collection of them at home.  About 15 years ago I devoted hundreds of hours to the study and I was forced by the overwhelming evidence to agree with millions of other Christians before me that God preserved His very Words (as He promised in Ps. 12:6-7) for the English speaking world in the King James.  So, I agree with Paul that God's Word is "never up for review" but I take it further and can actually hand you a copy of God's Word.  I don't think Paul or any of those who use other modern versions can do that.  I know that some like the feeling of being superior to the Word when they say, "What this really means in the Hebrew (or Greek) ..."  The Pharisees loved the greetings in the marketplace and to be called Rabbi... Mt 23:2-7

 These new Bible versions are always "correcting" the KJB and will hinder people from simply trusting God's Word and His ability to preserve it for us today.  They even change Ps. 12:6-7 where God promised to preserve HIS WORDS!  Hmmm?

Problems with Paul Taylor's article on the Canopy Theory.

1. I already mentioned the false dichotomy Paul creates in the first sentence of his article.  If I find a problem with one of the old canopy models does that proves them all wrong?  Does one flat tire prove tires don't work?

2. PT- "The Canopy Theory is an honorable attempt to interpret Scripture correctly and also to account for the waters of the flood." p. 22.

KH- I agree that the canopy theory is an honorable attempt to interpret scripture and, as we will see in part 3 of my answer, is still very likely the correct way to interpret it but the canopy water/ice probably contributed VERY little to the flood.  Most creationists believe and teach the flood waters came from inside the earth when the fountains of the deep (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Job 38:8, 16; Ps. 24:1; 33:7 133:6; Pr 8:28) broke open.

3. "The basis of the Canopy Theory is that the firmament represents earth's atmosphere."

KH- I AGREE on this one.  No scripture is to be interpreted privately (II Pt. 1:20) and Gen. 1:20 tells us clearly that the "fowl (birds) that may fly ABOVE the earth IN the open firmament of heaven."  That would be clear biblical evidence that the "firmament" is the atmosphere we are breathing now and the birds fly in.

4. "It is thought that this canopy could have been the source, or at least a source, for the waters of the Flood. The Flood would have been initiated, therefore, by the collapse of this canopy." p. 23

KH- NO! This is but another example of why we need to settle on the Word of God first!  The KJB clearly says "the fountains of the great deep" broke up FIRST and THEN "the windows of heaven were opened." Gen. 7:11.  The Canopy collapsing did NOT initiate the flood. The breaking open of the great deep did.  This may have triggered the collapse of the canopy however.

5. "the pre-Flood canopy would have caused conditions of environment and weather before the Flood to be very different from those of today."

KH- I AGREE!  It is obvious to all, creationists and evolutionists alike, that the earth was VERY different in the past.  Giant Red Wood tree stumps are found in the arctic circle. Coal (from trees) is found near the South Pole.  The Sahara was a forest at one time.  HUGE animals and insects of nearly all kinds are found as fossils.  They could not grow that large today. Some argue about WHEN it was different with evolutionists claiming it was during the mythical "Jurassic" period but all agree it was different.  Nearly all Young Earth Creationists agree these giant animals including dinosaurs lived before the flood and maybe even after the flood for a while with smaller specimens possibly alive today!  See Seminar Part 2.

6. "My rejection of their support for the Canopy Theory is merely an indication that our understanding moves on." p. 24

KH- WOW!  "My rejection" and "our understanding".  Hmmm?  Would that imply that if anyone still believes there was a canopy they lack understanding enough to move on?  I sort of resent that insinuation!

7. "In 1976 Morris was satisfied that such a vapor canopy would provide the water required for the Flood." p. 24

KH- As I recall Dr. Morris always taught that flood waters came from inside the earth and only part of it from the canopy.  Even so- 1976?  Our understanding moves on.  The purpose of the canopy was not to be a source of water to later flood the world but to provide perfect living conditions.  If Dr. Morris had a wrong idea about the size of the canopy that doesn't prove the entire idea wrong.  Edison had about 1,000 FAILED attempts to make a light bulb.  Does that prove it can't be done or that the theory needs tweaked.  Let me turn on my light to study this one!  Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

8. "Some creationists, however, have suggested a canopy of ice.  Carl Baugh, for example, suggests a crystalline canopy.  In this theory, the ice would be made either of ice crystals or of a solid, metallic-hydrogen lattice, suspended above the earth by magnetic levitation.  This specific crystalline canopy has particular problems.  Magnetic levitation would not work on molecules like water or hydrogen..."

KH. Are you sure magnetic levitation won't work on super cold ice?  You may want to follow the latest research on that. Visit www.creationevidence.org ; Dr. Baugh- 254-897-3200 to see scores of articles that disagree with this statement.  More about that in part 3 below.

9. "a solid lattice of ice would make it difficult or impossible to see the stars." p. 25

KH. What?  Who says?  Does a "solid lattice" of melted sand (i.e. glass) make it impossible to see the stars?  NO! Glass is used for lenses to ENHANCE our vision of the stars.  Telescopes and microscopes use lenses and mirrors to great effect.  An ice canopy that compressed the atmosphere to say, 10 miles rather than the current 60+, would eliminate most atmospheric distortion (twinkle) as well.  Under a solid clear crystalline canopy the pre-flood people would see the stars even more clearly than we can today!

10.  "Finally, hydrogen can exhibit metallic properties only under extreme conditions of high pressure and temperatures near absolute zero."

KH- And?  Outer space IS near absolute zero, +3K or -170 C or - 456+F.  A canopy of ice in contact with outer space would act like an Eskimo's igloo.  He can build a fire inside and not melt the ice roof because it conducts heat to the frigid outside.  You can also boil water in a paper cup because of the same effect.  Maybe the canopy provided a way to transfer heat and prevent "global warming" or the "greenhouse effect" some seem so worried about a canopy producing?

11. "Canopy theorists have also claimed that the giant insects seen in the fossil record would not have been able to breathe without increased oxygen partial pressure.  Again, this position can be shown to not be the case."

KH- OK, I'd like to see where it has been "shown not to be the case."  I'd also like Paul's explanation for the giant insects.  They did live on earth once and they don't now.  He offers no explanation.  Giant insects have a surface area to volume problem explained in Part 3 below.

12. "increased oxygen partial pressure can actually be shown to have a deleterious effect on longevity of humans."

KH- I'm gonna have to see proof of that!  Hundreds if not thousands of hospitals and sports teams use hyperbaric chambers every day where people get 100% oxygen at triple pressure with GREAT results.  I've done it.  It is true that over 35% oxygen can be bad long term but 1.5 ATM and 25-30% oxygen has GREAT positive effects and no "deleterious effect" on humans or animals or plants.  No one knows what pressure and % oxygen the pre-flood world had but I would bet God made it "just right" since God Himself pronounced it "very good" when He was done. (in the KJB- I didn't and won't check all the others on that one.)

13. "it has been suggested that the longevity of humans before the flood was due to greater atmospheric pressure.  However, a better explanation of this longevity is the comparative absence of mutations among the human gene pool.  The level of mutations would have greatly increased after the Flood; so, this could explain the rapid decrease in longevity."

KH- What??  I have never heard that one suggested by anyone nor do I think the sudden drop from 912 avg to 70-80 within a short time can be explained by mutations!  That's quite a stretch!  Noah lived to be 950 and Shem lived to 600.  How would Shem inherit a mutation that made him live 35% less than his dad since Shem was conceived and born 100 years BEFORE the flood?  Noah lived 350 years AFTER the flood.  Did this same mythical mutation problem affect all the animals and plants since they are all smaller now too?  I'd like to see the evidence for that claim!

14. "any vapor canopy would trap heat from the sun, leading to increased temperatures at earth's surface." p. 25

KH- And???  What is the problem here?  It's -10F wind chill outside in NH right now as I write this.  I'd LOVE an increase in temperature!  A LARGE % of earth's surface is too cold to raise crops or support any significant # of humans today due to the cold.  Antarctica is bigger than America I believe and NOBODY can live there without LOTS of outside support.  Estimates are that 3% of the earth is habitable today yet the Bible says God "formed it to be inhabited." Is. 45:18. SOMETHING must have changed since then.  An increase in temperature with a system to keep the temperature evenly distributed worldwide would lead to the earth being habitable from pole to pole.  Sounds good to me!  No one has demonstrated that a canopy would create a serious temperature problem at the surface.  See #10 above.

15. "A better model for how the Flood began is the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model, which shows that the major source of water would probably have been the mantle." p. 26

KH- I MAY agree with him on this one if I heard his details but that would NOT mean there wasn't a canopy as well.

16. "Dr. Russell Humphreys has suggested a cosmology based on the stretching of space.  In this cosmology, Humphreys has suggested that the firmament, which divides the waters above from the waters below, in Genesis 1:6-8, represents the stretching universe. ... a side effect of this theory is that the waters above would therefore be beyond the stars.."

KH- Ps. 148:4 says "the waters THAT BE above the heavens."  Based on that verse I believe the entire universe we see is inside a water canopy right now.  That would not negate the idea that there was also one over the first heaven as we will cover in part 3.  The birds fly in the firmament (KJB).  That means it is the air not the stretching.  I do agree the heavens have been or are being stretched.  The Bible says they are at least 11 times.

17. "Second, some have pointed to birds flying in the canopy, as pointing to the canopy being at the edge of the atmosphere.  However, if the canopy were at the edge of the universe, this position would not contradict this verse (Genesis 1:20).  Moreover, the Hebrew version actually talks about the "face of the firmament."

KH- First the Bible says the birds fly in the firmament NOT the canopy.  The waters were ABOVE the firmament where the birds fly.  This is why point 1 about which Bible to use must be agreed on first!  The Bible does NOT say the birds fly in the "face of the firmament."  We don't need any Hebrew or helper to understand exactly what it says.  Birds fly in the firmament. Gen. 1:20.

18. "Some versions, such as the NKJV, refer to this statement: 'let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.' So, the birds are not actually in the firmament but flying across the face of it."

KH- Do you see why I had to make point #1 first!  ERIC!  Please DON'T fall for any of this!  This is why I have been harping for 15 years now that we must first find God's Words BEFORE we can claim we are defending them!  Defending WHAT EXACTLY?  Is it heaven or heavens?  I found God's exact Words!  I had them all along but it was various "Bible scholars" and Bible correctors that made me doubt for 28 years!  After spending hundreds of hours studying the Bible version issue it was such a relief when I FINALLY got through that jungle of wondering "what the Bible REALLY meant."  I remember sitting on my bed with my Bible in hand and saying, "This is it!  I'm holding God's Words."  I got down on my knees and told God I was sorry for doubting His ability to preserve His Words and I thanked Him for letting me have a copy!  I pray you and Paul come to that point one day soon.

Nehemiah 8:8 has the right sequence.  A. Read the Word as it is.  B. Explain it all you want.  C. Help the people understand.  DON'T change the Words and THEN explain your new version of them!

19. "Scriptural analysis and modern scientific understandings both show that the canopy model is not necessary." p. 27

KH- WHAT?  You sure didn't do that in this article!  You never did explain the giant insects or long life spans.  You never did give a model to explain red wood trees in the arctic or coal at the South Pole.  I'd sure be willing to examine any theories you put forth but please don't think you "demolished the canopy theory" with this post.

20. "It seems today that the effects, for which the Canopy Theory was developed to explain, are actually better explained by other means."

KH- Such as???  Paul is right that some older models of the canopy theory have serious flaws and are most likely unworkable but don't be too hasty here!  After 1,000 failures at making a light bulb Tom knew 1,000 ways that didn't work so he knew he must be closer to finding the right way!  Hmmm?  Go Tom!  Ditto the canopy.

In part 3 of this way to long response I will present what I teach about the canopy.

THE ORIGINAL CREATION-HOVIND'S CANOPY THEORY
What was the original creation like?  Why did they live 900+ years before the flood (Gen. 5)?  Where do dinosaurs fit in?  Why don't we live to be 900?

Let's look at the facts from Scripture, Science and History and see if we can make a reasonable theory to explain it all. This is indeed a theory and subject to change as new data is obtained.  The Bible is not subject to change.

BIBLE FACTS:
 Genesis 1:6-7, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

 We see from this passage that this "firmament" -whatever that is, divides the waters.  Some water is UNDER it and other water is ABOVE it.  The Bible normally interprets itself if you keep reading so let’s look at the next time the firmament is mentioned.

 Genesis 1:20 "...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."  Here we learn that the birds fly in it.  That would mean it must be the air.  We also see that the firmament is called heaven.  Water ABOVE the air?  Hmmm?

 Genesis 1:1 told us God created the heaven-singular.  Now, starting in verse 6-7 He is starting to divide it up into heavens-plural.  It would be WRONG to say there were heavens -plural- in verse 1.  The Bible does NOT tell us how MUCH water was above the firmament nor does it tell us if it was solid, liquid or gas nor does it tell us what held it up nor does us tell us WHY God put it there.  It DOES tell us there WAS water ABOVE the firmament.  I may never be able to UNDERSTAND all the details but the Bible says it was there.  Case closed for me.

 Gen. 1:14-18 says stars are in the heavens.  Psalm 148:4 says "ye waters THAT BE above the heavens."  David wrote this about 1,000 B.C. so there must STILL be water beyond the stars.

1. The Bible says there was water above the firmament (not across the face of it as some bible perversions say).  Above means--are you ready?-- above.
2. The word "firmament" is used 9 times in Genesis 1!  I think God is trying to get our attention to study that word!  It is used 17 times in the Bible. (THAT #17 is a study in itself!  See my blog on that!)  By looking at these 17 references we see: it divides the waters above from the waters below (Gen. 1:6-7); birds fly in it (Gen. 1:20); stars are in it (Gen. 1:14-18); it shows God's handiwork (Ps. 19:1); We can praise God in the firmament (Ps. 150:1); it is associated with a "color of the terrible crystal, stretched over their heads above" (Ez. 1:22-23); a throne (of God?) is above the firmament (Ez. 1:26-27: 10:1); the ones who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament (Dan. 12:3)
3. The average age recorded before the flood was 912.  After the flood it dropped to 600, then 400's then 200's and today very few make it to 100.  Something that GREATLY affected life spans must have happened at the time of the flood.
4. The Bible clearly teaches there are three heavens today and Paul was caught up to the 3rd one (II Cor. 12:2).

SCIENCE FACTS TO CONSIDER:
1. Fossils of GIANT insects have been found like: 2' grasshoppers, 18" cockroaches, 3' spiders, 50" dragonflies etc.  See Sem. Part 2 for more on that.
2. Insect size is limited due to their surface area to volume ratio problem since they breathe through their skin.  For example-a 1 inch cube has a volume of 1 cu. in. and a surface area (SA) of 6 sq. inches. 6/1 ratio.  A 2 inch cube has a vol. of 8 cu. in. and a SA of 24 sq. in. 3/1 ratio.  Hmmm?  If the interior must be supplied with oxygen through the skin the bigger it is the more of a problem this becomes.  They don't have enough surface to supply the air for the volume.  Giant insects would need greater air pressure or higher oxygen % or both.
3. Air bubbles trapped in amber are often found to have 30-35% oxygen rather than the 21% we breathe today. We can reasonably presume the air trapped is pre-flood air.
4. An atmosphere of oxygen beyond 35% can create problems but below that is beneficial.
5. Hundreds of hospitals and sports teams have hyperbaric chambers to give people 100% oxygen under double or triple normal pressure and have great results with health and healing.
6. Fossils of giant dinosaurs indicate they had small nostrils and small lungs.  This would be a problem in today's atmosphere but if there was higher % of oxygen or higher pressure (or both) they could breathe just fine.
7. HUGE bird (and flying insect) fossils have been found.  It would be difficult if not impossible for them to fly in today's "thin" atmosphere.
8. Most reptiles never stop growing. If they could live long enough we would call them dinosaurs.
9. The earth's magnetic field is getting weaker fast!  NASA estimates it is losing half of its strength every 800-1400 years.  6,000 years ago it would have been up to 20 times stronger than it is today.  At this intensity humans have enough iron in their blood to have a built in compass and "feel" which way is North.  A built in GPS!  You could never get lost or disoriented.
10. HUGE inflatable buildings are used all the time.  In a windless environment they can be held up with very little internal pressure. The Minnesota Viking's Football Stadium- The Metro dome is inflated.
11. A 3" layer of ice would weigh about 15 pounds /sq. ft.  It would only take 1.1 ATM (a 10% increase) to support that over the whole earth.
12. Squeezing the current 60 miles of air down to 10 miles inside a canopy of ice with metallic strength would be very feasible.
13. Ice at extremely low temperatures becomes laminated, metallic and magnetic.  It becomes a photo-amplifier and will act like a crystal radio and change radio waves to audible frequencies.  The music of the stars?  See Job 38:7.  See www.creationevidence.org (P.O. Box 309 Glen Rose, TX 76043; 254-897-3200) for more on that.  Magnetic lines tend to concentrate in laminated metals.
 I would also highly recommend the somewhat technical book "God Created the Earth-Genesis of Creation Chemistry" by Dr. Edward Boudreaux and Eric Baxter from Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, PO Box 3451, Littleton, CO 80161; eaboudre@yahoo.com.  Their explanation of God using water (Genesis 1:2) to form ALL of the elements is fabulous!  So is their evidence that high temperature, pressure and magnetic fields all shortened radioactive element's half lives from billions of years to minutes!  They calculate that the pressure inside the ice canopy would be about double what it is now.  That explains a lot of things we find as fossils.
14. Outer space is near absolute 0 Kelvin which is -459.6 F.
15. Greater air pressure creates "thicker" air making it easier for all insects, birds and even a few fish, snakes and mammals to fly or soar through the air.  It also allows bigger ones to fly like the 50 ft wingspan pterodactyls that have been found. They could not fly in today's atmosphere.
16. A layer of metallic ice would also filter out many harmful rays like ultraviolet (UV) that comes from the sun and can damage skin and body cells.
17. With uniformly higher pressure world-wide storms and wild weather would be impossible.  Watch the weather channel-high pressure? Clear skies.  Low pressure? rain, tornados, hurricanes, thunderstorms etc.
18. The earth may not have been tilted 23.5 degrees like it is today.  This also evens out the weather to spring like conditions everywhere.
19. Today's atmosphere has .06% Carbon Dioxide (CO2).  A 50% boost to .09% would make plants grow MUCH faster, bigger and produce more fruit.  Fossils of club moss are found 150 feet tall.  Today they reach about 1.5 feet.  SOMETHING was different!

HISTORY FACTS TO CONSIDER:
1. MANY ancient cultures have legends of a "Golden Age" where people lived to be 1,000 years old.
2. Many cultures have taught the earth is only a few thousand years old.
3. The Jews taught there was a crystalline canopy over the earth. The 1st century Jewish historian Josephus said, "After this, on the second day, He placed the heavens over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts: and determined that it should stand by itself.  He also placed a crystalline firmament around it, and put together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews." Flavius Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 1.
4. Another Jewish text states, "and God made the firmament, its thickness being three fingers between (separating) the limits of the heavens (atmosphere) and the waters of the oceans." J. Bowers, D. S. Joanthgan translation, The Taroums and Rabbinin Literature, Cambridge University Press, 1969, P. 95.  (My three fingers total 2.4 inches in thickness.)

So, Here is the "Hovind version" of the "canopy theory."

 I believe God created everything in 6 literal 24 hours days exactly as recorded in Genesis 1 in the KJB. In verse one there was just the earth and one "heaven."  Starting in v. 6 God began dividing the heaven into 3 heavens by placing a "crystalline sphere" above the first heaven (atmosphere) and then another one above the second heaven where the stars are (Ps. 148:4).  The first canopy fell down or condensed at the flood and the second "canopy" is still there beyond the stars.  The entire universe that we marvel at is probably a little snow globe on God's dresser.  In the Wizard of OZ the witch watched Dorothy in one of those.  Hmmm? Satan always imitates the Most High. See Isaiah 14:13-14.

 This first canopy made in Gen. 1:6-7 was probably super cold (-450F?) perfectly clear crystalline ice about 3 inches thick and maybe 10 miles above the ground but containing all the atmosphere.  3" of ice weighs about 15 lbs/sq ft so 1.1 atmospheres would support it without the magnetic field helping.  However, it was probably also held up by the earth's magnetic field which was MUCH stronger 6,000 years ago.

 The second "Canopy" is probably also clear crystalline ice beyond the stars and is still there today.  See. EZ. 1:22-27.  No one knows where space ends.  I think God did that so we would say, like David in Ps. 8, When I consider the heavens...what is man...?

 The Bible clearly teaches there was water UNDER the crust of the earth in Ps. 24:1-2; 33:7; 136:7.  Earth's crust varies from 3-25 miles thick today.  This water under the crust came gushing out like water out of a womb (Job 38:8) when the fountains of the great deep broke open in Genesis 7:11.  THIS is where the flood water AND the 40 days of rain came from!

 The crust of the earth would sink into the void as the water left further flooding the surface and trapping huge pockets of hot water that STILL shoot up into the bottom of the ocean in tens of thousands of hot water springs along the mid-Atlantic ridge and various fault lines.  God asked Job if he had entered into the springs of the sea (38:16).  These were not discovered until 1977!  More about the waters under the crust in Appendix 2 of my book "What on Earth is About to Happen for Heaven's Sake?" (due out in March, 2013) or in Creation Seminar Part 6 and in Dr. Walt Brown's book, "In the Beginning".

 The crust sinking in would also speed up the earth's spin.  Maybe there were 360 days/year originally and 365.2422 today?  THAT would explain ancient calendars and other phenomenon-but that's for another book! Japan's 2011 tsunami and underwater land slide sped up the earth 1/1000th of a second.

 Under the first canopy of ice the people, plants and animals would live MUCH longer and grow MUCH bigger!  Fossils of giant animals have been found like: 6' beavers, 1,500 lb guinea pigs, 15' tall camels, 10' Kangaroos and 50' crocodiles.  Reptiles which never stop growing would become dinosaurs.

 Adam and Eve could see the stars MUCH more clearly and even hear the music of the stars as they sang together. Job 38:7.

 The flood began with the fountains of the deep breaking open. (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Pro. 8:28).  Dr. Walt Brown offers convincing evidence that 10 miles of rock on top of the subterranean waters (which would have a pressure of about 10 million pounds/square foot) would jet water, mud and rock into orbit!  The canopy of ice may have been destroyed and collapsed at this time.  3 inches of ice would contribute VERY little to the flood itself.

 Both the waters above and most of the waters below are now on the surface.  Oceans cover 70% of the earth God created to be inhabited.  Redistributing this mass of rock and water may have caused the earth to wobble and SLOWLY change its tilt from maybe 0 degrees (causing more uniform spring-like temperatures from pole to pole preflood) to 23.5 degrees today (which causes our seasons).  Hmmm??

SUMMARY

Tom, thanks for reading this LONG post.  I pray it will better explain my position and passion for the Word of God.  Please post it or print it if you like.  Your magazine is a GREAT blessing to many and makes and EXCELLENT gift for those wondering how they can influence others for Christ.  I pray that MANY who read my blogs will go to www.creationillustrated.com and get a subscription for themselves and a loved one.  I'm sorry the article by Paul made me give this public response.  I'd sure much rather solve differences without the whole world watching if possible but it was too late for that this time.

Eric (and Paul and any who have ears to hear), the two MAJOR reasons some otherwise intelligent fellow creationists do NOT believe there was a canopy above the originally created atmosphere is because:
1. they are not studying the right Bible and
2. they have the wrong canopy model.

1. As we have seen, some don't believe they have God's exact Words to even begin to evaluate the canopy topic or, if they have His Words they don't trust them or feel that they must submit to them.  In every article I have read by those who oppose the idea of a canopy above the atmosphere the author is always changing the words in Genesis from the KJB to fit his theory rather than changing his theory to fit the Word of God.

   Hundreds of great books have been written on the King James topic already.  I implore you to study this topic.  You will NEED a SOLID WORD to hold to in the tribulation time that is coming here soon.  I can clearly remember the feeling I got in about 1998 or so when, after pouring scores of hours into the study of the issue, I became convinced by the overwhelming evidence that God DID preserve His Words as He promised He would in Ps. 12:6-7.  I remember when I knelt by my bed and held my Bible and looked at it for a minute as my rebellious spirit softened.  Finally I prayed, "Lord, I'm sorry for the way I have treated Your Word all these years.  I have always been quick to adjust it or change it if I felt the need to make it match what I believed or wanted to believe.  I felt superior to Your Word rather than trusting it as my inflexible perfect standard.  Starting today It is my master, I am not its master.  Thank you for all the millions of saints over the years who have given their lives so I can hold a copy of your perfect Word.  Please guide me as I preach to defend it against all attacks.  In Jesus' Name. Amen."

   Once you get the issue settled that we have the Perfect Word of God, the rest is easy.  Just read it and try to rightly divide it.  You can't even read 7 WORDS into the various Bible versions before there is a profound difference!  KJB says "heaven" and almost all the others say "heavens."  Somebody is WRONG!  Ditto with the canopy teaching.  The Bible could not be more clear when it says there was water ABOVE the firmament (Gen. 1:6-7).  Verse 20 is clear that the firmament is where the birds fly-i.e. the atmosphere.  If there was no canopy what does that mean?

  I'm not sure which part of the word "above" the critics don't understand.  Is it the "a" part or the "bove" part?  These verses CANNOT be referring to clouds IN the atmosphere or "across the face of" or "the stretching" like some foolishly claim.  The Bible does NOT say there was 20 feet of water up there.  Nor does it say the flood water came from the water above the heaven.  We covered that.  It came from INSIDE the earth.

   If the Word says it, we are to believe it even if it has no scientific explanation.  I believe in the creation, resurrection and all the miracles WITHOUT any scientific explanation.  It is the same with the idea of "water above the firmament."  I believe it because it says it.  Now, with that said, that does NOT mean I cannot try to study and understand HOW God did it.  He WANTS us to "study to shew ourselves approved unto God."  I try HARD to do that!  I know you do too.

  I think anyone is authorized to give their "opinion" or "theories" about what God's Word says and means (but keep James 3:1 in mind!) but they are NOT authorized to "change the Words" themselves and THEN give their ideas about what THEIR translation says or means.  The Word says there was water above the firmament.  That issue is closed for me.

  The New King James (NKJV) Paul used to critique the canopy also says people "are being saved" (Catholic teaching) rather than "are saved" (KJB) in I Cor. 1:18.  Is Jesus God's SON (KJB Acts 3:26) or His Servant (NKJV)?  Will God provide Himself as the lamb (Gen 22:8) which has a double meaning or does God need to provide FOR Himself a lamb as if He sinned and needs a sacrifice (NKJV)?  Did God tell Noah to COME into the ark (God's inside and going with on the trip) Gen. 7:1 KJB or GO into the ark (NIV) like, "see ya later Noah-hope ya make it?"  This Bible version issue is MUCH more serious than most realize.  PLEASE seek His face on it Eric and Paul (and all others!)

2. They are studying the wrong model.  Jesus' critics said no prophet comes from Galilee. (Jn. 7:52)  They challenged those who believed he was a prophet to go home and study for themselves!  They were searching in vain for the wrong thing!  Jesus was born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth.  I think Paul may have rightly criticized flaws with some older canopy models but he threw out the baby with the bath water.  More and more evidence is coming in to support the idea of a 3" canopy of super cold ice above the atmosphere.  This would be true to the Bible AND answer loads of questions about the world and the pre-flood world.

  I may not have all the details about the water above the firmament perfect myself.  I would gladly hear any reasonable criticism of my canopy theory.  It may need to be adjusted and modified many times.  That is fine if it stays in the parameters of God's infallible Word.  I started with assumption that I held the perfect Word and sought for a model that would stay true to that standard.  I think the God who sees the heart will like that.  I suggest you do the same.

Kent Hovind