Sure, some subjects are more slippery than others, huh? Conversationally speaking, it takes ice skating skills (and mathematical precision) to glide with grace, twist and turn through taboo topics.
(Ice skating is a fun sport:)…i am looking forward to doing some later this month at a nearby rink. Yes, you can find ice (rink) in FL;))
what are you skating around joanie?…1 taboo topic (to some) creation v. evolution.
What about: any ice skating kidnappers??? Wow! For a little context check it out: have-you-been-robbed?
Isn’t there research out there somewhere about how kids need Fathers! Fathers Very Important Role played in their kids’ lives is so undermined these days it seems. (Kids need what both Moms & Pops bring to the Family table.)
The-Global-Family-of-Humanity-Needs-Unity. We need each Other–Men & Women. Unity is like a harmonious orchestra producing beautiful music. (Doesn’t a fully functioning orchestra need a Conductor??:)) Unity “bands” humans together cooperatively working for the greater good for fellow-fragile-life & Earth!
SAD! how some flawed human ideas separate us, alienate, and cause conflict, loss, etc:(
am wondering IF millions have been unwittingly/unknowingly kidnapped from their “Heavenly” Father?!…
the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “In 1950 the encyclical Humani generis [issued by Pope Pius XII] marked the starting point of a new development . . . evolution was expressly recognized as a valid hypothesis.” In line with this, A. Hulsbosch, a seminary teacher in Holland and a member of the Order of St. Augustine, has said: “We can no longer deny that, on the biological side, man originates in the animal kingdom.” And Peter Schoonenberg, S. J., a visiting professor at Duquesne University, a Catholic school, wrote: “When we now consider the genesis of the human species we meet with the lowest grade of parenthood, for the first men had no human but animal ‘parents.”
The Protestant churches are doing the same. In a letter dated “18 October, 1949,” the archbishop of Canterbury freely said: “The Christian Church as a whole has accepted the theory of evolution as scientifically established.” In the noted Protestant publication The Christian Century, Dr. Paul Holmer, professor of theology at Yale University divinity school, writes: “I confess to deep appreciation of the talents and labors that have made evolution a prevailing scientific conclusion in our time.
The Protestant Interpreter’s Bible bluntly stated their view in this way: “The reptile was content to stay in the swamp; man wanted to climb out of it. He had and still has primitive instincts against which he must struggle, for he began on the plane of the animal; but he has not been content to dwell there.”
Yes, man must crawl, climb out of the sinking swamp of scientific & spiritual lies…about God and man’s origins, etc.
Karl Marx was so pleased with Darwin’s work on evolution that he wrote him a letter asking permission to dedicate the English edition of Das Kapital (called “the bible of the Communist movement”) to him. Openly a ninth-year school textbook published in the Soviet Union declares: “The study of the laws of evolution of the organic world assists in the working out of the materialistic conception . . . In addition, this teaching arms us for the antireligious struggle, by giving us the materialistic interpretation of the appearance of purpose in the organic world, and at the same time proving the origin of man from lower animals.” Additionally, an essay by evolutionist Julian S. Huxley on “Darwin and the Idea of Evolution” states: “To begin with, if evolution is accepted as a fact, much of the theological framework of the world’s major religions is destroyed, or is conveniently . . . represented as significant myth.” Yet, the clergy are out front in proclaiming that evolution is a fact and that the Bible accounts are merely myth. [excerpted readings: Evolution undermines Faith w 71]
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
Have i been programmed? or kidnapped? worse?
For the public record…i strongly disagree with Darwin & Marx & FAKE religion! People have been programmed to accept evolution as fact. Indoctrination/brain kidnapping of the young starts young…in the schools:( (i’ve learned about this from my own educational experiences as well as that of my children in public school systems. Indoctrination (and sex ed) by government starts way before college-age and has for years.)
Carefully consider…”those in authority compel belief“…(not just speech)…(my italics)…
In the magazine American Laboratory a biochemist wrote this about his children’s schooling: “The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade (based on my reading of my children’s textbooks). Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.” Regarding evolutionary teaching in higher grades, he said: “A student is not permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does so, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ‘correct’ and the grade is lowered.”1
Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear or read phrases such as, ‘When man evolved from the lower animals,’ or, ‘Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.’ Thus, people are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed.
Yep, i’ve been known to buck (misinformed/misplaced/misused) authority…(like my whole life)…
When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.
My training…cannot help being a duster and a sweeper…let’s sweep away some of the dust & dirt & filth & grime and see clearly shall we:)
An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.”2 But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ‘serious modern biologists,’ not only doubt evolution but do not believe it.3 They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: “Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs?”4
In similar fashion the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that “evolution is a fact,” and asserts: “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.”5 It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. Indeed, these same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.”6 But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?
In a foreword to John Reader’s book Missing Links, David Pilbeam shows that scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts. One reason, says Pilbeam, is that scientists “are also people and because much is at stake, for there are glittering prizes in the form of fame and publicity.” The book acknowledges that evolution is “a science powered by individual ambitions and so susceptible to preconceived beliefs.” As an example it notes: “When preconception is . . . so enthusiastically welcomed and so long accommodated as in the case of Piltdown Man, science reveals a disturbing predisposition towards belief before investigation.” The author adds: “Modern [evolutionists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators . . . [who] dismissed objective assessment in favour of the notions they wanted to believe.”7 So, because of having committed themselves to evolution, and a desire to further their careers, some scientists will not admit the possibility of error. Instead, they work to justify preconceived ideas rather than acknowledge possibly damaging facts.
Similarly, a professor of anthropology, Anthony Ostric, criticized his scientific colleagues for declaring “as a fact” that man descended from apelike creatures. He said that “at best it is only a hypothesis and not a well-supported one at that.” He noted that “there is no evidence that man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance.” The anthropologist said that the vast body of professionals have fallen in behind those who promote evolution “for fear of not being declared serious scholars or of being rejected from serious academic circles.”10 In this regard, Hoyle and Wickramasing he also comment: “You either believe the concepts or you will inevitably be branded as a heretic.”11 One result of this has been an unwillingness by many scientists to investigate the creation viewpoint without prejudice. As a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice observed: “Science has always prided itself upon its objectivity, but I’m afraid that we scientists are rapidly becoming victims of the prejudiced, closed-minded thinking that we have so long abhorred.”12
“am i willing to investigate the creation viewpoint without prejudice?” Please Reader:) do YOUR OWN INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH…(and on any topic of interest to You personally)…don’t blindly believe anything!
OH! Beware! FAKE religion is at it again…misusing, misinforming, abusing authority…oh no?! Oh Yes– murdering the masses, and to those left alive…dictating dogma (and empowering other dictators who do dastardly deeds). [BTW: These are older excerpted readings in this post…reference below…check it out IF YOU choose…footnotes found in book.]
An additional reason for evolution’s acceptance is the failure of conventional religion in both what it teaches and what it does, as well as its failure to represent properly the Bible’s creation account. Informed persons are well aware of the religious record of hypocrisy, oppression and inquisitions. They have observed clergy support for murderous dictators. They know that people of the same religion have killed one another by the millions in war, with the clergy backing each side. So they find no reason for considering the God whom those religions are supposed to represent. Too, absurd and unbiblical doctrines further this alienation. Such ideas as eternal torment—that God will roast people in a literal hellfire forever—are repugnant to reasoning persons.
Further readings for Your Reasonable:) Consideration Reader…
12 However, not only are reasoning persons repelled by such religious teachings and actions, but the evidence in the Bible is that God also is repelled. Indeed, the Bible frankly exposes the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders. For example, it says of them: “You also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Matthew 23:28) Jesus told the common people that their clergy were “blind guides” who taught, not what comes from God, but contrary “commands of men as doctrines.” (Matthew 15:9, 14) Similarly, the Bible condemns religionists who “publicly declare they know God, but [who] disown him by their works.” (Titus 1:16) So, despite their claims, religions that have promoted or condoned hypocrisy and bloodshed do not originate with God, nor do they represent him. Instead, they are called “false prophets,” and are compared to trees that produce “worthless fruit.”—Matthew 7:15-20; John 8:44; 13:35; 1 John 3:10-12.
13 Also, many religions have capitulated on the matter of evolution, thus providing no alternative for their people. For example, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “General evolution, even of the body of man, seems the most probable scientific account of origins.”13 At a Vatican meeting, 12 scholars representing the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church agreed to this conclusion: “We are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious dispute.”14 With such religious endorsement, are uninformed church members likely to resist even when, in reality, “masses of evidence” do not support evolution, but, instead, actually support creation?
14. How is the vacuum caused by false religion often filled?
14 The vacuum that this causes is often filled by agnosticism and atheism. Abandoning belief in God, people accept evolution as the alternative. Today, in a number of lands, atheism based on evolution is even the official state policy. Responsibility for much of this disbelief can be laid at the feet of this world’s religions.
15. What other erroneous religious ideas discourage belief in God and the Bible?
15 Too, some religious doctrines cause people to believe that the Bible teaches things contrary to scientific fact, so they reject the God of the Bible. For example, […], some erroneously claim the Bible teaches that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days, and that it is only 6,000 years old. But the Bible does not teach these things. [ link: ce chap. 15 pp. 179-187
Further reading/digging for Yourself:)…table of contents: ce p. 5]
(6/6/18 @ 5:44 p.m. Florida, USA)