Archive for the ‘Current Events’ category

Christian Worldview Thought of the Day: Wednesday

July 15, 2009

A friend of mine posted a thoughtful question about abortion on his facebook status earlier today.  But that wasn’t what caught my interesting in particular, it was someone who commented on his status that had me thinking about the abortion issue in a different way.

Of course, the question of whether or not the fetus is a human life is the most important one in the debate.  However, what about the rights of the father?  All we hear is “It’s the woman’s body so she gets to choose.”  Really?  That’s not even biological correct.  The baby (or fetus, however you prefer to think about it, because that’s all it is, a preference) has half the fathers DNA and literally part of the father’s body entered the mother’s and became a part of the baby (and I’m not talking about the penis you sickos).

So it is also the father’s body that is a part of the growing baby.  I’ll ask again.  What about the rights of the father?  Doesn’t he have a say in what happens to his half of the DNA?  Isn’t this country all about equal rights for everyone?  So what about the rights of the father?


Christian Worldview Thought of the Day: Thursday

July 9, 2009

I am truly more saddened by the death of Steve McNair than Michael Jackson.  “Air McNair” was killed last weekend, in his sleep, by his girlfriend.  Steve was married.  His girlfriend, Sahel Kazemi, then turned the gun on herself.

Steve McNair was a great football player.  I truly enjoyed watching him play for years.  He embodied toughness and professionalism, and from all accounts of those around him, he was a good man who loved his family and gave back to his community. 

I’m not going to jump onto the “Steve McNair deserved to die because he was cheating on his wife” bandwagon.  However, this brings a sober reminder to any of us who are paying attention that being a “good man” is not enough.  Temptation comes to all of us, and we must be diligent in the Word and in our relationship with Christ or His protection over us may be lifted.

I don’t know if Steve McNair was a Christian, even though he did go to church in Nashville, and I don’t know if he deserved to die the way he did.  But I do know that if Steve wasn’t violating the sanctity of his marriage, I’d have a different “thought of the day”.

Christian Worldview Thought of the Day

July 8, 2009

The next time the liberal media tells you that they are concerned about the kids, please think of the hero worship that Michael Jackson has received upon his death.  Since when does the entertainment value of an individual outweigh pedophilia?

Ida: A Missing Link to Human Evolution?

May 24, 2009

Only if you want it to be.

Much as been made of the discovery of this “Ida”, given the Latin name Darwinius masillae, as a solid missing link between other mammals and humans.  Alex Watts from Sky News Online exclaimed, “The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years—but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.”

Based upon glowing reports of the finding, we should expect to see an ape-like fossil.  Instead, what we see is this:




So, contrary to what some media outlets are reporting, this fossil is not ape-like in any way.  Looking more like a modern day lemur. 

The actual claims of the authors of the study is that Ida is a precursor to the ape. 

The truth is that the evidence is quite underwhelming.  It’s not that big of deal.  But why are the media outlets and scientists making such a fuss over Ida?

  • It’s 95% preserved, which is unheard of as far as fossils go.  Let’s face it, it just looks really good.  It’s about the size of a racoon and even includes fossilized fur! 
  • Ida has opposable thumbs which an ABC news article stated are “similar to humans and unlike those found on other mammals.”
  • The talus bone is described as “the same shape as a humans’ “
  • It’s teeth are more similar to a monkey’s than the modern day lemur.

Is Evolution the Only Explanation?

The part that the media nor the scientists don’t want to talk about is that it looks like a modern day lemur.  The only way you conclude that a lemur-like creature is a missing link to humanity is if you first assume that humans came from lemur-like creatures. 

Ida has opposable thumbs more like humans than other mammals  . . . OK, Ida also has a tail more like other mammals than humans, walks on all fours like other mammals, is the size of a raccoon like other mammals and unlike humans.  The point is that all they want to do is talk about the similarities to humans and monkeys, but not the dis-similar characteristics including the difference in the ankle structure in Ida than in monkeys and humans (J. L. Franzen, et al., “Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology,”).

Similarities are only evidence that two species are similar, not that one evolved from another.  That similarities are evidence of evolution is an unscientific conclusion because we cannot test or falsify that conclusion.  Similarities can be just as accounted for by a Creator who makes certain species similar and Ida’s differences from modern day lemurs can be just as easily accounted for by variation within a created kind.

The Problem with Ida is . . .

The science isn’t very sound.  Let’s forget the unscientific conclusions made by assuming evolution to give evidence of evolution.  Even the evidence that Ida is a evolutionary link to humans is disputed within the scientific community.

You don’t have to listen to me, just other news outlets that are more honestly reporting the story of Ida.

University of Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich told the Wall Street Journal: “There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We’ve been pushed to finish the study. It’s not how I like to do science.”

Responding to Professor Gingrich’s comments . . .

“That rings all sorts of warning bells,” University of New England paleoanthropologist Peter Brown cautioned “It’s nice it has fingernails, something we have, as do most primates . . . but they’ve cherry-picked particular character[istics] and they’ve been criticized (by other scientists) for doing that.” (The Australian)

“On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they’re proposing.”

“The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”

“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” [Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris] Beard said.

Those three quotes are from a LiveScience article.

“There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked,” says paleontologist Richard Kay . . . of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.” (ScienceNOW)

In another article by BBC News Chris Beard said:  “I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.”


It’s clear that even within the scientific community the more sober-minded scientists, unphased by the media hype, remain skeptical and critical of the claims of Ida and the science behind it.  We must also remain skeptical of the arguments employed, assuming evolution to prove evolution, and the unscientific methods of exploring only one option to explain similarities.

Shame on You, Perez Hilton

April 21, 2009

It brings a wry smile to my face with the tolerance crowd shows their true colors.  No matter how much they try to promote “tolerance” as the ultimate good, they show over and over again that they actually don’t believe that.

The most recent example is the controversy surrounding the runner up to Miss America, Carrie Prejean.  During her interview process, she was asked, by Perez Hilton, a question about her views on same-sex marriage.  She explained that, “in my country, and in my family, marriage is between a man and a woman – no offense to anone out there”.  Needless to say, she did not win the Miss America crown.

Hilton took the opportunity to do get as much exposure as possible, Larry King, MSNBC arguing against Prejeans statements.  On his Twitter page, Hilton called Prejean a “dumb b****”, apologized for the comment, and then took back the apology.

To Perez Hilton:

So basically, tolerance only applies to those that agree with you, right?  You expect everyone to be tolerant of your redefinition of marriage, but the minute someone disagrees with you, the tolerance rule no longer applies, right?  You can go around calling women b****es but if someone is derogatory towards homosexuals, boy do they deserve to pay.

Can you not respect that Prejean didn’t bow to popular opinion and expressed her beliefs?  She basically gave up her dream of being Miss America to be true to what she believes, wouldn’t you do the same for your beliefs Perez?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, Perez.  I thank you for showing the world who you truly are so that we will no longer be fooled by your mask of “tolerance”.  Your vile comments prove that you are just as dogmatic a believer as the religious whom you berate.

When Did Marriage and Religion Become Separate?

March 10, 2009

One of the “Hot Community Posts” that I saw on Sunday was an article entitled “A Religious Definition of Marriage Does Not Have Rights”.  This highlights the core issue surrounding the legality of “same-sex marriage” here in California:  that there is a non-religious definition of marriage.

The author, BGH, writes:

If viewed through a sort of  ‘religious filter’, opposition to gay marriage can be understood … if pertaining to ones personal choices.

Can anyone see what BGH did there?  He assumed that there is a different filter than a “religious” one through which to view the word “marriage”. 

BGH, I’ve got news for you.  This nation was founded by very religious, born-again Christians, who rebelled to be free to practice their brand of Christianity, and allow others to do the same.  America was founded upon these religious ideals.  Especially up to that point, marriage had always been a religious ceremony, and it’s under these circumstances that marriage was written into the law. 

The supporters of gay marriage can change it now, and that’s their right as Americans to try.  However, they must know that that they are the ones changing the definition of a word just because they don’t like the current one.

BGH addresses this point:

A personal religious belief does not become the community’s belief solely because a majority follows the doctrine.

Neither does a non-religious minority belief become the community’s belief solely because they don’t like the majority belief.

Along these lines of thinking and considering America’s origins, I have a question that I honestly don’t know the answer to.  Does it make sense completely divorce a word, indeed a concept, from it’s origins?  When did this switch take place?

A Precedence Is Being Set Here

Let’s reason through this for a second.  We can all agree that the “traditional” definition of the word marriage has been between a man and a woman, right?  Sure, there have been other perversions (polygamy, political and financial gain etc) to the institution, but the “man and woman” part has always stayed the same.  Don’t get ahead of yourself, I’m not saying that the traditional definition is equal to the correct definition, I’m just calling to our remembrance the history of the human race. 

Therefore, in order for the proponents of gay marriage to call this an “equality” issue, the definition of marriage must first be changed within their minds.  Think about it for a second, it’s not bigotry to say that I can’t join the “Red Hat Society”.  The Red Hat Society is defined as older women who wear red hats.  I don’t fit that definition. 

Now, if I changed the definition of the Red Hat Society to include ALL who wear red hats; then yes, anyone who wears a red hat, and wants to be included in the Red Hat Society, should be allowed to join.  If the Red Hat Society (my re-defined version) were to exclude someone even though they were wearing a red hat, then they would be rightly accused of bigotry.

In the same way, it is not bigotry to say that a man and a man cannot be included in an institution defined as between man and a woman.  A homosexual couple just doesn’t fit the definition.  The word “bigotry” can only be used once we re-define marriage from “a man and a woman” to “a legally binding institution between two committed people“.  Once this is our definition, then surely, Christians are being bigots.  However, you have to first force this definition upon everyone in society in order for them to swallow the “equality” claim.

That’s why the precedence being set here is not one of equality, or a rejection of bigotry.  The precedence being set is one of a minority changing the definition of a word because they don’t like the current one. 

The question we should be asking ourselves is:  Are we really a society that changes definitions because a very small portion of our population disagrees with them?  Are we a society that changes definitions even if the majority disagrees with it?

This is a Battle of Worldviews

Why has society in general been able to redefine a word right under our noses?  Why are those that hold to the traditional, Biblical definition of marriage being called bigots?

Society has created it’s own worldview, based upon it’s own wisdom.  One general term that can be used to describe this is “humanism”.  Society has decided that men’s minds can decide what truth is.  This is so far removed from the Biblical worldview that the definition of marriage set down by the Bible is seen as bigotry.  This worldview distinction extends so far that society has it’s own definitions of God and religion.

BGH displays this when speaking about the prospect of gay marriage:

There is not a threat to the person’s religion, religion is a personal matter between yourself and whatever god/gods you worship.

Humans are the ones who’ve tried to confine God to a building or a our idea of Him.  God cannot be confined to any of those things, nor do His laws concede to the constructed truth in the mind of man. 

However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: 

Shame on you, Sean Penn

February 23, 2009

Sean Penn won the Oscar for Actor in a Leading Role last night. 

I knew this was coming.  I really did.  In fact, I was surprised that “Milk” didn’t win Best Picture.  But what I wasn’t expecting was Mr. Penn’s acceptance speech.  He said,

“For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

Let’s forget for a second that Sean’s argument is flawed from the beginning because being married isn’t a basic human right

The point I want to make, and why Sean Penn should be ashamed of himself, is for attempting to make those who believe differently than him feel ashamed for those beliefs.  Isn’t this what he chides Christians for doing?  Doesn’t he chide Christians for forcing their beliefs on other people?  Isn’t this what Sean did last night?

Sean is attempting to tell me what my morality should be.  He says I should feel ashamed for where my morality comes from.  Isn’t this the exact behavior that all of us should shy away from?  Sure, Sean, make your argument and vote the way you want to vote.  But don’t make people feel ashamed for what they believe, because then you become exactly like the Christians you are arguing against.

Shame on you, Mr. Penn.  And shame on the Screen Actors Guild for cheering on this hypocrisy.