This movie is for “people from all backgrounds and beliefs to watch this and be moved to stand for life.” https://nowayback.org.uk/#watch
Life
‘The Justices wrote that the previous law was incorrect. It had forced “a theory of life” on the nation, defined by the passing of “an arbitrary point in a pregnancy”.
In the June 24, 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned the 50-year-old mandate for nationwide legalized abortion, there were many excellent points of truth. But the incorrect theory of life is critical and brings up another one of the great evils of evolution theory – underlying as it does so much of what is called “a culture of death”.
The Roe v. Wade Court of 1973 had coined the term “trimesters”. It was a word invented to allow for the dehumanizing of an unborn person during the early stages of pregnancy, and thus the purposeful taking of the life. Justice Harry Blackmun admitted it was their invented “framework”1 so that they could arbitrarily divide the abortion code into three different time-frames. By doing this, they attempted to deal with the inconsistency of allowing abortion when the killing of a human being is murder. There were to be no exceptions for abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy – considered essentially a “non-human” phase of pregnancy.
The theory that human life is not present from the beginning of pregnancy owes its modern basis to the Theory of Evolution. True biological science actually affirms that each individual of any species must start their life-cycle as an exact copy of the progenitor cell. This is understood from the routinely proven biological principles of “Fixity of Species” and the “Law of Biogenesis”. Furthermore, the Bible tells us repeatedly in Genesis 1 that all created life will reproduce in no other way except “after its kind”.
You might give people in the early 1970s – especially under the pressure of the sexual revolution and women’s liberation – an excuse to have abortions. Both ultrasound scans and genetic science were not as developed as they are today. People learned they could use “science” – taught through the Haeckel embryo drawings – to argue that a fetus was not truly a human life. It is an excuse you will hear to this very day – another great evil, given “scientific support” by the pseudo-science of evolution.
Zoologist Ernst Haeckel drew his infamous embryo drawings in the year 1874. He was a zealous proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and he proposed that human embryos retraced their evolutionary history as they grew in the womb. He coined the technical terminology for this supposed retracing of evolutionary history as life develops: “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself was convinced of Haeckel’s argument. In fact, he declared that the similarity of vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages – which he thought demonstrated their descent from a common ancestor – was “the strongest single set of facts” supporting his theory!
You can see in Haeckel’s presentation of embryos three rows of eight different species – fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and human. By separating them into three rows – showing early, middle and late stages of development – Haeckel conveniently created three divisions for the Roe v. Wade Court to split its ruling into three “trimesters”. In this way, evolution once again promoted a culture of death – as it has in undergirding Nazism, Communism, eugenics, and other false and godless philosophies.
For over 150 years, the drawings have been used in textbooks to proclaim evolution. Yet, they are known frauds with Haeckel’s “embellishments”. For instance, he drew the mammalian embryos with gill slits in place of wrinkles. There are no perforations like gills in the mammalian embryos! And yet, Haeckel said the embryos were going through a “fish” stage of development.
Even the late renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 2000: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.”
But let’s continue to think critically about the argument. What kind of proof is mere similarity? Is similarity of appearance sufficient evidence in a court of law? Or do we need better evidence to draw a conclusion – like fingerprints and DNA? I suppose if you go back all the way to fertilized egg cells, all life would look pretty similar on a macro scale – though hugely different genetically. And, if a developing baby is not “viable” until a more “independent” stage, is a baby not human until his arm and leg lengths are of adult proportions? Or maybe until she can speak? Or when he can feed himself?
We rapidly descend into infant sacrifice, for which the pagan nations around ancient Israel were judged, the Bible says. And we actually have many advocating for essentially that in our society today! On May 16, 2022, for example, after news of the pending decision had been illegally leaked, all 49 Senators of one political party voted for the most radical abortion bill proposed in the history of the United States Congress – including abortion right up to birth.
Like so much agenda-driven “research”, Haeckel did his work with an end-point in mind. In that sense, he was like anthropologist Margaret Mead and entomologist-turned-sexologist Alfred Kinsey. They both laid “scientific” groundwork for increased sexual promiscuity and deviancy through the last century. Both did “research” with an agenda driven by their own deviancy, desired outcomes and evolution-supported worldviews. Both are now thoroughly debunked.2,3 And both have been used for years to justify conclusions desired by those who push a godless and/or subversive agenda of sexual license – as has Roe v. Wade.
1 Desanctis, A., “Little Known Facts about Roe v. Wade”, National Review, Jan 23, 2017.
2 Freeman, D., Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, Harvard University Press, 1983.
3 Reisman, J.A. and Eichel, E.W., Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Huntington House, 1990.
Image: Ernst Haeckel’s infamous and inaccurate embryo drawings (PD)’ https://creationmoments.com/newsletter/eventually-the-truth-prevails-one-way-or-another/?mc_cid=4265557c07&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Life brings with it many problems. Some are easy and some hard to answer. I have found this little book helpful for myself and others. Perhaps it may be a help to you as well.
Psalm 119:89-90
“For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.”
‘There are those that claim that Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories can be subject to the scientific method. If the same test or experiment is carried out under the same conditions, on different days or locations, the results should still be the same.
The existence of scientific methodology suggests that ideas, referred to as science, actually divide under two headings. The first of these would be the testable, repeatable scientific ideas, which refer to situations here and now. These can be referred to as Observable or Operational Science. This is, in fact, the real science. Not only is there nothing unbiblical about Operational Science, we can insist that such science would not be possible without a rational, biblical worldview.
The other scientific heading would be Historical Science. This is the type of science that refers to one-time, single events that allegedly happened in the past. Because these events are one-time events, they are not repeatable, nor are they falsifiable, because we do not have a time machine to go back and test things. Evolution must fall into this second category. Therefore, the alleged event, when non-living molecules got together to form a living cell, cannot be repeated. Evolution is not testable, and is therefore not Operational Science.
Some might point out that biblical creation is similarly untestable, and must be Historical Science. Although this is true, it merely serves to remind us that science is not the ultimate test of truth. The revelation of God’s word in the Bible is that ultimate truth.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/can-we-test-evolution-2/?mc_cid=3f99a6adb5&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
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.
‘The existence of humans suggests that, at some point, there must have been a first human. Neither evolutionists nor creationists deny this. However, creationists believe that Adam (Genesis 1–2) was the first human. But whether the first human was Adam or some unnamed, recently-evolved person, where did that person learn to speak?
Evidence suggests that humans do not learn to speak unless they are taught by someone who already knows how to speak. Additionally, the archaeological record indicates that fully-developed languages have been in existence as long as humans have been (Elgin 1973, 44). For these reasons, Curtis, in a 1990 article, argues that a personal creator was responsible for the existence of the first human.
Linguistic Evidence
Linguistic research suggests that languages have not evolved from a prehistoric development period (Eglin 1973, 44). Rather, languages have always existed with the same communication potential as they currently possess. In fact, it is possible that they even held greater communication potential in the past.
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological finds from the past 100 years of excavations have demonstrated that written language appears well developed in the earliest records of civilization. For example, the Ebla tablets date to about 2000 BC. These tablets contain writing in a fully-developed, phonetic language.
How Do People Learn How to Speak?
Some Darwinian anthropologists have suggested that if, in the process of evolution, there was a transition from animal to man, this transition would have included the acquisition of language. However, one of these anthropologists, Humbolt, realized that man cannot speak without already being human. For him, this created an unsolvable problem regarding the origin of speech (Lyell 1873).
Another problem with determining the origin of speech from an evolutionary perspective is that in so-called primitive cultures, the languages tend to be more complex than in more advanced cultures. Furthermore, animals with the physical capability to use logical speech do not do so. Studies have shown that animals that respond to commands do so based on vocal tones rather than the spoken words. Thus, all attempts to solve the evolutionary origin of language have failed.
Every child that learns how to speak learns from someone who already knows how to speak. There do not seem to be any exceptions to this rule. Feral children who grow up without contact with spoken language did not learn to speak until they came into contact with speaking individuals. Once they had heard speech, they were able to learn how to speak (Tomb 1925).
What Does this All Mean?
Since multiple languages appear to have existed in fully developed forms in the earliest known civilizations, it appears that the languages do not have one common root. Rather, each language appeared independently of the others.
This evidence aligns well with the biblical account. From the creation of Adam until the Tower of Babel, there was only one language on earth (Genesis 11:1). Curtis suggests that God taught the first man, Adam, to speak. It is clear that Adam spoke a well-developed language because he was able to name the animals (Genesis 2:19). From that point on, each generation learned to speak from the previous one.
Later, when God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7), He miraculously created a number of additional unrelated, fully-formed languages. The pattern of language learning continued. Each person learned to speak from the previous generation.
Conclusion
The scientific evidence obtained through linguistic and archaeological studies suggest that the first human who learned how to speak must have learned from someone who already possessed the capability of speech. This first person must have learned from someone of a higher order than humans. This correlates well with the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam. Adam must have received the ability and knowledge to speak from God himself. The study of language demonstrates that there must be a creator God. No human can speak a language unless that person has been taught. Furthermore, languages have not arisen from some lesser forms of communication. They appeared early in history, fully developed. The languages present today do not share a common root, suggesting that they appeared as separate, well-developed languages. This accords well with the account of the Tower of Babel.
References
Curtis, William M. 1990. “Human Language Demands a Creator.” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 2:1, 69–72.
Elgin, Suzette H. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Lyell, C. 1873. Antiquity of Man, 4th Ed., 518.
Tomb, J. W. 1925. “On the Intuitive Capacity of Children to Understand Spoken Language.” British Journal of Psychiatry 1, 553–555.’https://newcreation.blog/how-did-humans-learn-to-speak/?mc_cid=c226022714&mc_eid=2abe4a38b0
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)
‘Shortly before his death, Moses restated the law and the covenant between God and His people summed up in the greatest commandment: “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deuteronomy 6:5).
Furthermore, Moses claimed that “this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven…Neither is it beyond the sea” (Deuteronomy 30:11-13). Nothing about it was hard to understand. “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it” (Deuteronomy 30:14).
Indeed, the evidence that God is Creator, Judge, Provider, and Redeemer is all around us. Our text informs us that “heaven and earth” are witnesses of God’s nature. We have more than enough information than we need in order to respond. In fact, these things “from the creation of the world are clearly seen” so that those who reject are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Indeed, to ignore the evidence of creation and the Flood, one must be “willingly…ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5). Rejection is foolishness.
“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil” (Deuteronomy 30:15). The choice is between blessing (v. 16) and cursing (v. 19). All lines of reasoning point toward the God of the Bible as the one true God. “Therefore choose life,” as our text encourages us, “That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life” (v. 20). ‘https://www.icr.org/article/12949/?utm_source=phplist9549&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=September+10+-+Choose+Life
‘Author, commentator, and former Islamist Ed Husain has written a disturbing account of life among Britain’s Muslim communities. He raises serious questions about where the doctrine of multiculturalism has led us, and what the future may hold.
The fastest growing community
As Husain, points out, Muslims are the fastest growing community in Britain. While the population of the UK grew by 10.9% between 2001 and 2016, the Muslim population doubled to 3.2 million, and is projected to reach 13 million by 2050. Husain is a Muslim himself, and points out that, “The problem is not that the Muslim population is increasing: the question is what type of Islam is on the rise in British mosques” (p.4, emphasis his).
Husain travelled to ten towns across the UK to assess what the Muslim communities are like. The book’s chapters recount what he saw and found in his visits to the following towns and cities: Dewsbury, Manchester, Blackburn, Bradford, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and finally London. In each case he visited the leading mosque and sometimes one or two other mosques. He asks questions and describes his observations and feelings. The book reads like a travel log, with a conclusion at the end.
The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury
First up is Dewsbury, the European central office of the largest Muslim organisation in the world – Tableeghi Jamaat. Tableeghi Jamaat is a hard-line Deobandi movement, and today more than half of Britain’s Mosques are Deobandi. The London tube bomber from 2005 came from Dewsbury, as did Britain’s youngest ISIS suicide bomber, and also Britain’s youngest convicted terrorist.
The main mosque in Dewsbury holds up to 4,000 worshippers – and this is just men. Women are not allowed in the mosque. The women he sees on the streets are all dressed in black, wearing Islamic face coverings. Husain argues that such uniformity of clothing is not seen in Turkey, Syria or Egypt. There are no major retail outlets on the high street, not even a McDonalds. Predictably, Husain finds hard-line literature on the role of women in the Islamic bookshop.
Having previously read the highly recommended book, The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury: A Requiem, by local born and bred newspaper editor Danny Lockwood, I was aware of the seismic cultural shift in this town over the last few decades. It appears that Husain was not. Lockwood says there are no longer any licensed restaurants or clubs in Dewsbury. Saville Town is 99% Muslim with its own particular property bubble. There is a serious drug problem too, with 98% of the drug dealers being Muslim (Lockwood p.141-42).
Islamic culture
As Husain travels to other towns, they begin to merge into one in the reader’s mind. Fundamentalist literature (of the kind banned in Saudi Arabia) appears to be on sale in virtually every Islamic bookshop he finds. Several mosques do not allow women inside, but some segregate the women. In Blackburn he finds it common knowledge that Whalley Range (Blackburn) is a no-go area for whites. When he drives up and down the high street there, he doesn’t see a single white face.
Husain finds evidence of sharia courts and of women having Islamic marriages that are not recognised in UK law and which therefore offer them no protection if there is a divorce, or their husband engages in polygamy. I have written about this problem before. Husain says that some men have second wives and families abroad. In London he witnesses self-flagellation and finds there are videos of this taking place in multiple towns across Britain.
Multiculturalism has enabled monoculturalism
In some areas, Husain laments that “multiculturalism has now enabled monoculturalism.” I have written before about multiculturalism – an ideology that is opposed to objective moral values, and therefore anti-Christian. Husain is right to point to its disturbing and paradoxical fruit. In his conclusion he notes that there is a growing communalism amongst Muslims in the UK whereby they identify primarily as Muslim and then in an increasingly political manner. He also notes the alarming “spread of caliphism as a social and political aspiration, on the grounds that Britain is flawed and failing” (p.288).
Where are we heading?
Hussain asks:
“What will happen when Birmingham or Bradford have a Muslim majority and organised caliphists hold the balance of power? Does the city begin by banning alcohol sales, using council funds to remove statues offensive to monotheism, enforcing new school uniforms for girls that exclude short skirts, banning nightclubs and gay bars, or making Fridays a local holiday for communal prayers?
“Caliphism and clericalism are sequestering an entire community away from meaningful contact with mainstream Britain. The cordon sanitaire around many minds will become solidified unless we change course.” (p.289)
Husain concludes by suggesting that we should celebrate six defining traits of British culture. These are: Rule of Law, Individual Liberty, Gender Equality, Openness, Uniqueness, and Racial Parity. Husain notes: “These six qualities are also the outcomes of a Protestant Christian ethic that has moulded today’s Brits” (p.298). He is right about this, but without the Christian foundation from which they were built, these qualities are already crumbling around us. The doctrine of multiculturalism entails an abandonment of these values since no one culture can be seen as any better than another.
The parable of Batley
Events at Batley Grammar School took place after this book was written. The teacher who showed a cartoon of Muhammad in a lesson about blasphemy remains in hiding to this day. This must be the most powerful lesson ever taught by the school. Everyone now knows that we have a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in effect. Break it and you end up in hiding. Even worse, there was a conspiracy of silence about this by all the mainstream candidates in the recent by-election. None of them spoke up in support of the teacher. They don’t want to risk offending the Muslim voters.
What’s happened in Batley is a parable for the nation. As the Muslim population grows, so does its political influence. Before long, all the mainstream politicians will be desperate to win Muslim votes and will therefore avoid saying anything critical of Islamic practices or culture. Unless there is a dramatic shift, we are on the road to an Islamic Britain. Only a revival of Christianity can turn us off that track and take us to a better future.’https://christianconcern.com/resource/islamic-monocultures-the-fruit-of-multiculturalism/
whatyareckon 