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!!!
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!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home