A Creation Museum

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

This was not my planned post for tonight. After my last post, I finally read the May 29th paper. The following article was in the Peoria Journal Star on May 29, 2007, page A3. I am quoting it in its entirety.

“Kentucky museum promotes creationism

Petersburg, Ky. (AP) –By 10 a.m. Monday, a line of more than 500 people snaked in front of the $27-million Creation Museum, the massive, high-tech tourist attraction promoting a literal biblical view of creation.

Across the street, as sheriff’s deputies look on, dozens of protesters held signs, some that poked fun at creationism (‘Do you deny gravity 2’) and others that showed open hostility toward organized religion. (One read: ‘Religion is the root cause of all terrorism.’) [How many is dozens? It could be just 24 people; it could be hundreds. Who knows how many is included in dozens? Only the reporter, I guess. Certainly, not the reader. Notice though that some of those who disagree with “GOD created” couldn’t resist voicing their opinion. It is certainly their right. My question though is this: Why are they so concerned? If it is so obvious that “slime to man” is true science, won’t the truth win out in the end? Indeed it will. Unfortunately, for the protesters if they don’t repent, when the truth becomes known to them as they bow before GOD, it will be too late to recant their blasphemy. They should open their hearts and minds to the truth. But then, some people have hardened their hearts to the truth that GOD created all things. It will unfortunately be their loss. They have been told the truth and have not repented. They can see the truth (design done by a DESIGNER; creation done by a CREATOR) and have not repented.—my addition]

Opinions spanned both fringes of the political spectrum, but on one thing nearly everyone was in agreement: a circus-like atmosphere surrounded the grand opening.

By early Monday evening, 3,000 people had visited the museum, and there was still a long line to get inside, said museum spokesman Giles Hudson.

About 130 media credentials were issued for the grand opening as well as for a preview on Saturday for news outlets based in the United States, Switzerland, Britain, France and Russia.

Among those visiting Monday were Dave and Faith Grosz, who trekked about two hours from Wilmore, Ky. They told their three children that they wouldn’t be in the news, but they found themselves talking to a reporter within minutes of arriving.

Faith Grosz said ‘there are too many holes’ (lies and unscientific speculation—my addition) in the theory of evolution.

‘It’s exciting to go to a museum that actually does hold to the theory of creation,’ she said. ‘Because every other science museum we have ever been to has held to the evolutionary theory. It gives honor to the Creator, who we believe in.’ (This is the only mention of GOD the CREATOR in the entire article. If not for this quote, the reporter would have had an entire article purportedly about a Creation Museum without one mention of GOD the CREATOR. Or, maybe other statements about GOD the CREATOR were edited out by the Peoria Journal Star editorial staff while they kept the more important details like the number of media credentials in the story. Who knows?—my addition)

The museum presents a literal Genesis view that everything was created in six 24-hour days. (Although I was not there at creation nor was any other man, GOD was. GOD certainly is capable of creating all things in 6 literal days. HE is capable of creating all things instantly if HE so desires. Having read the first chapter of Genesis have you noticed that GOD made light and darkness on the first day and yet did not make the sun, the moon, and the stars, things that we use to measure day and night, until the fourth day. It is GOOD that GOD is GOD!!!—my addition) It says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old—scientists say it is closer to 4.5 billion years old—and that humans and dinosaurs were both created on Day Six. (I’ve said before that Christians should not attempt to put a date on the age of the earth—of first importance because the Bible does not and therefore it is not biblically important. If it were biblically important, God would have told us. It is alright to speculate but Christians should not declare that speculation as fact. However, Christians also know this. Scientists can not possibly scientifically prove how old the earth is. [Also, not all scientists believe the earth is billions of years old. The reporter neglected to mention that there are some scientists who believe in a “young earth”.] Their estimate of “whatever billion” is just as speculative if not more so than the speculation that the earth is 6,000 years old. The scientists who believe in slime to man try to use an incredibly old earth to justify the ridiculous nonsense that slime can turn to man. In fact though, if it is not scientifically possible, it is not scientifically possible regardless of the age of the earth. It could be 6,000 or 6,000-trillion years old. If the change from slime to man can’t happen, it can’t happen period!!!—my addition)

Patrons scuttled through the museum to look at high-tech animatronic displays of dinosaurs living alongside humans and boarding Noah’s Ark. The museum claims that some dinosaurs survived until a few hundred years ago. (I’m not sure why this is relevant to the creation; but in reading this article don’t you get the feeling that the reporter is skeptical that GOD created all things. Do you think such an attitude, if present, would tend to skew his reporting of the event?—my addition)

The 60,000-acre facility is located on 42 acres that include a lake, picnic area and nature trails. (I reread this several times. This is how the article is written. I’m not sure how a 60,000-acre facility can be located on 42 acres. Now, that is a miracle!!!—my addition)

Some science teachers have said they’re worried that people will believe what they see in the museum and will have to be re-taught in science classes. (How many is some? The fact is GOD did create all things. By acknowledging that fact, the museum has come closer to the truth than any science class that erroneously indoctrinates students into the lie of slime to man!!!—my addition)

Museum officials have said that science confirms the Bible’s literal account of creation and have said criticism of it is an attack on religion.” (My guess is that if the museum officials believe that science confirms that GOD created all things and I believe they do, they probably also said an attack on the museum’s account of creation is also an attack on science. If that is true, why do you think the reporter did not say that also?—my addition)

This museum is a good thing because its emphasis seems to be on the truth that GOD is the CREATOR of all things. Why is it that the evolutionists can not tolerate (oh, there is that term again “toleration”) any deviation from their unscientific, nonsensical, ridiculous concept that man evolved from slime. Won’t honest debate help to bring the truth to the surface? Why are they so afraid of any concept except their own unproven nonsense? When are they going to change lead into gold???

Mass media’s typical reporting bias?

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

I went to a funeral today so I was not planning on posting tonight. However, I also received my weekly copy of World magazine. It had a short article that was so indicative of the general mass media reporting bias that I decided to post it tonight and go back to my planned topic on the following post. The article as printed in the June 2, 2007 issue page 10 reads:

“Lost in translation

Here’s one nuance the Associated Press missed out on when it reported on claims by the father of Guantanamo Bay detainee Majid Khan that his son suffered through torture at the U.S. detention facility. Turns out, Khan’s definition of torture might vary a bit from the way many understand it. Ali Khan said his son suffered mental torture when he was forced to use deodorant that was unscented, and had to play sports with a ball that wouldn’t bounce, among other injustices. The AP article didn’t mention the details later divulged by Fox News.”

Oh, what a difference leaving out the small details sometimes makes. I wonder, where was Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois? Why wasn’t he on the Senate floor denouncing the U.S. military for being comparable to the soldiers of Nazi Germany? Could it be that he is up for reelection next year and he has decided to be seen but not heard. At least not heard in the same manner as he was before?

Veterans reenlist
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
“Memorial Day:
‘Veterans reenlist,’ [subheading(—my addition)] ‘American Legion joins legal defense groups to battle ACLU incursions against memorials’ by Barbara Curtis
For nearly two decades, the ACLU has waged war against the cross in the public square, turning the laws meant to protect freedom of speech against small communities whose budgets can't stand up to a political Goliath. (And continuing the assault on the First’s Amendment’s “Establishment Clause” which contrary to the rulings of out of control judges and justices does not provide for a “separation of church and state.”—my addition)
Now the ACLU may meet its match. (If veteran groups are united in their effort and persistent because the ACLU will, no doubt, continue to attack our Christian heritage.—my addition)
In a face-off coinciding with Memorial Day weekend, the American Legion—the largest veterans service organization in the United States—in partnership with Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Legal Institute will declare war. It plans to serve notice to the ACLU on May 24 that attacks on war memorials will no longer be tolerated. (Isn’t it about time? Why have we allowed such a small but vocal group to take control of many of the decisions of the courts?—my addition)
The first salvo in this courtroom war was fired by the ACLU in 1989 with a suit to remove the 29-foot Mount Soledad cross, a war memorial overlooking the San Diego harbor since 1913 and providing inspiration to returning Navy vessels. (After 76 years, the ACLU decided this memorial was an establishment of religion?—my addition)
In 1991, District Court Judge Gordon Thompson found the cross in violation of the U.S. Constitution and ordered it removed. In 1992, the City of San Diego sold the land under the cross to a private organization—a move approved not once, but twice, by voters. (Of course, that was not good enough for the ACLU because the cross was still there. Does this provide evidence that it is not the public, governmental display that is the ultimate concern of the ACLU, but rather, the display of the cross itself that so irritates these libertine lawyers?—my addition)
Though the cross still stands, its permanent fate remains unresolved as the ACLU continues to fight the legality of the land transfer. (Why are they concerned about this, if their real target was not the cross itself?—my addition) On May 3, 2006, Judge Thompson ordered the cross removed within 90 days, imposing a $5,000 per day fine against the City of San Diego for every day it continues to stand. (Another continuing instance of judicial tyranny!!!—my addition)
Meanwhile, on a less likely battle front, another war memorial in the Mojave Desert …—erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor those who fought and died in World War I—has been boarded up so as not to offend tourists who might wander 11 miles off the beaten track to be offended by it. In response to an ACLU suit, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in 2004 that the cross must be removed. And that litigation grinds on as a privatization plan has also been challenged by the ACLU. (Again, what is the real aim of the ACLU? Is it not to remove Christianity from the public arena with the help of compliant judges? They have not been able to do it legislatively.—my addition)
The Mount Soledad and Mojave Desert crosses are only the most visible of thousands of war memorials now at risk across the nation. As the World War II generation approaches its final rest—30,000 veterans are buried monthly—they are increasingly frustrated as the American freedoms they fought to defend are perverted under the notion that "freedom of religion" means "freedom from religion." (How many crosses do you think are in Arlington National Cemetery? How many crosses do you think are in other cemeteries owned and operated by other government entities? Are all those crosses unconstitutional because of the ACLU’S perverted view of the First Amendment? Where is an individuals “freedom of speech” right to have a cross on his grave if that was his desire? Why are the courts so compliant to ACLU demands for “Christian cleansing” regardless of the true meaning of the First Amendment?—my addition)
Rees Lloyd, a veteran who bugles at burials at Riverside National Cemetery, describes how he and all the veterans participating wear sunglasses—not to be California cool, but to hide the tears in their eyes as they watch the flag-folding ceremonies and see the pride of the families honoring the fathers, uncles, and brothers who served.
Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer, is now co-author of the October 2006 resolution announcing the Veterans Memorial Project. He said he seethes at the way the ACLU is "using the threat of this financial punishment as a club to bludgeon communities into submission."
To combat what the Legion calls "secular cleansing litigation," the member-driven organization has developed a battle plan, working not only at the national level with a campaign kickoff this month, but also as members of 14,500 legion posts to create a national registry of all war memorials and to begin "educating and activating" local communities to understand the threat posed by the ACLU's attacks on the war memorials. (IT IS ABOUT TIME!—my addition)
"For decades the ACLU has painted its opposition as religious zealots. Now 2.7 million veterans have had enough," Lloyd said. "For the ACLU—people who overwhelmingly did not serve—to tell us how we can or cannot honor the sacrifice of our veterans is obscene." (AMEN!!!—my addition)
—Barbara Curtis is a writer in Waterford, Va. (World magazine, May 26, 2007, page 17)

Comments concerning evolution

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my Monday night (may have been posted Tuesday morning) post entitled “Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 6,” I continued my quoting of New Testament scripture which correctly credits GOD with the creation of all things. The New Testament quotes began with Ephesians 3: 7-9 (NIV) and ended with Hebrews 12: 25-27 (NIV). Two people posted comments. The two comments are as follows:

1) Secret Rapture said... My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions! The Secret Rapture soon, by my hand!Read My Inaugural Address My Site=http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman

10:51 AM
2) Anonymous said... Two loons….

9:21 PM
I can’t speak for the first posted comment since I have no idea who it was from nor have I checked out the sight. I don’t control who posts comments and who does not. As for the second post, I do have a problem with people who make anonymous responses. To me, their response is about as valid as their willingness to identify themselves. However, I will respond to the comment anyway.
Encarta dictionary’s first definition for loon, the noun, is “North America Australia New Zealand ▪ diving bird of northern waters: a fish-eating diving bird with a short tail, webbed feet, smooth black-and-white feathers, and a distinctive laughing call. Native to: northern hemisphere. Genus: Gavia” (Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) The second and last definition given is an informal word for Canadian money. I don’t think the individual means either one of these although I may be wrong since my topic was evolution.
But, wait! The dictionary also lists loon² which is also a noun. The definitions given are: 1) offensive term: an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody's mental condition or intelligence (slang insult) 2) Scotland boy: a boy or young man (Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) I’m only guessing, but I don’t believe the individual who posted the comment means I am a Scotland boy. That leaves only the offensive term that insults my intelligence. I didn’t realize the individual knew me so well!
I would answer the comment in the same manner that the apostle Paul answered a similar comment. Paul was being held prisoner by the Roman government. The Roman Governor was Porcius Festus. Paul appeared before Festus and King Agrippa along with other officials and leading citizens. During Paul’s discourse, he was abruptly interrupted by Festus.
“At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. ‘You are out of your mind, Paul!’ he shouted. ‘Your great learning is driving you insane.’
‘I am not insane, most excellent Festus,’ Paul replied. ‘What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.’
Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?’
Paul replied, ‘Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am (a Christian—my addition), except for these chains.’” Acts 26: 24-29 (NIV)
I don’t claim to be anything close to Paul in my walk with GOD. However, what I have written about creation and evolution is true and reasonable. And like Paul, I pray that all who are reading this are or will become a Christian.
Fortunately, I am not at this time in chains. It is those who are outside of CHRIST, those who have not put on CHRIST in baptism who are in chains—slaves to sin.
However, one day Christians may be in chains in this country. If this country continues on it downward plunge into immorality and sin, I would not be surprised that those who speak the truth about such sins are imprisoned by the government. If and when it becomes a crime to speak the truth, Christians must still speak the truth.
We can see the plunge already in our continuing demand to murder our own unborn children. We can see the plunge already in our attempts to allow homosexual sin to be defined as normal and legal. We can see the plunge already in our attempts to promote any immoral activity among consenting adults. We can see the plunge already in our attempts to remove GOD for the public arena. We can see the plunge already in our denial that GOD created all things. Evil endeavors to silence good by punishing those who speak out against evil—punishment by chains, punishment by insults, punishment by name calling, punishment by ridicule, punishment by isolation.
However, in the end GOD is always victorious!!! “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the spirit from the spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
What are you sowing? What are you going to reap?

Intelligent Design and academic freedom, part 2

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my last post, I wrote the following: I have just begun reading The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. I’m not a particular fan of the concept of Intelligent Design for one obvious reason—it does not specifically give praise, glory, and honor to GOD for HIS creation. On the front cover of the book, the following is printed:
“You think you know about Darwinism and Intelligent Design. But did you know:
1) The famous ‘ape to man’ species chart is based on guesswork, not evidence
2) Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief
3) What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods
4) Scientists at major universities see good evidence for intelligent design
5) Scientists who question Darwinism are punished—by public institutions using your tax dollars” (The numbering of the five “did you know” were by my addition) The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Regnery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20001, © 2006, front cover.

This is certain: Intelligent Design is correct in that it argues that creation and man demonstrates design and that design requires intelligence. The problem, of course, is that the concept does not define the designer as GOD. Thus, Intelligence Design is correct but incomplete. That, of course, is certainly better than the nonsensical, unscientific concept of Darwin’s slime to man. Certainly, the best explanation is GOD CREATED as specifically declared in the WORD of GOD throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

I recently received my latest edition of World magazine, May 26, 2007. A short article on page 24 was entitled “Publish and perish” with the subheading “Iowa State denies tenure to an intelligent design advocate with impeccable credentials.” The article was written by Mark Bergin. I don’t think you will find another article in the mass media magazines covering this same story. I certainly did not see a newspaper story about it. Since one of the points quoted above was “Scientists who question Darwinism are punished—by public institutions using your tax dollars” and since Iowa State is one such public institution, I thought I would quote the article in its entirety. Here it is:

“Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez never anticipated becoming a test case for academic freedom. Soft-spoken and mild-mannered, the self-described ‘geek-scientist’ is heralded throughout his field for developing the concept of a Galactic Habitable Zone. Journals such as Nature, Science, and Scientific American have featured his work.”

Tonight, I originally planned on updating a list of references I had posted earlier in relation to creation. Besides reading The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, I have read Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., with Mike Matthews and, as I’ve said, am now reading The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. although I am just on page 37 currently. I had thumbed through Refuting Evolution 2 for references and was thumbing through The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design when I came across a section dealing with Guillermo Gonzalez and his situation before his denial of tenure which was mentioned in the World article.

Here is a portion of what was said in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design concerning the Gonzalez case:

“Soon after Gonzalez and Richards published The Privileged Planet, Illustra Media produced a one-hour film based on the book. In October 2004, the film premiered to a standing-room-only crowd at Seattle’s Museum of Flight.

The Discovery Institute in Seattle (with which Gonzalez and Richards were both affiliated) then approached the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. to arrange a showing there. The NMNH—the same organization that persecuted Richard Sternberg for publishing an article about intelligent design—routinely makes its auditorium available to outside groups in exchange for a donation. Following standard procedure, NMNH staff reviewed the film to make sure it complied with the museum’s policy excluding events of a religious nature. In April 2005, the NMNH agreed to co-sponsor a showing of The Privileged Planet on June 23, in exchange for a $16,000 donation from the Discovery Institute. In May, invitations were sent to several hundred people in North America announcing: ‘The director of the National Museum of Natural History and Discovery Institute cordially invite you to the national premiere and evening reception of The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe.’

When Darwinists learned of the upcoming event, they went ballistic. Their internet blogs, bristling with indignation, urged readers to send protests to the Smithsonian. The New York Times announced: ‘Smithsonian to Screen a Movie that Makes a Case Against Evolution.’ Yet the film (like the book) is compatible with cosmic evolution, and it says nothing about biological evolution.

After being hammered by enraged Darwinists the Smithsonian threw in the towel. Lucy Dorrick, associate director for development and special events at the NMNH, wrote to the Discovery Institute: ‘Upon further review, the Museum has determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research.’ NMNH spokesman Randall Kremer told The Scientist: ‘The scientific content for the most part is accurate,’ but ‘the science is used to draw a philosophical conclusion.’

Discovery Institute’s Jonathan Witt pointed out that the Smithsonian had had no problem sponsoring ‘Cosmos Revisited: A Series Presented in the Memory of Carl Sagan’ in 1997. ‘Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’ series,’ noted Witt, ‘is famous for its opening dictum, ‘The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.’ Why didn’t the Smithsonian have a problem promoting this little philosophical flourish?’ Witt concluded: ‘The Smithsonian has been given over lock, stock, and barrel, to Sagan’s metaphysical vision for decades. The one difference now is that they’re explicitly stating that not only do they privilege Sagan’s materialist metaphysic, they will block any scientific argument that suggests a contrary conclusion.’

But the Smithsonian had already signed a contract for the event. ‘Due to this fact,’ wrote Dorrick, ‘we will, of course, honor the commitment made to provide space for the event to the Discovery Institute, but the museum will not participate or accept a donation for the event.’ The NMNH returned $11,000 of the $16,000 donation to the Discovery Institute, keeping $5,000 for expenses.

The event itself was a huge success. On June 23, 2005, a capacity crowd filled the National Museum of Natural History’s Baird Auditorium. Afterwards, Gonzalez and Richards answered questions from scientists, students, journalists, and legislators, then hosted a reception in the museum’s Hall of Geology, Gems, and Minerals.

The controversy also had its lighter moments. When he first heard of it at the end of May, atheist James Randi offered to pay the NMNH $20,000 to cancel the event. Randi’s clumsy attempt to bribe the Smithsonian to censor the film amused mathematician David Berlinski, a critic of Darwinism and fellow of the Discovery Institute living in Paris. Berlinski wrote to Randi and threatened, tongue in check, to show The Privileged Planet in Europe unless Randi also paid him $20,000. For ‘the right price’ Berlinski said, the Discovery Institute would make sure the film ‘disappeared itself, if you catch my drift. You get to keep the negatives, we keep the director’s cut in our safe for insurance. Is this some sort of deal, or what?’

Randi did not respond.

In 2001, Guillermo Gonzalez had left his postdoctoral research position at the University of Washington to take a job as an assistant professor of astronomy and physics at Iowa State University. Things were going well there until the June 2005 screening of The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian.

Soon after the Smithsonian event, Iowa State professor Hector Avalos circulated a faculty petition to ‘reject all attempts to represent intelligent design as a scientific endeavor.’ The petition, which was signed by nearly 120 Iowa State professors, criticized ‘advocates of intelligent design’ for claiming that ‘the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe.’ Within a few weeks, many faculty members at the University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa had also signed the petition.

‘We want to make sure the public and the university start to voice their opposition to intelligent design,’ Avalos told the Iowa State Daily. He also told the Chronicle of Higher Education: ‘We certainly don’t want to give the impression to the public that intelligent design is what we do.’ And he was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: ‘A lot of people were concerned that Iowa State could become a place being marketed where intelligent design research was taking place and that it had some validity in school curricula.’

Although the petition did not mention Gonzalez by name, it was obviously aimed at him. Yet he has never taught intelligent design in his classes. He does assert that ‘it properly falls within science’ because its methods are scientific and it does not start with religious assumptions, but he also considers it too new and controversial to teach without the support of his astronomy colleagues. Like Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, Gonzalez defends intelligent design only outside the classroom, on his own time. Yet he, like Behe and Minnich, is condemned by colleagues who in other situations boast about their commitment to academic freedom. (Academic freedom as long as it is academics that they support. It is the same attitude found in the tolerance movement. Tolerance for everything that they are tolerant of; no tolerance for anything they disagree with. So much for both tolerance and academic freedom!!!—my addition)

Avalos accuses Gonzalez of having a hidden religious agenda. Others have accused him of academic fraud. ‘I didn’t expect this level of vitriol, this level of intense hostility,’ Gonzalez told the Des Moines Register. At the University of Iowa, about a hundred miles east of Iowa State, physics professor Frederick Skiff agreed to discuss intelligent design in a campus forum with three Darwinists. Skiff was ridiculed and insulted, and he was given very little time to respond. (The usual tactic by people who can not defend the indefensible. Take control by insult and injury rather than by the weight of the facts.—my addition) ‘I have never faced such blatant hostility and dishonesty at the hands of colleagues before,’ he said afterward.

Someone unfamiliar with Iowa State might think that Avalos is a scientist—perhaps, like Gonzalez, a physicist or astronomer—concerned with defending the integrity of his discipline from attacks by religious fundamentalists. But Hector Avalos is a professor of religion! In this bizarre drama, it is the scientist who is arguing for design in the universe, and the religious professor who is trying to silence him. The irony was not lost on Iowa State sociology professor Davis Schweingruber, who wrote to a local newspaper: ‘What is Avalos’ objection to Gonzalez’s work? He told the Des Moines Register that he knows ID is religion and not science because ‘I’m a Biblical scholar,’ So Iowa State has one thing in common with unaccredited Bible colleges and medieval heresy tribunals: Our Bible scholars think they can tell our astronomers how to do their jobs.’ Schweingruber concluded: ‘A witch hunt is a poor model for scientific inquiry.’

But the irony doesn’t stop there. Religion professor Hector Avalos is a militant atheist. He is the founder and faculty advisor of the Iowa State University Atheist and Agnostic Society, which ‘is intended to provide an educational and support system for students who believe that one can live a fulfilling, productive, and ethical life without religion.’ (And they can. If they redefine fulfilling, productive, and ethical to suit their humanistic desires.—my addition) So Iowa taxpayers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year on an institution that entrusts the teaching of religion to someone who tells students they’re better off without it—and who thinks it’s his job to tell an astronomer how to do science. (Not, at all, hard to believe. What is hard to believe is that we allow this nonsense to go on in almost total silence!—my addition)

Is this heaven? No, it’s Iowa.” The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Regnery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20001, © 2006, pages 124-129.

Again, it must be asked. Where is the academic freedom that academics claim is so important for learning? If there were real academic freedom, wouldn’t academics push for a plethora of views, rather than only one, attempting to stimulate discussion and honest intellectual debate? What are they afraid of? THE TRUTH!!!

Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

I have just begun reading The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. I’m not a particular fan of the concept of Intelligent Design for one obvious reason—it does not specifically give praise, glory, and honor to GOD for HIS creation. On the front cover of the book, the following is printed:
“You think you know about Darwinism and Intelligent Design. But did you know:
1) The famous ‘ape to man’ species chart is based on guesswork, not evidence
2) Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief
3) What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods
4) Scientists at major universities see good evidence for intelligent design
5) Scientists who question Darwinism are punished—by public institutions using your tax dollars” (The numbering of the five “did you know” were by my addition) The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Regnery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20001, © 2006, front cover.

This is certain: Intelligent Design is correct in that it argues that creation and man demonstrates design and that design requires intelligence. The problem, of course, is that the concept does not define the designer as GOD. Thus, Intelligence Design is correct but incomplete. That, of course, is certainly better than the nonsensical, unscientific concept of Darwin’s slime to man. Certainly, the best explanation is GOD CREATED as specifically declared in the WORD of GOD throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

I recently received my latest edition of World magazine, May 26, 2007. A short article on page 24 was entitled “Publish and perish” with the subheading “Iowa State denies tenure to an intelligent design advocate with impeccable credentials.” The article was written by Mark Bergin. I don’t think you will find another article in the mass media magazines covering this same story. I certainly did not see a newspaper story about it. Since one of the points quoted above was “Scientists who question Darwinism are punished—by public institutions using your tax dollars” and since Iowa State is one such public institution, I thought I would quote the article in its entirety. Here it is:

“Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez never anticipated becoming a test case for academic freedom. Soft-spoken and mild-mannered, the self-described ‘geek-scientist’ is heralded throughout his field for developing the concept of a Galactic Habitable Zone. Journals such as Nature, Science, and Scientific American have featured his work.

But in his spare time, Gonzalez shuns scientific orthodoxy to research evidence of intelligent design (ID), an extracurricular pursuit that draws sharp criticism from many colleagues and now threatens his job. Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy denied Gonzalez tenure last month despite a distinguished publishing record that includes 68 peer-reviewed articles.

‘I was surprised and a little depressed,’ Gonzalez said of his emotional reaction. ‘I almost decided not to turn in an appeal, but several friends convinced me to do so. This might have precedent, so it was important for me to go through it for the sake of others who might go through this in the future.’

Gonzalez filed his appeal May 8. President Geoffroy has until June 6 to consider overturning his initial ruling, an unlikely reversal that would defy the consensus recommendation from the tenured faculty of the Physics and Astronomy Department, a committee from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of that college, and the university provost.

Gonzalez elected not to share with WORLD the specific stated reasons for his tenure denial or the substance of his appeal, fearing such public revelations might hinder the process. He referred to the disputed issues in more general terms: ‘I really don’t think they have a legitimate reason for denying me tenure.’ He also said that possible discrimination for his views on intelligent design was one of his concerns.

Geoffroy declined to make any public comment on the matter while it remains under review. But Eli Rosenberg, chair of the Physics and Astronomy Department, told WORLD the central issue was not ID: ‘That was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level. You take a look at somebody’s research record over the six-year probationary period and you get a sense whether this is a strong case. Clearly, this was a case that looked like it might be in trouble.’

John West of the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, which counts Gonzalez among its senior fellows, scoffs at that explanation. ‘His department’s standards for excellence in research require 15 peer-reviewed publications. Guillermo has nearly 70,’ West said. ‘It’s pretty apparent that the reason for this tenure denial is because he is a proponent of intelligent design.’ Statistics obtained by the Discovery Institute reveal that 91 percent of faculty up for tenure this year were approved. Gonzalez fell short of that soft standard despite co-authoring one of his department’s textbooks last year.

Two years ago, on the heels of Gonzalez publishing his pro-ID book The Privileged Planet, Iowa State religious studies professor Hector Avalos circulated a petition calling for university faculty to denounce ID as non-science. (Notice two things: one reason why the mass media may not be covering this story is because they don’t want to publicize the book—The Privileged Planet. Publicize the existence of such a book and the possible scandal of the denial of tenure and people might buy the book and have their views influenced by the material presented. It’s better to remain silent and let it blow over rather than make it a news worthy story. Also, it seems that Hector Avalos is not a scientist since he is a professor of religious studies.—my addition) Avalos, an avowed atheist, procured the signatures of 120 faculty members and generated what Gonzalez calls ‘an extreme level of hostility against me.’ (Does it seem strange than so many professors in religious studies seem to be atheists, if Avalos is one? Maybe, it just seems to be that way and most have some religious belief. I don’t know.—my addition)

Curtis Struck, a colleague of Gonzalez in the Physics and Astronomy Department and professor at ISU for 24 years, told WORLD he was not surprised by the decision to deny tenure. ‘Some of Guillermo’s papers any astronomer would be proud to have written. Some others that is not the case,’ Struck said. ‘He includes some things in his astronomy résumé that other people regard as taking a coincidence too far.’ (Do you think this professor is referring to Intelligent Design?—my addition)

Specifically, Gonzalez listed The Privileged Planet on his résumé when applying for tenure. Rosenberg ([the chairman of the Physics and Astronomy Department] I had to go back into the article to remember who he is so I thought I would save you the trouble.—my addition) admitted that the presence of that text played into the decision-making process. He also explained that the reputation of a professor among others in the field is a significant factor. (Is this peer pressure rather than academic freedom?—my addition)

Gonzalez said he does not regret his ID work despite the resultant grief. He has never introduced the topic into his classes and sees no reason why academia should require him to abandon a personal interest. ‘I’ve never been involved in any of the educational debates over whether creation or evolution should be taught in schools. I just want to do ID research on my time,’ he said. ‘Maybe I should have waited until after I received tenure.’ (It seems that Iowa State University believes he should have more free time to devote to Intelligent Design research!—my addition)

What do you think? Of course, based upon the information given, we can not draw a definitive conclusion. But, what do you think? Do you believe he was denied tenure in balance because of his work on Intelligent Design and his publication of The Privileged Planet? (I thought I recognized this title. Lee Strobel in his book The Case for a Creator lists the book The Privileged Planet in his section at the end of Chapter Seven entitled “FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE: More Resources on This Topic”)

Could it be when other scientists, as broadcast by the mass media, claim that no reputable scientist believes in Intelligent Design it is because they have intimidated such scientists into silence and/or they simply refuse to mention those who do because it contradicts their own view point on the subject. Is this another case of the liars shouting down those who disagree? Is this another case of intimidating those who disagree?

Where is the academic freedom that academics claim is so important for learning? If there were real academic freedom, wouldn’t academics push for a plethora of views, rather than only one, attempting to stimulate discussion and honest intellectual debate? What are they afraid of? THE TRUTH!!!

Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 7

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

I originally said that there were fifty-five distinct references about GOD and creation and I was going to list them all. I, however, am running short on time for the post today and want to finish the posts for the quoted references today. Therefore, I am not listing seven of the remaining quotes. If forty-eight distinct references will not convince someone that the Bible clearly proclaims that GOD created, I don’t think an additional seven will either. They have closed their minds to the WORD of TRUTH. Some people simply refuse to believe the truth. Someday, if they don’t repent, they will pay a terrible price for their stubborn refusal to accept that GOD created.

“Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.” James 1: 16-18 (NIV)

“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.” James 3: 9 (NIV)

“Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.” I Peter 1: 17-21 (NIV)

“First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” II Peter 3: 3-7 (NIV)

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.” I John 1: 1-4 (NIV)

“I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. I write to you fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.” I John 2: 12-14 (NIV)

Implicit in these last two references is the truth that GOD (CHRIST JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT) existed before the beginning of time and before HE (THEY) created the universe.

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “’These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.’” Revelation 3: 14 (NIV)

“Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.’ Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.’” Revelation 4: 8-11 (NIV)

Does claiming that man came from slime give glory, honor, and power to GOD?

“Then the angel I had seen standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven. And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, ‘There will be no more delay! But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.’” Revelation 10: 5-7 (NIV)

“All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.” Revelation 13: 8 (NIV)

“Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.’ Revelation 14: 6-7 (NIV)

“Then the angel said to me: ‘Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.” Revelation 17: 7-8 (NIV)

“He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’

He said to me: ‘It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.’” Revelation 21: 5-8 (NIV)

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “’Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.’” Revelation 22: 12-16 (NIV)

Does any Presidential candidate who believes and declares that man came from slime deserve the vote of any Christian who knows the truth?

Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 6

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my Friday, May 19 post (which I believe I actually posted early Saturday morning—I identify my posts by the day I write them not the day posted) I stated the following: For Christians all that should really be necessary to know that GOD created everything is the first sentence, in the first paragraph of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1 (NIV) That GOD created man is specifically declared by stating: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1: 27 (NIV) Chapters one and two of Genesis deals specifically with creation. The first chapter is an overview of creation. The second chapter is more centered on the specific creation of the first man and woman. That GOD needed billions of years to have man evolve from some slime thing is both ludicrous and contrary to the direct WORD of GOD. Either the Bible is wrong or the Bible is right. It can NOT be both ways!!! The WORD of GOD specifically affirms that GOD CREATED ALL THINGS!!!

In my present study of the Bible, I have been studying declarations of GOD being the CREATOR and repentance. I usually go through the New Testament three times when doing such studies. I am not yet finished with my first time. However, given the topic of my last three posts, it seems appropriate to relate what I have found so far. I do not claim that those stated are all the references possible since this is only my first time through. Also, it must be understood that my study is very specific. Throughout the WORD of GOD the whole thought is that GOD created. Consequently, miracles can and do occur, the human body is more than flesh and bone possessing both a soul and a spirit (which I believe could not be possible if the body had evolved from slime to man), and eternal life is possible, even after the physical body is dead, because GOD created. I have only included those references that specially deal with creation and are from the New Testament.

Then, on that Friday and Saturday, I posted eighteen different references from the New Testament referring to GOD creating the universe, world, man, all things. I spent some of the weekend reading the rest of the New Testament to complete my references. This was a quick read rather than a study and as I’ve said may not contain all references. Nevertheless, I have a total of fifty-five different references in regard to creation—more than I thought would be given. My Topical Bible lists far fewer which is one reason why I do my own study. I was planning to finish listing the references tonight. I don’t think that will happen. I am going to list all fifty–five (thirty-seven remaining) though over the next posts.

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” Ephesians 1: 3-4 (NIV)

“I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given through the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.” Ephesians 3: 7-9 (NIV)

“He (JESUS, the SON of GOD—my addition) is the image of the invisible God, the first born over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” Colossians 1: 15-20 (NIV)

“Since then, you have been raised with Christ, set you hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” Colossians 3: 1-10 (NIV)

“So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me (the apostle Paul—my addition) his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” II Timothy 1: 8-10 (NIV)

Implicit in this reference is the truth that GOD (CHRIST JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT) existed before the beginning of time and before HE (THEY) created the universe.

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness—a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our savior….” Titus 1: 1-3 (IV)

Implicit in this reference is the truth that GOD (CHRIST JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT) existed before the beginning of time and before HE (THEY) created the universe.

“In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” Hebrews 1: 1-3 (NIV)

“He (GOD—my addition) also says, ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end (Psalm 102: 25-27—my addition).’” Hebrews 1: 10-12 (NIV)

“In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, from whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.” Hebrews 2: 10 (NIV)

“Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.” Hebrews 3: 3-4 (NIV)

Not according to the ludicrous nonsense spouted by those who believe the lie of slime to man. To them, it just happened to happen. What misguided faith they must have if they actual believe that illogical, unscientific garbage!

“Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, ‘So I declared on oath in my anger, “They shall never enter my rest.’’ And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work (Genesis 2: 2—my addition).’” Hebrews 4: 1-4 (NIV)

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” Hebrews 4: 12-13 (NIV)

When you give an account to GOD of everything that you did, said, and thought; do you really think you will be able to justify accepting the lie of slime to man instead of knowing the truth that GOD CREATED ALL THINGS!!!

“When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not part of this creation. He did not enter by means of blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.” Hebrews 9: 11-12 (NIV)

“It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” Hebrews 9: 23-28 (NIV)

Are you waiting for JESUS’S second coming or dreading appearing before the judgment seat of GOD? Or, are you so misguided as to believe the slime to man lie of humanistic apologists, who claim once dead always dead—the only existence is the body, who are trying to condemn you with them to eternal fire?

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11: 1-3 (NIV)

BY FAITH WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS FORMED AT GOD’S COMMAND, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11: 3 (NIV)

Both GOD CREATED and Darwin’s slime to man requires a kind of faith. Neither will be scientifically proven. I believe believing slime to man takes much greater faith than believing GOD CREATED because slime to man is simply made-up garbage that can not possibly by true. As was once said, eliminate all that is impossible and the truth is then that which remains no matter how improbable. (A poor translation of a Sherlock Holmes’ quote, I think. I didn’t actually check and it has been a long while since I have read any of Sherlock Holmes.) However, the fact is that the only logical conclusion is that GOD created. How else could all things have come into existence? How could that which had no life, become alive? How else could all the different elements have been created if not by a CREATOR? Evolution—from slime to man—is scientifically impossible. Creation without a CREATOR is scientifically impossible. The complexity of the universe is scientifically impossible without a DESIGNER and CREATOR. It has to be AND GOD CREATED!!! We can see it in all creation.

“See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.” Hebrews 12: 25-27 (NIV)

Does any Presidential candidate who believes and declares that man came from slime deserve the vote of any Christian who knows the truth?

Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 5

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my last post, I gave references from the gospels declaring that the world was created, man was created, and the CREATOR was GOD. Tonight, references from some of the other books in the New Testament beginning with the book of Acts.

“On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.’” Acts 4: 23-24 (NIV)

“’However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet (Isaiah 66: 1-2—my addition) says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things?’” Acts 7: 48-50 (NIV)

“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: ‘Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.’ Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.” Acts 14: 14-18 (NIV)

“Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: ‘Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.’” Acts 17: 22-31 (NIV)

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1: 18-25 (NIV)

Do you think that GOD would say that those poor souls who claim that man evolved from slime to man are both futile in their thinking and fools? Do you think that GOD knows that those who promote the concept of slime to man are in fact worshiping and serving created things rather than the CREATOR HIMSELF? The very nature of the creation of all things demonstrates GOD’S eternal power and divine nature. And yet, godless and wicked men are trying to claim that creation was not creation—that it just happened by chance. They are trying to lie and claim that slime evolved into man instead of being created by the CREATOR of all things. Why would any Christian support for President any candidate who believes and parrots these obvious malicious lies against GOD the CREATOR? WHY???

“I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.” Romans 8: 18-25 (NIV)

Who can liberate all of creation for its bondage? ONLY THE CREATOR!!! OUR HOPE IS IN THE CREATOR; not in the limited reasoning power of sinful, wicked man! Any choice between GOD the CREATOR and man evolving from slime should be easy and without hesitation: GOD THE CREATOR!!!

“No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8: 37-39 (NIV)

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! ‘Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. Romans 11: 33-36 (NIV)

All things—all things—come from GOD, come through GOD, and come to GOD!!! Does the blatantly ridiculous argument that man evolved from slime to man give glory to GOD??? I don’t think so!!! Which of the Presidential candidates give glory to GOD? Those who support and believe in the nonsensical claim that man comes from slime??? I don’t think so!!!

“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” I Corinthians 2: 6-8 (NIV)

Implicit in these two sentences is the truth that it takes tremendous wisdom to create the universe before time existed. The universe and all other creation could not and did not occur by chance. Nor did man evolve from slime over any time span. GOD even created time!!!

“… yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” I Corinthians 8: 6 (NIV)

Does any Presidential candidate who believes and declares that man came from slime deserve the vote of any Christian who knows the truth?

Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 4

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

For Christians all that should really be necessary to know that GOD created everything is the first sentence, in the first paragraph of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1 (NIV) That GOD created man is specifically declared by stating: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1: 27 (NIV) Chapters one and two of Genesis deals specifically with creation. The first chapter is an overview of creation. The second chapter is more centered on the specific creation of the first man and woman. That GOD needed billions of years to have man evolve from some slime thing is both ludicrous and contrary to the direct WORD of GOD. Either the Bible is wrong or the Bible is right. It can NOT be both ways!!! The WORD of GOD specifically affirms that GOD CREATED ALL THINGS!!!

In my present study of the Bible, I have been studying declarations of GOD being the CREATOR and repentance. I usually go through the New Testament three times when doing such studies. I am not yet finished with my first time. However, given the topic of my last three posts, it seems appropriate to relate what I have found so far. I do not claim that those stated are all the references possible since this is only my first time through. Also, it must be understood that my study is very specific. Throughout the WORD of GOD the whole thought is that GOD created. Consequently, miracles can and do occur, the human body is more than flesh and bone possessing both a soul and a spirit (which I believe could not be possible if the body had evolved from slime to man), and eternal life is possible, even after the physical body is dead, because GOD created. I have only included those references that specially deal with creation and are from the New Testament.

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “’You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.’” Matthew 5: 43-45 (NIV)

The sun is GOD’S sun. The rain is given to man by GOD. That can only mean that GOD created the sun and GOD created the rain. The person who proclaims this to be true is GOD’S only SON.

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “Some Pharisees came to him (JESUS—my addition) to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’”

“‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what GOD has joined together, let man not separate.’” Matthew 19: 3-6 (NIV) [The Biblical view of marriage and divorce is another command of GOD that has been grossly and tragically altered and ignored by man. However, that must wait for another time and another post.]

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “’When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.’”

“’Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.’” Matthew 25: 31-34 (NIV)

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’”

“’What did Moses command you?’ He replied.”

“They said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.’”

“’It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,’ Jesus replied. ‘But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’” Mark 10: 2-9 (NIV)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” John 1: 1-5 (NIV)

JESUS is the WORD, JESUS was with GOD, JESUS was GOD, and through JESUS all things were made. Is that clear enough???

“He (JESUS—my addition) was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.” John 1: 10 (NIV)

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life; that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.’” John 17: 1-5 (NIV)

GOD and JESUS the CHRIST were before the world began and implicitly must have created the world for it to exist.

The following is credited as a direct quote of JESUS, the SON of GOD, “’Father, I want those you have given to me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.’” John 17: 24 (NIV)

GOD and JESUS the CHRIST were before the world began and implicitly must have created the world for it to exist.

(To be continued.)

Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 3

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

Tonight, I’m posting a column by Kathleen Parker published in the Peoria Journal Star on May 13, 2007, page A4. (Originally, I was going to post the column without comment and then comment the next post. I changed my mind and am commenting as the column is read.) The column:

“In a nation where 91 percent of citizens profess to believe in God, it’s a safe bet we won’t see an atheist in the White House anytime soon. (I think she means a professed atheist. There are a number of Presidential candidates running for the 2008 nomination who, in my opinion, are not even close to being obedience to GOD’S WILL. Professing to believe in GOD is not the same thing as believing in GOD and therefore being obedient to GOD’S WILL. Professing belief is easy; actually believing in obedient reverence is something else entirely as I’m afraid many will discover when they are before the Judgment Seat of GOD at the end of the age.—my addition)

But what about a president who doesn’t believe in Darwin? And are Darwin and God mutually exclusive? (To answer the second question first. Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Darwin’s nonsensical explanation of how man became is contrary to the WORD of GOD and therefore is wrong! That she even asked the question seems to indicate that she does not understand that truth. Not believing the unscientific mumbo jumbo of Darwin’s crackpot theory is reason for voting for someone for President; not a reason to discard him or her as a Presidential candidate.—my addition)

These are the questions that (still) trouble men’s souls. And still cause trouble for presidential candidates forced unfairly to essentially choose between God and science. (These comments seem to demonstrate that the writer accepts the lies of the Darwin concept. Certainly she is confused if she actually believes that the concept of evolution from slime to man is either scientific or valid. It is neither. There is no forced choice between GOD and science. The evolution theory of slime to man is nonsense. Furthermore, GOD is the greatest scientist in the history of the universe. Just as GOD is love; GOD is also science since HE put everything into motion in the beginning of time as human’s know it. When one chooses GOD; one automatically chooses science. There is no science without GOD. There is no man without GOD. There is no universe without GOD. Isn’t this easy? Choose GOD, walk with HIM, be obedient to HIS WILL and you automatically win everything!—my addition)

In the ‘gotcha’ question of the first GOP debate, journalist Jim VandeHei, relaying a citizen’s question, asked John McCain: ‘Do you believe in evolution?’

A natural response might have been, ‘Well, that depends on how you define evolution.’ It would seem that Clintonian nuance is off the boards for now. Instead, McCain gambled and said—no doubt with fear and trembling in his political heart—‘Yes.’ (I don’t believe this was a ‘gotcha’ question in the sense that it was a tricky question. As Encarta ® declared: “A central, and historically controversial, component of evolutionary theory is that all living organisms, from microscopic bacteria to plants, insects, birds, and mammals, share a common ancestor.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) Central to Darwin evolution (the only reason it is really discussed) is the slime to man portion of the concept and it is the controversial portion of the concept. Why ask the question if the question was not about this central controversy? It seems reasonable to believe that the question and what part of the evolutionary concept was intended was understood by both the questioner and those who responded. I would certainly hope that any Presidential candidate who responded to the question understood the question. If not, why didn’t they immediately ask for a clarification? All of these candidates want to be President of the United States. Nor do I believe that McCain gambled. There was an article in “Parade” magazine where he declared his believe in the slime to man lie. This may well have been a question aimed at making him repeat that declaration as he runs for President. I would hope he knew what he was saying even if supporting a nonsensical concept.—my addition)

Next VandeHei asked: Is there anyone on the stage who doesn’t believe in evolution? Three raised their hands—Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. (The response, or lack thereof, of the other Republican Presidential candidates helps narrow down the choice of who to support for President. What Christian could support any of the other candidates who did not declare that the lie of slime to man is not only idiotic science but is also directly contrary to the WORD of GOD. Open up the Bible. What is the first sentence in the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1 (NIV) If a Christian does not believe that relevant statement, how can he believe any part of the Bible? If that statement is not true, how can one claim to believe the WORD of GOD? Those who do not believe that GOD created are declaring that the WORD of GOD begins with a fundamental lie. That too is nonsense. Either Darwin’s slime to man is wrong or the WORD of GOD is wrong!!! It can not be both!!! Who should Christians support? Hasn’t it been narrowed down? Who were the three candidates on that stage who declared that they believe the WORD of GOD? The only three mentioned in the article were Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. This was a good question!!! It helps Christians know who actually believes what the WORD of GOD says rather that humanistic lies and unscientific nonsense.—my addition)

As debate audiences were pondering the meaning of Darwin in the Oval Office, McCain asked permission to elaborate. McCain then added: ‘I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.’ (This is typical McCain. He is trying to have it both ways. It can NOT be done. Either he believes slime to man or he believes that GOD created. We know what he believes. He said so. John McCain believes slime to man.—my addition)

McCain was able to acknowledge both science and religion—evolutionary theory and creationism—and make them mutually inclusive. (She is repeating McCain’s nonsense. Darwin’s slime to man is not science and you can not acknowledge both Darwin nonsense and Biblical truth. It is either GOD created or creation happened by unscientific, speculative nonsense. If you want science and GOD then the only choice is GOD, the CREATOR.—my addition)

Some may call that fence-straddling or having it both ways, but political observers call it ‘bingo!’ (This is another lie. Political observers are not so stupid. She reads like an apologist for John McCain. By the way, not only are political observers not so stupid, neither are the American people, in my opinion. I sure pray Christians aren’t!!!—my addition)

The others weren’t so fortunate. Like little boys called in front of the class for public humiliation, Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback immediately became targets of ridicule by the educated elite who, though Darwinists all, were presented with a contradiction: If Darwin was right, how did these knuckle-draggers make it to the presidential campaign podium? (I disagree with this analysis too. These three got the question right!!! They ought to be trumpeting their response. I believe a majority of the American public also is smart enough not to believe the slime to man nonsense. The major problem is that the humanists continue to promote the “big lie” as truth. They have for years and years. It’s time Christians trumpet the truth boldly without fear and trepidation—GOD created all things.—my addition)

The truth is, each man took a calculated risk—or a courageous stand, depending on one’s view. To say yes would have been to betray evangelical Christian voters, 73 percent of whom believe that human beings were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years or so. (Why don’t 100% of all Christians believe GOD created all things? However, I do believe Christians make a mistake when they try to put a date on how long man has been around. The WORD of GOD does not give a date. We should not try to add to that which is not given in the Bible. The Bible was not intended as a science book. The Bible is however true and accurate. The truth is that GOD created all things including man!!! The lie is that man evolved from slime!!!—my addition)

To these folks, no didn’t mean anti-science; it meant pro-God and conveyed a transcendent, non-materialistic view of the world. To secular Darwinists, no meant either ignorance or pandering to the ignorant—most likely both. (The people who are ignorant are those who believe the unscientific garbage of slime to man. In my opinion, it takes more “faith” to believe that lie which has no scientific basis than it does to believe that that which was created must have a creator just as that which is designed must have a designer. True by definition!—my addition)

On its surface, the question seems simple enough, if oddly out of century. Darwin’s theory of evolution isn’t exactly hot off the presses. (She is apologizing again for Darwinism. It my not be “hot off the presses” but it is still controversial because it is still a lie!—my addition)

But it remains controversial among some people of faith, including some respected scientists, for whom evolutionary theory reduces man’s world to a godless accident bereft of moral meaning or structure. (It is controversial because it is not true!!! It has never been proven to be true and it will never be proven to be true.—my addition)

To the faithful, in other words, it is not a simple question. It also was not a fair question under the circumstances. Yes or no doesn’t quite cover the complex issues implicit in any mention of Darwin these days. (Yes or no covers the question that was asked. Is there any real doubt that the question was referring to the slime to man belief of Darwin? I don’t think so and I don’t think the people who responded had any problem understanding what was being asked. As Encarta ® declared, the central and controversial aspect of Darwinism is slime to man.—my addition)

In a conversation after the debate, Huckabee said, ‘I wish life were so simple. If it were, we’d be in a game show and not running a presidential campaign. … If I’d had time, I would have asked whether he meant macro or micro evolution?’ (Is Mr. Huckabee trying to hedge his response? The question was understood. Is he also trying to walk the fence? The question most assuredly was in reference to slime to man. That is the controversy. Why ask an uncontroversial question about something that is not normally considered a political question?—my addition)

That’s a different sort of answer than what is inferred from a simple ‘no’ forced by the manic pace of a 90-minute ‘debate’ among 10 candidates, none of whom is qualified to seriously debate scientific theory. Nor, as president, should they try. In fact, Huckabee says he does believe in evolution (with qualifications) and thinks Darwin’s theory should be taught in schools. (I also believe Darwin’s concept of slime to man should be taught in schools. Does that surprise you? I believe it should be taught as an example of unscientific nonsense which can be latched on to by humanists who are supporting beliefs over the truth. It should be recognized as the lie that it is. It should be used as an example of how not to use the scientific method. It should be taught as an example of how the “squeaky wheel” can abuse the concept of scientific discovery. It is a prime example of how not to be scientific. It should be taught that slime to man is a humanistic lie. Do you think that will be taught? Now the choices are down to two of the Republicans who were on that stage that night and one question mark.—my addition)

‘I do know that species do, in fact, adapt and there are many instances of adaptation and mutation,’ he said, ‘but I still believe that the design has a designer and the creation has a creator. I wouldn’t pretend to fill in the blanks between what God created and what is today.’

Microevolution and macroevolution can’t be properly distilled in this space, but broadly speaking, micro allows for the possibility of a creator. (If it doesn’t demand a creator, it is not true. The WORD of GOD clearly and distinctly declares that GOD created all things. No humanistic nitpicking or “supposed possibility” will change that truth. Don’t they get it? Either GOD created or HE did not. Either Darwin’s slime to man nonsense is true or it is not. Truth is not our choice. Truth is truth because it is true!!! We can not pick and choose our own truth.—my addition.)

McCain more or less expressed the micro view that evolution doesn’t necessarily preclude God. (McCain more or less is trying to have it both ways. He can’t and no one else can either. This is an either or situation. Either GOD created or Darwin is right or both are wrong. However, if both are wrong, then the WORD of GOD is wrong and then it is not the WORD of GOD. Therefore, either GOD created or HE did not. Which choice is obvious for any Christian? Not that our choice or anyone else’s choice will change the truth. We do not choose which truth is true and which truth is not true. It is either true or it is not.—my addition)

These are interesting and complex issues that compel smart, thoughtful people to passionate debate and serious investigation—too complicated, in other words, for an insta-response in a politically charged arena. (Nonsense!!! Apologizing again. Either slime to man is true or it is not!—my addition)

The debate question was fundamentally a setup for ridicule. No one was served and no one, alas, is the wiser.” (The voters should be wiser. We now know that there are two Republicans who accept that GOD created. It seems obvious to me that all the Democrats believe slime to man since the question has not even been asked or at least not reported as news. The “setup for ridicule” can only be a belief that slime to man is true. Since it is not, how can one ridicule the truth? Only one way, those people don’t accept the truth that God created. They are the ones who are at a loss; not those who know GOD created all things.—my addition)

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1 (NIV) GOD created man on the sixth day. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1: 27 (NIV) Either the Bible is wrong or the Bible is right. It can NOT be both ways!!! GOD CREATED ALL THINGS!!!

Evolution and Presidential candidates, part 2

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

On my last post, I quoted an Encarta ® article as declaring: “The wings of birds, bats, and insects, for example, have different embryological origins but are all designed for flight.” (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.) I also wrote: “Obviously, this is just a statement made by evolutionists that certainly does not prove that all living organisms share a common ancestor. However, this is what I find interesting. The use of the word “designed.” The question must be asked: DESIGNED BY WHO? Just as anything created must have a creator. Doesn’t anything designed also need a designer? How was a car, a boat, an airplane, a house, a prison, a castle, a “wing designed for flight” designed if there was no designer!!!

Here is every definition given by Encarta ® Dictionary for the word “design”:
“de·sign [di zn]
verb (past and past participle de·signed, present participle de·sign·ing, 3rd person present singular de·signs)
1. transitive and intransitive verb create detailed plan of something: to make a detailed plan of the form or structure of something, emphasizing features such as its appearance, convenience, and efficient functioning
● a well-designed car interior
2. transitive and intransitive verb plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way
3. transitive verb intend something for particular use: to intend something for a particular purpose
● The scholarship was designed to aid foreign students.
4. transitive verb invent something: to contrive, devise, or plan something” (Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation.)

There they are. Every definition in Encarta ® Dictionary for “design.” Note each of the definitions: 1) “Create detailed plan” 2) “plan and make something” 3)”intend something for particular use” 4) “invent something” Now, I ask you. Do any of these four definitions make allowance for chance! The ANSWER, of course, is NO! Every definition requires some brainpower. Yet, evolution does not allow for any brain power and therefore it does not allow for any design. So, how can Encarta ® claim ““The wings of birds, bats, and insects, for example, have different embryological origins but are all designed for flight.”

Why do the Encarta ® article and the Encarta ® Dictionary contradict themselves? The answer of course is that they don’t as far as design is concerned because there is design in all creation! Design done by a designer! Design done by a creator! Design done by GOD the CREATOR of all things!!!