1 - 7
In response to:

A Reply to Rush Limbaugh

Greg22 Wrote: Dec 09, 2014 11:52 AM
Typical misreading of the minds of conservative republicans. When the republican office holders fell in the polls after the shutdown it was not because republican voters didn't like the shutdown, but because conservative republicans didn't feel they went far enough or held out long enough. And when the Rino's attacked the true conservative leaders in the party it drove their numbers down further. Rush is right, we put them in office to stop Obama at all costs, all costs. We lose the country otherwise..
Ann Coulter, perhaps you did this research before skewering Dr. Brantly for taking his "feel good" mission trip to Africa. You imply that the good doctor does not perform any charitable acts in his community. Do you know whether he participates in a local health clinic that provides free medical services to the indigent in his community? Would it surprise you if he did? That would not surprise me.
Ann, I'd be okay with TX leaving the union because I'd move there to enjoy real Liberty. You can have Washington DC, NYC and LA. I'll take any place in TX any time.
Actually that is not the "Official" Church Teaching. The Catholic Church's teaching magisterium has clearly identified essential facts whose literal and historical meaning Catholics may not call into question because they touch upon fundamental Christian teachings. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission affirms these facts include: "...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer." (from Acta apostolis sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69, translated in Rome and the Study of Scripture, 7th edition, and cited from Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette, page 145) While it is true that Pope John Paul II made comments that appeared to give credence to evolution, he was not revising the official teaching which was last affirmed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909.
I rather prefer The Blind Watchmaker wherein he said this, "And we find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230 Dawkins is so intellectually invested in this bankrupt theory of Darwinism he couldn't even accept his own conclusion. Gould and Eldridge came up with "punctuated equilibrium", severe and rapid mutation, to explain the absence of transition fossils. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, mentioned in another thread, appeal to alien visitation because there is no earth bound solution to the origin question. Oh the blind faith it takes to be a Darwinian evolutionist.
Would you accept the words of leading paleontologists? Dr. David Raup, University of Chicago Chicago Museum of Natural History "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35 Or how about Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator American Museum of Natural History, "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46 Or his contemporary, Dr. Stephen Gould, Paleontologist Harvard University who said, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2
You might be surprised to learn that in the past 40 years there have been more "peer reviewed" scientific papers criticizing Darwin's evolutionary mechanism than in support. There is no evidence that the higher life forms that exist today evolved from a common ancestor. That type of "macro" evolution has never been observed, nor is there evidence it occurred in the fossil record. First thing science needs to explain is how "first life" came about. The "chance" hypothesis has no chance of having happened. Some scientists have even given up on an earth based start to life and are turning to other planets and some inexplicable inter-terrestrial transfer to earth. Well at least they are looking toward Heaven, that is a step in the right direction. And all God's children said Amen.
1 - 7