Back before Darwin, the term “race” used to mean people of a different country — for example, the English race versus the French race. Then with the popularization of evolution, and specifically the racist tome Descent of Man, there was the idea that man evolved from animals (specifically, the apes), and that some people (those with white skin) were more evolved than others (those with dark skin). Australian aborigines were actually hunted, stuffed, and mounted in museums as animals, although as animals that were almost human. Early proponents of evolution even theorized that the three “races” (Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid) each evolved separately from three different types of apes or monkeys. While few if any evolutionists will trumpet such ideas today, racism is deeply entrenched in our culture, in large part due to the century or so of such teaching, which culminated in the eugenics movement in America and elsewhere, and the Holocaust in Germany.
It is considered a racial slur to call Barack Obama a monkey, but not George W. Bush. This has its roots in evolution. It would be a slur to say a man was like any animal, but it is not considered racist to call a man a jack-ass.
While the evolutionists have softened their stance on race, they still say that the races took tens of thousands of years to develop. Many people think that today — that people of different racial groups must be vastly different or widely separated. But that’s simply false, and here’s a picture as proof:
This is a picture of a father, mother, and twin girls. The parents’ mothers were both white and their fathers were both black. So, one generation was “pure” white and “pure” black, and then the next generation was mid-brown, and the youngest generation again became lighter and darker than their parents. Although the girls look the same to me, as far as facial features go, based on skin color alone, they would be classified as different races — races that supposedly are widely divided by thousands of generations and tens of thousands of years. Hmm — doesn’t look like that to me!
Of course, this comes as no surprise to those who believe the Bible, because we’re all descended from Adam, and the New Testament reiterates that God has made “from one blood” all the nations of the earth.
The launch of the so-called “Sex Degrees of Separation” (of course the title comes from “six degrees of separation” — the idea that every human is connected to every other human on the planet in six people or less — for instance, I shook hands with Magic Johnson when I was a child, so that is one degree; which means that every other person he has ever come in contact with would be two degrees away from me) shows the exponential problem of multiple sex partners. Here’s an article discussing it a bit, and here’s the calculator itself.
Of course, there are some assumptions in the calculator which may or may not be accurate. If two virgins marry, it doesn’t matter if the “average” man or woman has had 6-9 previous sexual partners (who themselves were also previously sexually exposed to multiple partners), their total risk is “1”. I would like to see the data and assumptions that this calculator is based on — certainly not monogamy!
Out of curiosity, I put in my real stats (my husband as my only sex partner), and it came up with an indirect exposure to over 1.2 million people. Mm-hmm. I put in my real stats for when I got married (to see if the ages made a difference), and it was 1.0 million people. So, despite the fact that my husband and I have been monogamous for the past 6 years, I somehow became indirectly exposed to an additional 200,000 people? Uh, yeah. Of course, the “average” person (who may not be real — some people will sleep with anything that moves while others may retain their virginity or at least be much more choosy) will sleep with more people the older s/he gets, so it would make sense for the relative risk to rise. But then, you can’t calculate your real risk, if you’re one of the outliers.
At the lowest risk (aside from virginity and zero sexual partners, of course!), namely being a 16-y/o girl whose last sexual partner was a 16-17-y/0 boy, you would be indirectly exposed to about 3,000 different people. However, if you’re a 16-y/o boy whose last sexual partner was a 16-17-y/o girl, your indirect exposure is “only” 17.
I just realized that you can calculate your risk going back to three degrees of separation, instead of six. Doing this for a woman sleeping with one 25-y/o man drops the risk from 92,280 to only 282. So, that could be a way to show lower risk from chaste or more-chaste people.
Back in college, I remember an experiment the biology teacher did, which was supposed to show the risk of sleeping around. It didn’t work… yet it did work. Each student took a vial of clear liquid (it looked like water), and we were supposed to mix and mingle with the other students, swapping fluid — you see how it could mimic sex. Since it was the first day, and most of us didn’t know anybody else in the lab, or we sat next to people we did know, we mostly just mixed fluid with the people who were closest to us. The teacher called out for us to “circulate and make friends,” but we still pretty much stayed within our 3-person lab groups, or at most with the lab group nearest us. Then after a little while, she came by and put a drop or two of a chemical into our vials, to cause a reaction with the heretofore unknown substance put into one (or more) of the vials that looked clear. It ended up that very few people had vials that turned blue. I think the person who made up that experiment intended it to show risk of having sex (swapping fluids indiscriminately with everyone in class), with many or perhaps even most of the vials of clear water turning blue. Instead, the reverse was shown to be true — that if you’re monogamous (only swapping fluids with your lab partner), then you lower or eliminate your risk of STDs. Since only a few people’s vials turned blue, it didn’t make a big splash, like the visual from everyone’s vial turning blue; but it made the point (in reverse) just the same.
Many Christians, overwhelmed by the so-called “scientific evidence” put forth by evolutionists, have kowtowed to them, and, unwilling to make a complete break with the Bible, have accepted both God and a godless evolution, mingling them into the incoherent “theistic evolution.” Basically, God created everything (which is the “core” of what Genesis really says [according to them]) but he did so using evolutionary means, just like the secular, atheistic scientists say.
This article blasts that position, showing it to be not just Scripturally untenable (despite the protestations of the theistic evolutionists I encountered after writing this post), but also to be intellectually untenable as well. It includes quotes from various atheists about theistic evolution, including,
Our best allies for defending evolution are members of the mainstream clergy groups.
This is because, as atheist Frank Zindler said,
The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of … evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed.
As this mother found out (first comment), once people accept evolution as a fact, with a bit of theology thrown in (God started the Big Bang and worked to “create” the universe including this planet and everything on it via materialistic processes and over the course of billions and billions of years), then it is but a small step to discard the idea that God had anything to do with it, because of the logical inconsistency of holding onto billions of years with one hand, and holding onto the Biblical creation account (which clearly shows just a few days of creation, and that only a few thousand years ago) with the other hand. Having accepted “the fact” of long-age evolution, the only thing left to challenge is the “theistic” part of it.
Atheists know this; too bad more Christians don’t. Even Dr. Dobson, of Focus on the Family, whom I generally agree with, is a long-age theistic evolutionist. Sad to say.
There are some religious people who claim to believe the Bible (or at least the Old Testament), and say that abortion is not wrong, is not murder, is justifiable, is not prohibited by the Bible, etc. They will usually “argue from silence” and note that abortion as such is never mentioned, much less prohibited. Or they’ll take the passage in the Law of Moses that talks about if a pregnant woman is struck and “her fruit pass from her”, that it is not a murder charge — there is no taking of the striker’s life for causing the fetal demise — they assume that “her fruit pass from her” is a miscarriage, and the “evil” that may happen afterward is maternal injury. Others will note that this passage could easily (and, they say, more properly) mean that this is talking about a preterm birth in which the baby lives, and the “evil” that happens afterwards could be either maternal or neonatal injury. Obviously, in those days, there was precious little that could be done to save preterm babies, so it could easily mean that if the baby was big and old enough to survive, then the person that struck the woman and caused the premature birth would only receive a mild sentence for endangering the pregnant woman and by extension her fetus/neonate; but if the baby could not survive and/or the mother was injured or killed, then the person would pay with his life, if a life was taken, or he would pay some sort of restitution for the injury.
That’s about the sum total of so-called “Biblical support” for abortion that I’ve seen. If there are others that I’ve missed that you’ve heard of, feel free to add them.
Most Christians that try to answer this question or argument basically give the explanation I outlined in the first paragraph, in response to the “her fruit” passage; and say things like, “Of course abortion as such isn’t mentioned — it’s obviously murder, so wouldn’t need to be specially mentioned, any more than a specific type of rape or child molestation would need to be mentioned, other than a general prohibition against any sort of sexual conduct outside of marriage.”
While I agree with this, it doesn’t go far enough, because all the opponent has to say is, “The fetus is not a person and therefore cannot be murdered. It is not obviously murder.” Then the two people just end up in a stalemate.
The line of reasoning I’m about to put forth will only work for people who believe the Bible. The others will find some carnal excuse to continue to support abortion.
In the creation story, God created Adam and Eve in His image, and also the animals, and said that they each would reproduce “after their kind.” [Kinds are not necessarily “species” as we define them, but probably could be a “family” or “genus” as we classify them. All dog types, including domestic dogs of all breeds, wolves, foxes, dingos, etc. would have been originally one “kind,” which speciated after the flood.] But, using species that are familiar to us, it’s obvious that dogs produce other dogs — they don’t give birth to cats; cats give birth to cats; mice give birth to other mice; cows don’t give birth to horses; humans give birth to humans, etc.
Later on in Genesis (perhaps even a few different times, plus other times in Exodus), capital punishment for murder is not just allowed but even required. Gen. 9:6 is one such passage. But more than just being a law given, this verse also contains the reasoning for the law: namely, “for in the image of God created He man.”
To kill a man is to kill God in effigy, which is why the murderer is required to lose his own life. He has, one might argue, made the ultimate insult to God. This is also, I would argue, why Satan loves murder so much. He would love to kill and/or dethrone God; but since he can’t, he will do as much as he can — and this includes killing men himself (perhaps by subtly encouraging them to do self-destructive things, including suicide, promiscuous behavior [becoming infected with lethal diseases such as AIDS], addictions to drugs and alcohol, etc.), and inciting them to kill each other — on a large scale like the Holocaust, or on a small scale like drive-by shootings. Also by abortion.
Because, as I said before, man produces after his kind. This has been proven by genetics — at conception, the male and female gametes come together, and their genes mix to produce a genetically new human. If that “conceptus” is taken and analyzed, it would show that it was definitely human, even though it was only a one-celled creature. It is also most certainly alive, biologically speaking, so to kill this life would be to kill a genetically unique human. To kill a man, a human, one of the human kind, one of the creatures made “in the image of God,” is to commit murder.
Generation Rescue has published the results of a telephone survey (which, btw, is the same way the CDC conducts its vaccine-related surveys):
“We surveyed over 9,000 boys in California and Oregon and found that vaccinated boys had a 155% greater chance of having a neurological disorder like ADHD or autism than unvaccinated boys.”
Read all the findings at the above link, which itself has more links, including the actual survey methods and questions, objections they believe will be raised to the survey and results, and more information.