1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Creation
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well
‘The World Wide abortion counters uses one of the more conservative estimates on the number of abortions world-wide since 1980 (40 Million per year for 30years) and this equals 1,200,000 Billion (from Lifesitenews.com)’ http://www.numberofabortions.com/
The days in which one could speak freely within reason are OVER! Now, you can speak foul language of almost any conservative BUT when it comes to the PC speech police you had better walk (speak) right or should I say left?! A radio presenter in the UK found out that only BLM! Yes, ‘Manx Radio took Stu Peters off air after Wednesday’s programme in which a black caller challenged him for writing “all lives matter” in an online forum.
“I’ve had no more privilege in my life than you have. I’m a white man, you’re a black man,” he told Jordan Maguire.
Manx Radio said it had referred the issue to the Communications Commission.
Mr Peters declined to comment when contacted by the BBC.
Manx Radio’s managing director Chris Sully said: “Stu Peters will not be presenting the Late Show whilst an investigation takes place.
“We await [the Commission’s] guidance on any potential breach of the Broadcast Code.
“Manx Radio does not condone racism in any form amongst its staff.
“We are actively working with the caller involved to develop some ideas to debate the issues involved.”
The Isle of Man’s Communications Commission confirmed it was “investigating comments made” on the programme.
‘Protest’
The phrase “all lives matter” has stirred controversy since critics argue it undermines the importance of the Black Lives Matter campaign.
Protests have been held around the world following the death of George Floyd in the US city of Minneapolis on 25 May.
The 46-year-old African American died after a white police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes as he pleaded that he could not breathe.
A Black Lives Matter protest is due to be held in the Manx capital Douglas on Tuesday at 12:00 BST.
‘Disturbing’
Speaking on his programme, Mr Peters said he “can understand” why the movement had begun in America, but expressed incredulity at how protests had spread around the globe.
He said: “What I can’t understand is why people around the rest of the world are protesting, and specifically in the Isle of Man. Why you would have a protest outside of Tynwald about it?”
Chief Minister Howard Quayle said the death of Mr Floyd was a “shocking, and a disturbing incident”, adding “we hope that justice will prevail”.
He added: “I have been told that Manx Radio is now investigating what happened, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment any further while that investigation is under way.”
Mr Peters, who was born and grew up in and around Manchester, moved to Douglas in 1997.
He has worked on several Manx Radio shows, most recently including The Late Show: Stu Peters; Late, Live & Unleashed!
George Ferguson will cover Mr Peters’ absence.’ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-52936980
Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
We often speak of a ‘mother’s love’. Well, ‘You might not know (but suspect)that in many parts of the country, the community so frowns on abortion that abortion clinics employ itinerant abortionists who parachute in and kill hundreds of babies in a two or three day span.
What requirements might there be to qualify (so to speak) as an itinerant abortionist, like, say Willie Parker? First and foremost, the capacity to abort women with a speed that puts an assembly line to shame.
Parker, who fancies himself a Christian, is prolific at his trade, aborting up to 45 babies a day. As for how late in pregnancy, there’s a kind of blinking yellow light at 24 weeks, 6 days, but there are always extenuating circumstances for the industrious Dr. Parker.
Planned Parenthood abortionist Colleen McNicholas (who is the go-to abortionist for reporters covering abortion in Missouri) is only 2/3rds as fast. A fawning profile in Marie Claire in 2016 casually observed, “By the end of her eight-hour workday, [McNicholas] will have terminated 31 pregnancies.”
But, of course, her motivation goes beyond her obvious nobility. As a post at Planned Parenthood observes (boldface in the original)
“Part of the problem with being so committed and feeling so passionate about an issue is that it’s hard to say no… because that means somebody is going without care, and what that means is, they’re probably going to have a baby they don’t want.
So ultimately, I end up saying, ‘I can do one more day.’”
Get it? Without the “care” that McNicholas administers so dutifully, a baby might sneak through. So, even when her hands are bone weary (and blood stained), she carries on.
I’d paraphrase her observation to say, “I can obliterate one more helpless unborn child—be sure to pat me on the back.”’ https://www.lifenews.com/2020/06/01/this-abortionist-kills-30-to-40-babies-in-abortions-every-single-day/
These were MOTHERS who went into these clinics to rid themselves of their baby. Where was the ‘mother’s love’ or the mother’s natural affection for her unborn child? Romans 1:31 speaks of those without natural affection. Albert Barnes says ‘This expression denotes the want of affectionate regard towards their children. The attachment of parents to children is one of the strongest in nature, and nothing can overcome it but the most confirmed and established wickedness. And yet the apostle charges on the heathen generally the want of this affection. He doubtless refers here to the practice so common among heathens of exposing their children, or putting them to death. This crime, so abhorrent to all the feelings of humanity, was common among the heathen, and is still.’
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I had some thoughts about what is occurring in the USA wrapped around the word ‘racism’ but I think the following article by John Mackay explains it better than I could.
‘Mankind! This word has been a great description down through the years of who we are, and what we were made to be. It is derived ultimately from the old English Mann Cynn, back though several thousand years of traditions in Sanskrit about the hero Manu who survived the big flood along with his seven spiritual helpers. Manu is the ancestor of all living people so we are named after him. Hence the Anglicised description ‘the Kin (old English Cynn) of Manu’, which with typical English word play became Mankind, and then to the more common mankind, which surprise, surprise originally included women.
What most English speakers don’t appreciate, is that the second part of the word Cynn, (now ‘Kin’), is a Biblical concept. It is provably based on the Biblical teaching revealed by the Creator God in Genesis 1, that He made each group of creatures (humans included) as separate ‘Kinds’. Additionally, it is important to note: this history and meaning of the word kin, whether it be in the Hebrew, Greek or English languages is conceptually quite different from ‘race’.
In our Evidence News 03/2020, (sent out on 4 March 2020) we deliberately put a challenging series of statements, with the question: Which of the following are True or False? One of the statements was “There is only one race of men?” We then shared that all statements in the challenge list were false, including the ‘one race of man’ concept.
(see full list at the end)
Why the need for this challenge?
The belief “There is only one race of men?” is incredibly popular amongst Evangelicals, particularly those in the USA who follow Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. There is no doubt that the applaudable aims of such a statement are to deal with the evil extremes of American racism, and reject Adolf Hitler’s racist concept of superior Aryans, which was firmly based on evolutionism. Yet the backgrounds of both racisms are poles apart.
In the American situation it was white Europeans who enslaved black Africans, who were regarded by many as an inferior race. Hence it is incredibly unpopular to actually remind people that the racism of South Africa, the old UK, and the more modern USA, had nothing to do with evolutionism, but was usually justified by a misguided semi-Biblical concept about Noah’s three sons, Ham, Shem and Japheth, tied to belief that black people (the Hamites) were eternally cursed by God to be servants. (see full story in Genesis 9:18-27)
So, today’s Ham-ite claims attempt to refute racist behaviour by claiming there is only one ‘race of man’ which includes all humanity descended from the created first man Adam. It has become incredibly popular, as it runs parallel to the currently popular political stand in the west against racism. The One Race concept blames most racism on Darwinian evolution, whereas most evolutionists insist there is no link between evolution and racism, although Charles Darwin’s views would certainly be considered racist if expressed these days. (See quote from Darwin at end.)
Despite the anti-racist appeal of the term “human race,” to cover all living people, those who really want to take a Biblical as well as a long term effective stand against the evils of racism, must start by admitting that the Biblical record insists God made only ‘one Kind’ of man, not ‘one race’!
Let’s start by reviewing the traditional meaning of the word ‘race’, as reflected in the Oxford dictionary as well as in the history of the word as used in science. Race has a real and distinctly scientific meaning, but it is not the one being used either by white Australian Ken Ham’s or black African American Voddie Baucham’s in their popularisation and politicisation of the ‘one race’ concept.
The Oxford English dictionary defines the word “race” as:
Noun: Each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.
The dictionary also gives a biological definition:
Biology: A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies.
The dictionary gives the origin of the word as: “Early 16th century (denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin.” (Item in brackets in original)
Reference: OED https://www.lexico.com/definition/race
If these definitions were applied to humanity, we could say there is only one Genus and one species of living humans, but there are populations within our one species which have distinguishing characteristics and shared ancestry so they can be easily grouped as distinct from other human groups e.g. Pygmies, Eskimos.
To really understand where ‘race’ fits into humanity we need to look at the real history of man from Genesis, as well as the history of biological classification, for both are strongly connected.
God made the first human beings, male and female, as fully separate living beings, unrelated to any other creature. All people who have lived since then are descendants of that first couple, Adam and Eve. As such, all humans are Biblically one Kind, a ‘naming’ factor which 5,000 years later played a provably significant part in the history of biological science.
Back in the days when scientists actually used the Biblical framework, a Swedish Botanist by the name of Carl Von Linne (1707-1778), later known by the Latin ‘Linnaeus’, invented the biological classification system still used today. Linnaeus is famed for his very workable two-part classification using the terms genus and species. His fully Biblical outlook shows in the fact that he actually borrowed the word ‘genus’ from the Latin version of Genesis chapter 1:11, where you read God made plants after their “genus,” or to use the old English, in separate ‘Kin’, derived from the old Anglo-Saxon ‘Cynn’, meaning related to each other but not to other ‘kin’. The Latin word ‘genus’ is used 10 times in the first chapter of Genesis, and is provably what the Hebrew author had in mind, as this is the same in Greek version of Genesis in the Bible translation called the Septuagint, translated by Hebrew speakers in Egypt in the 3rd century BC.
Linnaeus also noted there were recognisable subsets within the ‘genus’ and invented the biological concept of species (as in distinct or special). Then with closer observation, we have discovered that even within a species, there are distinguishable variations that are labelled “races”. This term applies across all living species, plants or animals. The term “race” was originally used to distinguish various subsets of grapes and wines that had distinctive characteristics. Later it was used to describe identifiable subgroups within any species of living things. For example: Equus caballus, i.e. domestic horses. Horses that were selected for their running ability, became a subgroup called racehorses, but strong pulling horses are called draught horses.
Now let’s return to the history of mankind. Adam and Eve were created as a separate Kind or Genus unrelated to apes, monkeys or any other living thing. By the days of Noah (approx. 1,600yrs After Creation), Adam’s descendants still belonged to the ‘one Kind ‘of man. But even the names of Noah’s three sons, Ham, Shem and Japheth, indicate obvious factors we could use to distinguish them and their descendants. Ham’s name would come to mean dark, and Japheth’s meant fair, both indicating increasing variation in skin colour.
After Noah’s Flood God instructed the people to spread over all the earth, but within a few generations they rebelled, gathered together and started building the Tower of Babel “to make a name for themselves” (Genesis 11:1-9). God punished them by splitting them into different language groups, which forced them to move away from one another. This achieved God’s purpose of getting humanity to spread out and fill the earth, but it also meant the subgroups would, from then on, only breed amongst themselves for many generations, thus reinforcing whatever distinctive genetic variations already in the initial subgroups, e.g. skin colour, hair type, etc. As the environment degenerated more genetic mutations occurred in all populations, but there could be differing mutations in each group, so differences would increase, even though all people are still one Kind and one species.
That period of separation has resulted in distinctive clusters of features that are still useful describing people, even in police reports e.g. the robbery was by an African-American, or the murderer was a male Caucasian, or the suspect was of Asian appearance. While these terms are currently more politically correct than black man, whitey or slant eyes, they nevertheless reflect real differences by which subgroups within the human Kind can be distinguished, and within which historically separate ‘breeding choice groups’ have socially and biologically strengthened such traits. Some of these are just harmless variations such as thick subcutaneous fat that gives Asian eyelids their shape. Some are serious problems, e.g. Tay Sachs disease caused by a mutation carried only by Ashkenazi Jews. This post-Babel separation followed by geographic isolation from other groups of mankind began to end in the mid 1700’s when the coming of world exploration (e.g. Captain Cook’s voyages) began a new genetic mixing of the ‘races’.
So, the present-day classification of mankind includes only one genus Homo, and one species sapiens, giving the scientific classification of humans as Homo sapiens. But within that ‘sapiens’ species there truly are groups of people who share distinctive characteristics that are definitely and provably real and ‘racial’ The fact that we are all one species is seen as modern-day mobility has allowed different people groups to mix, marry and have children. The offspring of such marriages are still often referred to as being of “mixed-race”.
So, do we gain anything by taking an American political situation, falsely blaming it on Hitler or evolutionism, then justifying that claim via a true Biblical stand against the mistreatment of our fellow humans, then finally claiming the one race concept is Biblical or Christian? The answer is no! To repeat: those who really want to take a Biblically factually accurate stand against the evils of racism, must start by admitting that God made only one Kind of man, not one race.
The well-intentioned attempt to make the word “race” equal to the word “kind” is not only false, it’s an attempt to turn real knowledge into a warm fuzzy and false philosophy, which is doomed to fail Biblically, theologically, scientifically, and politically.
The true solution to evil including that of mistreating fellow humans for any reason, is to deal with the original problem that led to humanity being split up. Our ancestors at the Tower of Babel rebelled against God because they had inherited the sinful nature brought into world by the ancestor of both them and us, the man Adam. Only the Creator of Adam, and therefore of every human being, can solve this problem, which He historically did when the Creator came to earth as the man Jesus, Saviour and Christ who paid the penalty for sin. Therefore, all people, whatever their ancestry, can be freed from the penalty of sin if they repent and put their faith in Christ, who will also return as the Judge and coming King of all.
Darwin on Races
“Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”
Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, 3 July 1881
Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter DCP-LETT-13230
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/
From Evidence News 03/03 4 March 2020
Which of following are true or false?
* Aboriginals have been in Australia 40,000 years or more.
* Wearing a face mask is useful in preventing Corona virus.
* The Big Bang is scientifically accurate.
* God made only one race of man.
* In today’s world you can be anything you want to be!
* The Aboriginal ‘Welcome to Country’ smoking ceremony is a harmless cultural event.
* Genesis presupposes the existence of God.
They are all false, no matter how popular they are with scientists and the general public, Christian or non-Christian. Some are even too politically incorrect to mention, as the violence that erupted shows when the West Australian RSL tried to raise a motion wanting the Aboriginal ‘Welcome’ smoking ceremony removed from Anzac Day ceremonies. This is a move we would agree with, and this author would go even further, as all immigrants are forced to accept a ‘Welcome’ ceremony as part of their ‘nationalisation’ when they become citizens. Why object? Because the ceremony is not just cultural, but totally pagan, as well as demonic, and it locks Australian futures into the same Satanic delusion that took Aboriginals down into the stone-age, when they moved first to India and then to Australia. But of course, none of that can be mentioned in our politically correct culture that prefers myth to real history. https://askjohnmackay.com/human-race-is-there-only-one-race-of-man/
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female
In spite of what Moses wrote and what the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said some continue to question not only the Bible but science. For example; ‘T.L. from the United States writes:
I was in a debate with a friend of mine about the creation of gender. She stated that Adam could not have been created first because women have two X chromosomes. She goes on to address the X deactivation in women, saying that this only occurs because both X chromosomes are the same making it a “female” chromosome in both men and women (she also said that the master “switch” in males is them “switching” from the “default”). She goes on to say that men are “half female” and women are “fully female”, making them superior in that they bare life. She also said males are pretty much useless and that we can see this in other life (bees, the infrequency of male lions, “all female” lizards, etc). So my questions are, is the first X chromosome a “female” chromosome, even in men? And does this mean that God made Adam “half female”(as my friend puts it)?
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
Dear T.,
Thanks for writing in.
No, the X chromosome isn’t a ‘female’ chromosome. Everyone needs it. And no, males (including Adam) are not ‘half female’.
First, your friend is wrong on the science. The idea that female is the ‘default’ embryological condition is now known to be false.1 This idea was based on a few studies in the mid-20th century, and it was thought to be reinforced in the early 1990s by the discovery of the SRY gene, a gene on the Y chromosome which plays a crucial role in testis development. Because of this, female sexual development was thought to proceed as a ‘default’ in the absence of SRY.The idea that female is the ‘default’ embryological condition is now known to be false
However, subsequent research overturned this idea. For instance, the absence of SRY isn’t enough to build a functioning ovary; two X chromosomes are needed. Women with only one X chromosome almost always have ovary dysfunction, and the vast majority are infertile. And those (very) few that can conceive and carry a pregnancy to term are at much higher risk of complications both during and after pregnancy.2
Moreover, some genes, if their products are present in high enough concentrations, can stop male development even when SRY is present. For instance, the NROB1 gene on the short arm of the X chromosome codes for a protein named DAX1. This protein plays an important role in the development of the adrenals, hypothalamus, pituitary, and gonads. The protein is also involved in maintaining hormone production in these glands after they are formed.3 People who have XY chromosomes, but have a duplication of the NROB1 gene, produce enough DAX1 to inhibit the products of SRY. This stops male development completely and the person develops female characteristics.4 This is not merely the taking over of a default; this is an abnormality that overrides the normal development of an XY person.
Furthermore, ovaries and testes require ongoing maintenance throughout life. Researchers found that the gene FOXL2 (on the long arm of chromosome 3) suppresses SOX9 (a gene crucial for male development that is found on the long arm of chromosome 17), which prevents certain cells in the ovary from differentiating differently into ‘testis-like’ cells.5 Similarly, the DMRT1 gene (found on the end of chromosome 9) suppresses certain genes involved in ovarian development. 6 If both require ongoing maintenance, then there is no ‘default’ gonad, whether the testis or the ovary. Many of the tools used for building and maintaining both ovaries and testes are found in the genome outside the “sex” chromosomes.
Together, this shows that proper female development is an active process, and it isn’t simply the ‘default’ path an embryo takes. Instead, during development, a set of cells migrates to the outside of the embryo and hangs out on the allantois. At the appropriate time, they chain up and do a conga line, enter the embryo, find the developing gonads, enter them, and get to work. Before these cells arrive, there is no sexual differentiation. As Kim and Capel explain:
“Unlike most developing organs in the embryo that follow a single developmental track, the gonad forms with the potential to develop as one of two alternative organs, an ovary or a testis. For this reason, the gonad primordium is called ‘the bipotential gonad’.”7
Since when is God limited by sex chromosomes in the gender he makes first?
Second, your friend is wrong on theology. Think about it: the all-powerful God couldn’t have created Adam first because of sex chromosomes? Since when is God limited by sex chromosomes in the gender he makes first?
At any rate, from a genetic standpoint, it seems much simpler to make Eve from Adam (as per Genesis 2). Why? All God would have to do to make Eve from Adam’s side is to erase the Y chromosomes in the cells taken from Adam’s body and duplicate the one X chromosome already present (Eve, the rib, and modern genetics). On the other hand, if God created Eve first, he would’ve had to form a Y chromosome de novo to make Adam from Eve. (This is like what God probably did in miraculously creating Jesus’ zygote—i.e. He took one of Mary’s eggs (and the haploid genome in it) and created a second haploid genome within the egg with a brand new Y chromosome.) Of course, neither of these ‘methods’ of creating one gender from the other is a problem for God, since he’s all-powerful.
Third, a woman’s two X chromosomes are not identical (with the possible exception of Eve), since one is inherited from each parent. And one of the pair is deactivated early in embryological development, because only one is needed for gene expression. Having both active would create an excess of many gene products and would lead to all sorts of problems. Nevertheless, as mentioned above and in the linked article, since single-X females are mostly infertile, the presence of a second X chromosome is important for normal female sexual development.
Fourth, comparing us to the rest of the animal kingdom is irrelevant, since sexual differentiation varies across animals. Some can even change their sex in response to environmental conditions (and of course be completely reproductively viable). For example, while some reptiles and fish can perform parthenogenesis (where the females produce young without fertilization from a male), it is generally uncommon and just a ‘fallback’ option in the absence or dearth of males (see ‘Asexual’ lizards and pioneer plants and The weird, wonderfully-designed sawfish). Nor can humans naturally perform parthenogenesis (Was the Virgin Birth non-miraculous?; and should Christians bother with atheists?). Birds sexual chromosomes are the opposite of humans (male birds are ZZ, females are ZW), and platypuses have a system that is unlike anything else.
So, men can’t be written off as ‘defective females’ either scientifically or theologically (Are women genetically superior to men?). Nor can women, obviously. We are both made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and are thus able to be co-heirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). Both sexes are equally valuable to God.’ https://creation.com/did-god-make-adam-half-female?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Q%3A+How+did+a+giant+T.+rex+get+buried+together+with+shark+teeth%3F&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2020.05.29
John 8:24 “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
Creation Moments’ Paul Taylor says ‘I often speak on the subject of Charles Darwin, analyzing his views from a biblical perspective. One of the most frequent questions that I get asked, following my talks on Darwin, is this: Is it true that Darwin became a Christian and recanted his evolutionary views on his deathbed?
It would appear that the rumors of Darwin’s deathbed conversion began to circulate very shortly after his death. Within days, a theologian in Glasgow was reporting that he had received a letter from Darwin, in which he stated, “I can with confidence look to Calvary.”
The main source of the story appears to be one Lady Hope, widow of Admiral Sir James Hope, and a Christian evangelist. She is reported to have told a church service while visiting Massachusetts that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed in the fall of 1881, when the evolutionist made his confession and recantation.
Unfortunately, there are many problems with the story. First, Lady Hope’s visit must have been at least seven months before Darwin’s death, if it were true, and Darwin was not bedridden for that long. Second, the account was vigorously denied by Darwin’s family. His son Francis said that no one in his family had been told of such a change, and surely they would have known.
It would be nice to think that Darwin had made such a conversion, but there is no evidence at all of its truth, and we have to conclude that Darwin never recanted, never repented, and never became a Christian.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/darwins-conversion-and-recantation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=darwins-conversion-and-recantation&mc_cid=384c61ae28
This is from Creation magazine Vol. 42, No. 2 2020.
March, 2020 Creation Magazine
whatyareckon 