Mouthy Wisdom

Did the chicken really come first?

2010-07-16T10:25:00.000-07:00

A study completed by Sheffield University in England recently answered the question, "What came first, the chicken, or the egg?" Scientists identified a protein in egg formation called ovocledidin-17 that can only be formed in a chicken's ovaries. Therefore, they concluded that you can't get a chicken egg unless the chicken is there first to produce it.

While the study came to the correct conclusion, it begs the question: why are we researching the obvious? Genesis 1 already gives us the answer to whether the chicken or the egg comes first. The Lord created living animals and the animals were commanded to reproduce. It's what we see going on around us. Obviously, the Bible is correct and far ahead of science. But isn't it silly for scientists to ignore common sense just because common sense agrees with the scriptures?

Teach real science - not assumptions

2010-04-30T15:49:00.000-07:00

Evolutionism relies on assumptions to promote its godless ideas. It is is a belief system that assumes there is a materialistic explanation for everything. In today's public schools, evolutionism is taught as science, but in truth it is a philosophy. And it isn't a new one.

Ancient Greek philosophers such as Thales sought to explain existence by self-creation, postulating that all things evolved from water. Anaximenes thought that all things were but air, while Heraclitus said they were fire. Empedocles decided to explain the universe by saying it evolved by random combinations of elementary particles. All of these philosophies did not stem from science, but from religious thought, thought which sought to limit the power of Deity in the affairs of men and to eliminate accountability after death.

Evolutionism is the same kind of philosophy based on similar assumptions. It is not based on science — not on real, observable evidence — but on a desire to have a materialistic explanation of the universe that replaces God. Do away with God, and you eliminate the need for absolute morals. As for righteousness, you define that yourself. There is no standard but that men make for themselves.

Make no mistake. Evolutionism is being taught as a science so that the foundations of righteousness will be eroded, to be replaced by a view that man is material. And, if man is nothing but material, the "superior" men determine what will be done with the "weaker" or "inferior" ones. With no God to answer to, who steps into his shoes but the oppressor: men like Hitler and Stalin.

So does evolutionism belong in the classroom as a science? Absolutely not. It is a philosophy, and a very bad one, which belongs in the same class as socialism, communism, and secularism.

The plot to destroy religious freedom in America

2010-04-30T14:46:00.000-07:00

After the French revolution, France became a secular nation. Secularism is essentially the French state religion. America took note of the destructive forces unleashed in that godless society, and our American founding fathers carefully secured our right to worship God in all places and at all times. They specifically forbade the establishment of any state religion in this nation to avoid persecutions of the past. They separated the powers of the state from interfering with religious worship.

But today, Americans are being told the opposite. A letter Jefferson wrote assured a Baptist minister that the American government would never establish a state religion because of the "wall of separation between church and state." This is being twisted to support those who want to destroy religious freedoms and replace them with a godless state government. Today you will frequently hear evolutionists like Eugenie Scott and organizations like the ACLU state that our founding fathers wanted to protect us from having religious worship in public ... that they wanted a "neutral" territory. The wall of separation between church and state, they say, is the rigorous restriction of any religious activities of any public nature by the American government.

That's not what the founding fathers intended. Here's what they said:

“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” — Samuel Adams

What our founding fathers wanted was a country in which there was no state religion, but the freedom to worship God and answer to him directly. In other words, they wanted us to be free to obey God rather than man, for they knew that only through being governed from the heart by righteousness can people live in peace.

It is the French who built a secularist nation. It is the French who insisted that their schools be free of religion and their public sphere free of evangelism. America saw the bloodiness of that decision and turned away from secularism and toward God.

France was without a God. America was not.

Now, when it is so critical to keep a godly nation, the Constitution is being trampled on by those who have ever desired to keep God out of men's affairs. America is turning away from God by the establishment of the state religion of secularism.

Do we want the state religion of godlessness in America? No. We trust in the Judge of Heaven and Earth to deliver us from the machinations of those who would separate us from Him.

Beware: Garbage Breeds

2010-01-13T14:47:00.000-08:00

The theory of abiogenesis — that nonliving matter can become living matter — has been widely discredited, yet it lives on, like garbage that's getting so old it stinks.

The primitive idea that life came from nonliving things has been around a long time. Aristotle believed that decaying material could become living by "spontaneous action of Nature." In other words, he believed that garbage could breed living creatures. This theory was popular until science finally caught up with the fact that life requires parents, or biogenesis.

What we have now is the Law of Biogenesis. As irrefutable as the Law of Gravity, the Law of Biogenesis states that life produces life. This is what we see happening in the world around us.

But there are more kinds of garbage out there than the kind you haul to the side of the curb. There's scientific garbage that's breeding ignorance daily: in the classroom, through the television, and by propaganda. I'm talking about the theory of abiogenesis, which is treated as if it is a fact.

Oh, I know. If you tell someone that you expect your tuna sandwich will spontaneously generate a pack of ants, they'd laugh. Most people know that to get an ant, you need an ant. But to get a planet full of living things, all you need is randomness and time. Presto! Nonliving material becomes living, like Frankenstein on steroids.

Current "scientific" theories for the origin and development of life exclude God. Therefore, they all depend on abiogenesis, which has never been observed, measured, or reproduced. Abiogenesis fails to meet the standards of the scientific method. If science were really interested in accuracy, abiogenesis would be discarded entirely.

But instead of throwing out abiogenesis, an idea that belongs in the dark ages, scientists are saying it still remains relevant today.

Garbage breeds garbage. This kind of dirty science generates nothing but ignorance. When are classrooms going to come out of the realm of science fiction and join the world of science? They won't as long as real, observable science is tossed in the trash in favor of unproved theories that can't even be tested.

The lights are on, but no one's home

2009-12-08T16:35:00.000-08:00

Intellectualism is a bane in modern society, but it's nothing new. Talk fast, talk big, talk cultural. That's what's in. Sophistry is all the rage. The more complicated you are in your specious arguments, the better. But you'd better arm yourself with some really big words, the more scientific sounding the better, so you can flaunt yourself as an expert who "knows" God doesn't exist.

You might think some of the hardened proponents of Man-Is-God are just clueless, but the Bible says differently. The Bible says that the Lord's hand in his creation is clearly seen, so that those who deny his eternal power and Godhead are without excuse (Rom 1:20) Especially in today's world, in which the complexity of life at the atomic and subatomic level can be studied in all their amazing complexity, the evidence of God's work cannot be denied.

Still, there are prating fools who will insist that the evidence supports chaotic chance spinning its wild web through millions of years, throwing around random genomes with origins unknown, generating mutations with a killer appetite for creation. Yes, some people actually believe this kind of stuff. The lights are on, but no one's home.

So, if an intellectual denigrates your education because you know that Christ is our Creator, don't let it bother you. Intellectualism is nothing but a home for prating fools. And intellectuals shall fall before the Mighty One of Jacob, Jesus Christ.

"The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall." (Prov. 10:8)

Biting the hand that feeds you

2009-11-03T14:36:00.000-08:00

Secular humanists are fond of saying that they have a strong set of morals and values. They often say they are good people, better by far than Christians.

Certainly there may be good people who consider themselves secular humanists. But where did their morals and values come from? If they're good morals -- ones that promote life, blessing, and health -- you can be sure they came from the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ.

It was Jesus who set the standard of helping the weak and poor: "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Deut. 10:17-19)

This kind of thinking isn't the selfishness humans indulge in. Human standards of behavior fit well into the evolutionary mindset, which looks for personal advantage in everything. Ask an evolutionist to explain altruism and charity and he can't. He'll say it originally had some self-benefit, but when the self-benefit no longer exists, it's simply a misfiring of instinct.

Secular humanists believe that helping others without reward or benefit is contrary to the nature of all living beings.

Why, then, do people help each other? The "science" of the day refutes it as unnatural, but religion has the answer: surely it comes from a divine spark that the Lord put in all of us.

Why is America so blessed? The God of our salvation, the God of all creation, Jesus Christ, has his eye on America and his hand outstretched to help his people. Yet you will find the very people benefiting from a law-abiding, charitable-minded society -- such as still can be found in the Christian nation of America -- attacking its foundations.

A dog that bites its master is often seen as mad, because even a dog is smart enough to recognize his provider. But time and again, Americans are now attacking our Master, Jesus Christ, and his people. Some members of our society fail to behave with even the intelligence of a canine. Like frenzied beasts, they partake of the blessings from Jesus Christ while doing their utmost to destroy America as a Christian nation.

It's time Americans wake up and see that if they attack Christianity and the Christians of this land and they are biting the hand that feeds them.

It's Eve, not Steve

2009-10-30T17:04:00.000-07:00

The controversy over homosexual "marriage" rages through America, with some Christians siding with those who want to eliminate the bulwark of the family and stomp all over holy matrimony.

There are sophisticated arguments out there on this topic, but I have a friend who puts it best, "Jesus created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Although there are many sophisticated ways of pretending Jesus smiles on sin, and even more redefinitions of what actually is sin, there's no doubt about it: homosexuality is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13)

Sure, you'll get those who claim that the Old Testament should be thrown out in favor of the New Testament, which seems, to their enfeebled eyes, to be a more gentile, tolerant book of scripture. Let's do that, just for argument's sake. Let's ignore the Old Testament for a minute. What does the New Testament say?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Rom. 1:22, 27)

The New Testament soundly condemns homosexuality. There's no wiggle room there for accepting it ... not if you want to obey Jesus Christ, which is, after all, the entire point of being Christian.

So you're confused on this issue, about whether a husband should be a man and a wife should be a woman. Let me clear it up for you.

Adam's wife was Eve, not Steve.

Money Hungry

2009-10-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

Unbelievably, one of the arguments those in favor of abortion use against those who are pro-life is that Christians are saving the babies' lives just to make money. Yes, you heard me. Even though it's the abortion clinics who make money ending lives, Christians are accused of saving babies just so the babies can grow up to pay tithing.

Sure, it's absurd, but the whole argument in favor of abortion is absurd. This is just the latest excuse for abortion that I've seen. If you don't want to kill babies, you must be money hungry! Oh yes, you Christian churches are counting up your tithing in advance! Never mind that many Christian children don't end up as faithful tithe payers. It's a new way of calling Christians greedy!

The real reason Christians are against abortion, is, of course, that abortion is actually murder. As most people know, a baby has the same DNA as its parent. Therefore, a child in the womb is certainly human. Intentionally killing that baby is, therefore, murder. But abortionists teach people that a human embryo is just tissue, so it's not even sub-human -- never mind all the scientific evidence such as ultra-sounds that prove them wrong.

This idea of certain members of society being less than human and that killing them isn't murder is nothing new. Aborigines used to be hunted down and killed as trophies for sport by members of a society that subscribed to the theory of evolution. Today's society, also steeped in evolution, sees it as a "right" to terminate a baby because it is still in the womb. After all, since the baby is helpless and innocent, it can't be treated as if it's human, can it?

As for this idea that Christians want to raise up a new generation of tithe payers by saving babies from abortion -- give me a break! Even if it were true, at least the Christians are trying to prevent murder rather than cause it.

Trendy, but unwise

2009-10-21T13:50:00.000-07:00

I recently viewed a video showing evolutionist Richard Dawkins insulting those who believe in God and calling them unintelligent. Dawkins admits there's a "hell of a lot" evolutionists don't understand, but yet he wants everyone to trust evolutionists when they tell us what is true and what isn't true. I've seen Dawkins in action, and, rather than presenting plausible credentials, he seems to rely on the tactic of making fun of others who disagree with him. In this clip, he was demeaning Kurt Wise, a man with integrity who, unlike Dawkins, doesn't pretend he's smarter than God.

I call admitting you don't know as much as God intelligent. Dawkins, of course, doesn't. But what are you going to do? There are always people willing to group together to impress each other with their own intellectual prowess rather than admit their understanding is limited. The kind of hypocrisy that Dawkins practices is nothing new, but it seems to attract a large following of people who want to feel superior to everyone else.

Even so, Dawkins should stop and think this one over: Just because it's trendy to deny there is a God doesn't make it wise.

The Greek Geeks

2009-10-20T14:31:00.001-07:00

We all know that scientific types are often stereotyped as geeks. But did you know that evolutionists are actually geeks of a Greek variety? And as for being scientific ... they aren't.

Evolutionists, while claiming to be scientific, turn the law of entropy upside down and inside out. They ignore evidence, especially eyewitness evidence of former generations, so that they can foist old, inaccurate thought on us as if it were new.

So evolution isn't a new science, with incredibly accurate data? No. In fact, evolution was spawned in ancient heathen cultures. It resurfaced now and again, such as in Greece, where philosophers like Empedocles (493–435 BC) taught that chance was responsible for creation. These Greek-geek types taught that the fittest survived, and that the weak should give way to the strong.

Now, let's be practical here. How can you separate evolutionary philosophy from its destructive ramifications? You can't. What happened to societies of the past, such as that of Greece, which turned to such harsh and self-serving philosophies as evolution? Overcome by stronger nations, the Greeks soon became just another conquered people.

Case in point: Societies that join the cult of evolutionary thought eventually become extinct. It can happen to us, too.

The Sandwich Scenario

2009-10-20T13:57:00.000-07:00

If you see the glaring errors in evolution, you will be reamed out by illiterate people calling you uneducated. They will demand if you even know anything about evolution. They will insult you in bigoted, foul language and get unremittingly violent.

There's no point in telling them that you have a greater understanding of evolution than they do. Adherents of evolution claim it's a science, but a reasonable person can see it is actually a cult which practices censorship, coercion, and persecution to indoctrinate others, especially the younger generation.

Try to be sensible with an evolutionist and he will resort to cursing you out with less than polite epithets. If you point out that no one expects lunch to appear on the table by itself even when all the ingredients for a sandwich are in the refrigerator, and compare that to an entire planet generating itself from nothing, you will be scoffed at. Unable to follow the simile, an evolutionist will tell you that sandwiches and planets aren't the same. That's the whole point ... a sandwich can't make itself, even when all the ingredients are present. How can an entire planet form -- complete with a proper orbit, thriving animal and plant habitats, and a life-supporting atmosphere -- all on its own? Answer: It can't.

Evolution: The Chaos Cult

2009-10-20T13:50:00.000-07:00

I recently viewed an interview that Richard Dawkins had with a creationist. During the interview, Dawkins sidestepped any reference to the inaccuracy of evolution by claiming the science was so much better now and the evidence for evolution was overwhelming. When the creationist pointed out that this so-called evidence was often misinterpreted or outright fraud, Dawkins claimed that only happened in the Victorian era.

Excuse me, but if a science starts out wrong and proponents of it won't admit its mistakes and correct them, doesn't that science qualify more for a cultish following than true science?

Yes. Evolution is the "Order from Chaos" Cult -- and very unscientific indeed.

One of the more chilling parts of the interview was when Dawkins admitted that he does not believe in an immortal soul. He claimed that consciousness alone qualifies someone as human. Although he then backtracked and tried to pretend he was for compassionate treatment of the ill, his "science" says that weakness should be obliterated. This means that anyone, the minute he or she loses consciousness, is now only a blob of material and not really human at all.

Kind of reminds you of the arguments for abortion, doesn't it? If a baby isn't born yet, it isn't human and has no right to life -- that's evolutionary thought for you.

Obama prevaricates on abortion

2009-09-17T15:42:00.000-07:00

When asked about his stance on abortion, Obama is often caught on film prevaricating. What does Obama mean, we could look at abortion with theological and scientific methods, and both are beyond him? Perhaps he really is that stupid and everything moral really IS beyond HIM. But it is not difficult to see that (1) God does not want us to murder babies and (2) our babies are scientifically classified as human while in the womb.

Obama claims to be aware of the "moral difficulty" entailed in abortion. If he knows this, why is he taking an immoral stance? He says he can argue with us if we believe that life begins at conception. That means he admits we're right, because genetically, babies have human DNA and they are certainly alive: they move, kick, and even make noises while in the womb. But he skates right past this issue, pretending we have common ground. What common ground can there be when it comes to saving babies rather than killing them?

Obama then claims we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by convincing people to adopt their babies out. What the heck is he talking about? The moral code that prevents pregnancy is chastity, not adoption. He's just trying to use a smoke and mirrors dance to keep people from asking him why a President of the United States is pro-abortion -- for terminating the lives of the next generation of Americans before they can be born.

I for one am tired of his masquerade. We need a President who is for preserving American lives, not for terminating them.

Education in America

2009-09-17T15:40:00.000-07:00

I recently saw a video of Obama talking to kids about education. I have to say that there was nothing substantial in anything Obama said. A few empty "God bless Americas" at the end of his speech don't alter that. Obama promised to get textbooks and computers that the students need to learn from, but did he say anything about looking to God, the ultimate source of intelligence, for guidance? He talked about working hard, but did he talk about the source of our strength being the Rock of our salvation? He talked about how students should never quit, but did he tell us that Jesus never sleeps and never slumbers, but gives power to those who are faint? Moreover, Obama talked about students who "made" the country 75 years ago, but did he talk about the founding fathers of this Christian nation? Then Obama brought in the creators of "twitter" as if they were as important to the country as those who fought in World War II. I don't see it that way, do you?

Lastly, Obama urged students to "make us all proud." How are they going to do that -- by learning about evolution and practicing abortion? That's the kind of America today's Bible-less schools are building. Education America is never going to be on track until it is solidly based on what God taught us rather than what men have to say about things.

You have to repent

2009-08-11T14:51:00.000-07:00

It is often forgotten that telling people how to repent is actually more compassionate and caring than "tolerating" their sin. Today's world of luxury affords no greater sin than giving "offense." But remember, those who are not offended by the Lord are blessed, and those who ARE offended by the Lord are cursed. (Matt. 11:6) Hell may be an unpopular idea, but it's a reality. This nebulous notion that everyone eventually makes it to heaven without even bothering to change their attitude about obeying Christ is wrong. People have to repent of their wrongdoing -- no unclean thing is worthy of heaven.

In today's culture, many are willing to admit good should be rewarded, but they not only deny bad should be punished, but they deny bad exists. This is like saying we don't have a just God. The Bible clearly says that Jesus is not just merciful, but also just. (Isa. 45:21) Justice requires punishment for evil. Churches need to step away from the politically correct hogwash and teach what's in the Bible.

Separation of church and state

2009-06-26T11:11:00.001-07:00

Many people are gravely mistaken about the term "separation of church and state," which did not come from the Constitution, but from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The term means that the state shall not tell people how to worship God, insofar as the people are abiding by the good laws of the country -- for example, not committing murders and robbery. This country was founded so that men could to be free to obey God rather than men. In other words, the state needs to stick its nose out of religion and leave it to God. That includes taxing certain religions and not taxing others, excluding religious recognition of God and replacing it with state-approved actions, and prohibiting prayer in public. When a government starts legislating against God, it is founding its own religion -- a state or secular religion. This violates the Constitution. "Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The bottom line is that taxing religious organizations violates our BIll of Rights.

A Nation Divided Will Fall

2009-06-24T15:31:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama said that we Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation, but rather, a nation of citizens who are, uh, bound by a set of values.” What common values? Where did they come from? What on earth is he referring to? The only common values we have come from the Bible. There is no strength in considering ourselves a nation of loosely undefined values. That is the sign of a nation that has no values and is divided in its beliefs and principles.

I have this to say on the subject: A nation divided against its God will fall.

Obama does not uphold our nation

2009-06-24T15:20:00.002-07:00

It's a sorry day when we have a president who won't uphold this Christian nation established by the Supreme Judge of the world to whom our founding fathers appealed when they sought freedom from the exigencies of tyranny. A true leader of this nation would say, as Washington did: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." What is the advantage of refusing to acknowledge the source of our help, and that it comes from on high? I tell you it is like telling an army to refuse to follow its king and instead turn around and parlay with the enemy. Obama's comments are an insult to all the good men and women of this country who gave their lives to preserve our freedoms.

Obama is ungrateful to God

2009-06-24T15:20:00.001-07:00

It seems to me that our current "president" has a lack of gratitude for divine providence. This was not the case of some of our past presidents. George Washington said: "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." Is America's president obeying God's will and being grateful? Obviously not. Instead, he's catering to politically motivated men. When America starts denying that Jesus Christ is the God of Deliverance who leads America out of oppression, then she denies access to the powers of heaven to defend us against the enemies of freedom.

Denying Christ is not a strength

2009-06-24T15:19:00.000-07:00

Obama claims that our nation's strength lies in that it does not "consider" itself to be Christian. It is not a strength to be full of discord instead of unity. Saying a Christian nation is strong because it does not consider itself Christian is an oxymoron. It's like having an army that won't follow its commander, but wants to instead follow the orders of the enemy. I just want to ask why it should be viewed as a strength to turn against Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible, the Supreme Judge of the world to whom our founding fathers appealed for help when they were under oppression? It is not a strength, but a weakness. The same God who delivered us from every evil in the past is the same God who keeps America safe under his wings, and that God is Jesus Christ: "For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian." (Isa. 9:4) If we turn away from our Heavenly King and Deliverer, we turn back to oppression and disaster.

America is a Christian Nation

2009-06-24T15:18:00.000-07:00

Obama has said that America is not a Christian nation, but if you read original historical documents, instead of just reciting a lot of politically correct jargon, you will find that the U.S. is certainly a Christian nation. The Declaration of Independence reads: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do ... declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free..." Anyone with knowledge of the scriptures knows that the Supreme Judge of the world is Jesus Christ, as in the following verses: "Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth" (1Chr.16:22) "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained..." (Acts 17:31) If Obama wants to claim that America is no longer a Christian nation, then he wants America to no longer be entitled to the blessings of heaven from the Supreme Judge of the world. If this were true, America would be exposed to the weapons of the world and not protected under the wings of the Almighty God. Which America do you want to live in -- one under the protection of the Supreme Judge to whom the founders of our nation appealed, or one open to the ravages of war at the hands of the enemy? I leave it to you to think that out carefully.

Moral citizens are needed

2009-06-05T11:22:00.000-07:00

John Adams, the second president of the United States, said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

With this in mind, we should view any attempt to get us to depart from the moral laws given to us by God as an attack on our government. Every social degradation erodes the government. Thus, a culture that promotes promiscuity is not just offending a just God, but is destroying its own government. Everyone seems so concerned about terrorists' attacks, but who is concerned about breaking God's laws? As a society gets more and more permissive of behaviors that are contrary to the law of heaven, the society becomes less and less stable until it falls, like Rome. Make no mistake, the real threat to our safety is that we won't obey God. Our government is headed for disaster in the direct proportion that it treats God's laws as optional or obsolete.

Can you ban a marriage that never existed?

2009-06-03T15:30:00.000-07:00

This post was in response to an article titled "California Upholds Gay Marriage Ban." My posting was promptly removed. Here it is:

I find the bias in these kinds of news articles interesting. Why is it that when people try to preserve the integrity of traditional moral family values that they are "banning" something that was never legal? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any kind of long-established legal precedent for homosexual marriage. Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. Look it up in any dictionary that was written before the powers that be decided to practice political correctness. Marriage is a binding and holy covenant made between a man and a woman. We should remain true to our Constitution, which was written that we might obey God rather than man. Not only is it proper to follow the moral integrity of years past, but it is needful to preserve it for posterity. Children are entitled to have clarity on these issues. They need the freedom to choose to abide by God's laws.

On True Science - Evolution and Creation

2009-06-03T15:27:00.000-07:00

Think about science for a minute. What is observable? What has been tested? It is evident in nature that things have to be acted upon by someone in order to create order. Does a farm house sprout up by itself? Does the farm itself plant itself, water itself, and harvest itself? No, of course not. Neither can a planet create itself, maintain itself, and make order by accident. The hand of God is in everything and is readily observable and easily tested.

Here's a way to show the absurdity of evolution to a group of evolutionists. Wait until it's lunch time and they're really hungry. Now put a bunch of sandwich stuff in front of them and say, "Now, if you believe these sandwiches will make themselves into lunch by accident, then go ahead and test that theory until you have something on your plate. But if you want me to CREATE a sandwich for you, I will do so." I don't think many of them would stick to the theory of evolution when it came to filling their bellies, would they?

Can we teach creationism and evolution?

2009-06-03T15:26:00.000-07:00

This post was banned as a response to article about teachers influencing views on creationism and evolution.

The following was my response. It was banned from Red Orbit.

Here's the post:

Think about how silly it would be to say that your breakfast will coalesce into a perfect omelet on your kitchen table, even though you have all the ingredients in your refrigerator, waiting for action. Would millions of years help the process of turning eggs and cheese into an omelet, or could it only be accomplished if someone put his hand to the work? Likewise, all of creation is the work of God's hand. Moral of the story: Just as you can't eat your breakfast without having someone make it, so too you can't have a planet without a Maker.

Professors fired from a Christian school?

2009-06-03T15:23:00.000-07:00

This post was banned from an article that mentioned two Christian professors had been fired for teaching evolution. Everyone on the site was crying about how unfair this was to the professors and what a crime against education.

The following was my response. It was banned from Inside Higher Education. I will not commend the site for its promptitude in removing a dissenting voice.

Here's the post:

I find this entire argument without merit. I know very well that most employees of Christian schools are required to sign documentation that they sincerely believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and will not support anything that goes against his gospel. So a couple of teachers violated their oath to uphold Christian principles and they lost their jobs. I call that appropriate, just as I would say it is appropriate to fire a clerk who is stealing change from the customers

Saying it like it is - with the MOUTH God gave me

2009-06-03T15:18:00.000-07:00

After all the times I posted to different sites, only to have my posts removed because they were unacceptably true and accurate, I decided to start my own blog.

I just got tired of telling the truth only to have someone remove what I said.

My mom called me a beautiful screamer when I was little, and I intend to use my mouth.

You'll find here my posts that were banned from other sites, along with other material.

"For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." (Luke 21:15)