More Pudding Proof

The Codex Sinaiticus Project has finally started publishing the oldest known Bible manuscript to the web. This document is dated to about the year 350, and contains several books of the Bible, such as 1 Chronicles, Psalms, and the gospel of Mark. 

The Codex is significant because of its age, its condition, and its contents. It is a true book of antiquity, something most of us have never seen, so having it at our fingertips is remarkable.

I'm sure this document in and of itself won't make a convert of anyone, but it goes a long way to shutting the mouths of detractors and skeptics of Biblical antiquity.  

Evolution caught in the act!

See for yourself. Is it not clear, my friends, that this is an evolutionary step for deer becoming humans? Surely you see how the genes are putting forth a noble attempt to make this fawn superior to others of its kind.

Perhaps they (genes) were thinking that if the deer had 6 legs -- specifically 2 more in back -- that it could run faster thus giving it a better chance of crossing the road without getting hit by a car, thus increasing its chances of survival. 

Or maybe they (the genes again) were trying to work out a system whereby sometimes the deer navigated on 2 front and 2 rear legs (like "normal"), but sometimes he would be able to rear back on all 4 hind legs. The 2x2 transportation mode is optimal for regular grazing, frolicking, and other Bambi-like behavior common to most deer. The all-rear-leg-drive system might be advantageous, however, say, should all of the ground-based and eye-level food sources start to disappear and "Fawny" need to reach higher food sources. And no one will argue--not even a good Bible-thumping creationist--that eating is necessary for one's survival. And almost everyone also agrees that walking up-right is way better than walking on all 4's all the time.

So, I think it is a coup for modern secular science to have this animal on film, since it is such an obvious intermediate stage of deer on its natural Darwinian step up to humanity.

Go evolution!

Oh, my gosh! He just said the B-word!

A few years back I read a book of fairy tales (that's "fairy," as in the magical woodland creatures of make-believe) rewritten to be politically correct. (Sadly the book is out of print. Happily, there are still hundreds of copies available at Amazon). It is a total laugh-fest. After hearing about this, though, I think James Finn Garner needs to publish an updated edition. Good grief, where does it end?

Irony

The title says it all. Read about it here.

What's God got to do with it?

To all my sincere Christian Arminian friends out there, who believe that man freely chooses to be saved, here are 2 serious question for you:

1. If man chooses to be saved, freely and of his own will without the help of outside influence from God the Holy Spirit moving on him, then why do you pray to God for someone's salvation? 

Let me put it another way. You believe God does not/won't violate man's will in the process of salvation, right? Then on what basis do you pray to God for someone to be saved? Borrowing from Tina Turner, "What's God got to do with it?", then? Isn't your position just wishful thinking?

2. Where is it written that man's free will is inviolable by God? Can you show me even 1 verse, or give me 1 example from scripture, that demonstrates that our wills/natures are taboo to God? Isn't your theological view actually putting man's will above God's in this one instance, thus making an idol out of our free choice/will? Doesn't this view point then make God subject to our wills?

Yes, No, Maybe?

So I'm readin' an article today about whether or not scientists should start relocating species -- animal & plant -- in order to save them, presumably from the effects of so-called "global warming" and other "bad" human effects on the environment (Side note: when I was a kid in middle school in the 70's, we were told by "scientists" that the world was definitely headed for another cataclysmic ice age. I wonder what ever happened to that?).

Anyway, these goofballs that have shrines to Darwin in their solar-powered saunas aren't really thinkin' like their hero, now are they? Stop and think about it. What is the cardinal axiom of Darwinian evolution? "Survival of the fittest," right? So, if these fungi don't figure out a way to grow legs and move to a suitable climate on their own, then to heck with 'em! They don't deserve to survive. That's just "nature's" way of weeding them out, ain't it?

And if the furry little Fooze-beaked Logglewhopper doesn't develop opposable thumbs in time to open the door to a cab and hitch a ride outta his little habitat that we're heatin' up with our SUVs, oh well, tough noogies.

If they were consistent Darwinists, they would leave it all alone and let the blind forces of nature take care of it all. Apparently they don't really believe Darwin either.

Gotta' love inconsistency.

Opening Address

Theology gone bad.

I'm sure these 5 guys, whoever & wherever they are, mean well, but are they for real? The sad thing is in today's Christian culture--especially in the U.S.--they'll make a fortune. 

Not as good as my idea for a financial holdings/investment service for those who believe in reincarnation, though. Now there's an idea! I just couldn't in clear conscience do that to people, even pagans. Oh well, watchya gonna do?