Rachael's faithful faith space space

"I sometimes have trouble telling right from wrong. I just thought maybe we could work toward an America in which no one wants an abortion as opposed to making it illegal and having people get it anyway in very dangerous environments. That's just how I see it. I guess I do want it both ways. I want to be both pro-life in terms of my personal life and pro-choice in terms of how I vote." Kaitlyn

Kaitlyn. I appreciate your honesty. However, this is in essence what you are saying, "I want a German in which no one wants to kill Jews as apposed to making it illegal and having them killed in very dangerous environments. I want to keep Jews alive in terms of my personal life and have them murdered in terms of how I vote." Nice.

Your "I sometimes have trouble telling right from wrong" pinpoints your problem. Atheism has no moral anchor. There’s no absolute right or absolute wrong. That’s why you can advocate murder and not feel bad about it, all in the name of compassion. In one sense, you may be right about not having a soul. So Kaitlyn, where is your conscience? Why have you so hardened it? If I were in your shoes I would very quickly cry out to God for His forgiveness, and trust Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Once you know His mercy, and once you let His love into your cold heart, you will be horrified that any human being could sink so low as to advocate the killed of children in the womb.

The issue of which is correct (evolution or Intelligent Design) is solved instantly, the moment any truth-seeking person humbles him or her self, repents of sin (read Matthew 5:21-30) and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and as Savior. But many of you aren’t seeking the truth. You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins. It’s as simple as that. See John 8:31-32.

For those of you who still accuse me of misrepresenting the theory of Darwinian evolution, please check out this imaginary drawing from, The Future is Wild, a publication by leading evolutionists in which they imagine what fish and animals will look like in millions of years.

The pictured "megasquid" is the place that evolution will take the common squid--a "cephalopod" (there are around 786 distinct living species of cephalopods) in a 100 million years. This is a squid transitioning into another species--a much larger oxygen-breathing, land-dwelling animal, with elephant-like legs. These creatures developed lungs because (over millions of years) "at last, cephalopods had discovered an efficient means of breathing air." I guess their gills didn't cut it for them. So both the male and female evolved lungs while under the water and crawled up on the land together.

This is nothing to do with "common ancestory." This is one species turning into another.

These men imagine the future, and Darwin imagined the past. Both are science fiction. . . . and evolutionists have the gall to call such wild speculation "science."

The theory is nothing but a joke, but the issue is so great it's not at all funny.

"'I have read most of Ray’s books, seen most of his videos and heard hundreds of his witness encounters, and as of yet have never caught him in a lie.' Then you are willfully ignoring data. Mr. Comfort engages in demonstrable dishonesty when he makes mention of transitional fossil forms, as he misrepresents the meaning of transitional in the context of fossils." Dimensio

I am often accused of lying, especially when it comes to saying that there are no "species-to-species" transitional forms. Before I explain what I mean, it’s important to know that there is some confusion as to the meaning of the word "species." This is what the dictionary says of the word: "Biology: the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"), but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind").

When I say that there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, I am saying that nowhere will you find a skeleton of a cat evolving into a dog, or a chicken evolving into a fish, or a horse into a cow, no matter how long you go back in history.

As the Bible so rightly says, every animal brings forth "after its own kind." Both in the creation we see around us (and in creation we see in locked into the historical fossil record) is evidence against, not for, the theory of Darwinian evolution. All of nature screams of intelligent design. All of it. None even hints of Darwinian evolution. If you think that’s a lie, then so be it. God is my judge.

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31).