WILLOWTREE

A lot of political analysists have been attributing the turnoff to the democratic party to hardcore liberals such as Michael Moore' date=' George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc. The democrats had a major motion picture working for them which seen by millions which essentially slammed Bush, much more money from outside groups including George Soros funding huge smear campaigns on TV, celebrities publically backing up Kerry and slamming Bush, and the liberal media to back it all up! How in the world did they still lose this election? They didn't even get one southern state, and the southern states historically vote democrat.

 

I'm not really trying to bash the democratic party here, but I think they went wrong somewhere. They should have had this election tied up. Do you think that part of it was from associating with nutjobs like Michael Moore?[/quote']

 

You are obviously right about a Moore backlash.

 

Why would anyone let uneducated Hollywood buffoons dictate who gets elected President ?

 

Hollywood didn't care about getting an education yet they know whats right for an entire country ?

 

Intelligent people quietly went to the polls and voted against the propaganda of Moore and Sean Penn.

 

Democrats should resist the trojan horse allure of Hollywood types that the American public really is not fooled by despite our love of the movies.

Hi Ophiolite:

Why can't you neo-Darwinists just admit the obvious: That the God of Genesis is not the Creator ?

How god-damn silly to type an argument that insults everyones intelligence by claiming Darwinism and Genesis do not contradict.

Darwin's God quotes are meaningless. Nazi's invoked God incessantly and all honest and decent persons know they just used the concept of God to justify genocide.

Now that you have established that there are no disagreements between Darwinism and the God of the Bible we can all log off and look for something else to do.

Darwinism assigns evolutionary processess and their accidental and random mutations to be the creative generator.

Genesis says God creates under the appearance of chance and accident.

My beef is with Darwinists who say evolution disproves Genesis.

My beef is with anyone who says God is not the Creator.

How does empirical evidence disprove Genesis ?

Answer: Only if the filter of your worldview says so.

I have read the New Testament a lot more recently than Origin' date=' but you have lost me here. Please explain.

 

So, as a penalty for not believing in him, he penalizes us by – wait for it – making us not believe in him.

 

At the risk of being offensive, are you quoting this stuff without thinking, or are you making it up as you go along? [/quote']

 

Romans 1 says in the context of the 18th verse/wrath of God:

 

Verse 20

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

This says God created in such a way that He can be deduced from what is made/seen/created.

 

Cannot see God in creation ?

 

The verse says you are without excuse.

 

Why can't you see God in what is made ?

 

Verse 21

 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

This verse says YOU knew about God and His perceived encroachments BUT refused to acknowledge Him as God and be thankful.

 

Two requirements: Give God credit as the Creator and be thankful - period.

 

Failure to comply with the two-fold demands of God = the wrath of darkening, also known as God-sense removal.

 

This means God has limits and when a person reaches those limits and refuses to credit Him as Creator and be thankful He will react in wrath that manifests itself by darkening your heart and mind. Persons suffering from this penalty are known to be atheists.

 

And you thought that YOU rejected Him.

 

Well you did.

 

But God finalized your decision by disabling your ability to embrace and comprehend Him.

 

Verse 22

 

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

It is Darwinists who claim modern enlightenement of scientific enquiry to have exposed the Bible to be the superstitions of fools.

 

In reality, the N.T. says you are the fools - stripped of God-sense for rejecting God as the Creator.

 

God only wants credit as the Creator and it is atheist Darwinism that has proclaimed themselves to be wise without God.

 

Verse 23

 

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

Now these stripped of God-sense fools have objects that they worship in place of God.

 

In the greek, "image" is better translated "icon".

 

"fourfooted beasts" = quardrupeds.

 

"creeping things" = animals.

 

"corruptible man" = fossils asserted to be anthropon transitional.

 

The icons of evolution right here in Romans written 2000 years ago.

 

The God-senseless fools and their gods: animals and corruptible anthropon = the center of attention of Darwinists.

 

Verse 25

 

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

Darwinists have changed the truth of God into the lie of evolution as they are infatuated with created things and not the Creator.

 

The eternal word of God and its precision in identifying the heresy of Darwinism 2000 years ago.

 

These verses fit like a glove on this current generation of Darwinists who reject God as the Creator - the only thing God wants - credit as such.

 

These verses now perfectly explain the explosion of atheism.

 

It is caused by God who in wrath strips persons of the ability to desire Him as a penalty for resisting Him one day too long.

 

Now you know why the media, higher education, law, and scientism have embraced anti-God positions.

 

God will not be dissed.

 

Like Pharoah, YOU are being hardened as a penalty for flipping Him off so He can ensure your presence in that hot place = God gets the last word = well known message of the Bible.

What happened to free will?

It was used to resist God one too many times.

The Bible teaches:

Your "willer" won't will unless God allows it to.

When a person genuinely has no desire for God = "willer" disabled by God IN RESPONSE to their resistance of Him.

I don't see how evolution is in anyway incompatible with there being an ultimate creator.

 

Have you read' date=' with an open mind, any book on evolution by one of 'evolution's intelligencia"? I ask, because I have read, extensively, with a very open mind material by 'creationist intelligencia'. They raise some very important points, and highlight areas of uncertainty, but, in my judgement fail to make a case.[/quote']

 

The most basic claim of Darwinism is that the God of the Bible is not the Creator.

 

Darwinism assigns creation to be the product of evolution which is a process that manifests via chance.

 

According to Darwinists we are the products of accidents and not a universal God.

 

The rejection of the God of the Bible is explained by the New Testament.

 

Briefly, atheism is a penalty from God for continually rejecting Him and His percieved encroachments.

 

Therefore, the assignment of anything and everything but God as the Creator is the result of the wrath of God and its manifestation of incapacitating the ability to embrace Him.

 

Darwinism is a field populated with much persons suffering this wrath of God-sense removal.

 

This explains why Darwinists reject God as Creator.

Willowtree, you might be interested in reading the transcripts of the Scopes Monkey Trial(just google). A 1920's sensation caused when a Tennesee teacher tried to teach Darwin to his students. An excellent tilt between evolutionists and creationists. Pay particular attention to Clarence Darrow, attorney for Scopes, as he questions William Jennings Bryan, self professed Bible expert representing the creationists as well as the state.

I know all about Scopes.

Bryan was an idiot.

[b']Humans did not evolve ? Based on the evidence just referred to above, well, yes, they did.[/b]

Human Evolution: Classic Myth

The following quotes were lifted from "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells [2000]:

 

"In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life" by Henry Gee [1999] (chief science writer, "Nature" magazine)

 

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate....the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."

 

Concerning the fragmentary fossil record sprinkled across millions of years:

 

"an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."

 

"between about 10 and 5 million years ago - several thousand generations of living creatures can be fitted into a small box."

 

Comment on the conventional picture of human evolution:

 

"a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices."

 

"To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive but not scientific."

 

"The Myths of Human Evolution" by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall [1982]

 

"myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery."....if true...."one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything the opposite has occurred."

 

"Through the Glass Darkly: Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research" by A.S.U. anthropologist Geoffrey Clark [1997]

 

"paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

IOW, paleoanthropologists are storytellers who insert a paucity of disputed fossil evidence into "preexisting narrative structures."

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html

 

"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence we have of hominid evolution."

Darwins Terrier writes:

 

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000368-8.html#110

 

Next, it would hardly be a surprise if "a smart scientist from another discipline" would think there's little to go on. There really isn't a vast quantity of hominin fossils by volume -- which is no surprise either; it's due to the taphonomic conditions where these things are found.

 

You could fit the entire hominin fossil record in the boot of, well maybe a large estate. (No, I wont translate; Americans never bother!) But the question is, so what?

 

It is not sheer quantity that matters, but what a highly experienced anatomist and palaeontologist can tell from what there is.

The authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia does not match the fanatical boasting of the rank and file.

This paucity of actual fossil evidence by which human evolution is alleged, yet the hypocritical quickness of the same persons to claim the Biblical record of ancient Israel is erroneous because of a purported lack of the same type of physical evidence.

Multiplied billions and billions of human beings yet the yield of evidence for human evolution could fit into a small box =equals= the basis from which a vocal minority floods the world with this myth of human evolution.

What is obvious to deduce from these facts is a desparate attempt of a certain worldview to validate its main assertion that a universal God does not exist.

Acceptance of evolution becomes an imperative matter of sheer NECESSITY for all who reject God as the ultimate Creator.

Are human's still evolving? Would the intelligence we have acquired through evolution prohibit further evolution, for example people genetically predisposed to certain diseases, etc. will still more than likely reach breeding age.

How could humans be evolving if they never have ?

The paucity of physical fossil evidence yet the assumption of human evolution can only be explained by an irrational disbelief in the universal God.