[Jefferson]

President Dan Becker of Georgia RTL

This is the show from Friday March 6th, 2009.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

The Montana personhood amendment passed their state senate 26 to 24. Then a representative, just yesterday from North Dakota, where a North Dakota personhood bill passed their house of representatives. And it looks good in the senate. It may pass. And it looks like the governor might sign it. And then you have NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, yesterday putting out an email blast saying that, by their count, it's not 8 states, including Georgia, they think it is 17 states that have significant personhood efforts underway. ...This is a personhood wave overtaking the country!

SUMMARY:

* See the 81-Mile Long Memorial Wall: Stunning! You will be shocked. The tremendous Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Wall is 500 feet long. At Georgia Right To Life's SupportPersonhood.com website, see the video introduction that shows the abortion Holocaust Memorial Wall... extending 81 miles! Powerful. Devastating. Necessary. Thank you Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right To Life, for your courage and leadership! As Dan said today: "We call it the personhood approach," the only viable strategy to re-criminalize child killing. And the GRTL president also announced that Georgia has just introduced a bill recognizing an embryo as a person and not property, which he compared to the time in history when America had to admit its widespread cruelty and recognize the personhood of blacks.

* Evolutionists Shocked - Fossils Show Shark Behavior: According to the atheist journal Nature, Darwinists did not expect supposedly 380-million year old shark fossils to show that some sharks were procreating the way that some of them do today, sexually. Lo and Behold: paleontologists have discovered fossils of a pregnant shark (say it isn't so: embryos actually inside a female, just like today!). And (shiver my timbers): those shark fossils also show that the male shark has a pelvic fin shaped for mating with the female, startlingly!, to quote the astounded evolutionists: "as happens with modern sharks." No! Noooo! Say it isn't so!! So then they had the nerve to claim a "discovery of a modification[!] in the pelvic fin" that enables this wonder of sexual reproduction, but the absurdity is, modification from WHAT? They're misleading naïve readers to assume they have a pre-modification shark, and now an evolved modified shark. That is deceptive. No? Wikipedia (Google 1 of 4.1M on 2009/03/06 for: sexual reproduction) says dryly, "The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle." It is more accurate though to say, "The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major myth."

Today's Resource: Do you hope to move someone from unbelief to trusting in Christ? That typically involves breaking down both pride and misconceptions. You do NOT need anything from BEL to accomplish this! You can use prayer and the Scriptures. But if you would like some help from BEL, you could consider how these five powerful titles in the BEL Evangelism Pack can help someone decide to convert to Christianity!

[Jukia]

Bob appears surprised that science is surprised. Once again he misses the point. Science is always surprised. That is what makes it so interesting.

He continues to show his lack of understanding of the real world.

Ah, well.

[Bob Enyart]

Originally Posted by Jukia

Bob appears surprised that science is surprised. Once again he misses the point. Science is always surprised...

Jukia, verified accurate predictions are the stuff of hard science. (Einstein wasn't surprised at all that the 1919 eclipse corroborated his prediction.) If we could quantify scientific discoveries and classify them as consistent with and expected by the creation model, or consistent with and expected by the evolution model, a mountain of discoveries would show consistency with the creation model, and a mountain of equal size would be comprised of discoveries that contradict Darwinist predictions and require evolutionists to make secondary, tertiary, andsooniary, assumptions.

It seems that Darwinism hardly even qualifies as a theory. Can you see how maleable it is Jukia? Many scientific theories have been verified when boiled down to mathematical statements and rigorously proved. If a proposed gravitational equation were false, laboratory experiment and astronomic observation should be able to prove it false. Theories in chemistry and physics are often quantifiable and can be tested and challenged. In stark contrast, evolutionism seems infinitely pliable to morph to embrace any and all evidence and is not falsifiable, demonstrating that in practice, Darwinism has more in common with eastern mysticism than with a valid scientific theory. Thus again, Darwinism hardly even qualifies as a scientific theory.

I'm not surprised that evolutionists are always surprised that for the thousandth time the evidence fits the original creation of kinds (this time of shark reproduction), and that it challenges the alleged evolution of the kinds (sharks). I'm not surprised. I'm amused.

In our Does God Exist? DVD, I talk about the instantaneous appearance in the fossile record of all 32 orders of mammals. And about the complete lack of transitional forms between, say, invertebrates and vertebrates. Now, anyone with a backbone should be able to admit that this development had to be one of the most significant alleged changes in the geno- and phenotype of the animal kingdom. And I asked people in the audience to raise their hands if they'd ever experienced back pain (excusing of course those currently suffering). Amidst the groans, many hands went up. Then I asked, imagine if your spinal column was in the process of evolving. Ten thousand generations before you suffered through the worst of it, but now you've got a backbone but the disks are still not well formed. How would you escape a charging predator (which of course was an invertebrate, some kind of gelatinous blob from a 60s horror movie) or scurry around for food, with unmaintained discs rubbed raw, debilitating back pain and grinding vertebrae? I'm thinking of interviewing a doctor in a show titled: Darwin Gets Chiropractic Treatment.

According to the atheist journal Nature, Darwinists did not expect supposedly 380-million year old shark fossils to show that some sharks were procreating the way that some of them do today, sexually. ...paleontologists have discovered fossils of a pregnant shark... those shark fossils also show that the male shark has a pelvic fin shaped for mating with the female... "as happens with modern sharks."

Jukia, don't you think they were out of line to mislead naive readers with this:

...then they had the nerve to claim a "discovery of a modification[!] in the pelvic fin" ... but the absurdity is, modification from WHAT? They're misleading naïve readers to assume they have a pre-modification shark, and now an evolved modified shark. That is deceptive.

Jukia, no?

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

p.s. Remember the troch...

[Jukia]

Pastor Bob: Is it your position that once there is a scientific theory that the general population of scientists working in the field agree with it can never change?
Thanks

[Toast]

Bob 100 - athiests 0 xD

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by Toast

Bob 100 - athiests 0 xD

Ah, another true believer. But I am waiting for a response to my question from the good Pastor.