Gov. Mike Huckabee was right: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So was Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter who also had the courage to raise their hands for creation in the presidential debates.
And now a new USA Today/Gallup Poll has found two-thirds of Americans agree. And those who believe creationism is "definitely true" more than double those who believe strongly in evolution.
The condescending sarcasm with which the questions were asked is surpassed only by the arrogant reactions to the answers. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said the hand raisers look like a "front" for the "Flat Earth Society." Let's get our facts straight. When the "scientific" community proclaimed the earth to be flat, it was the Bible (Isaiah 40:22) that said otherwise: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth. …"
We saw this same kind of caricature when the $27 million Creation Museum opened near Cincinnati, Ohio, a few weeks ago. While the evolutionists have the textbooks, the government schools and the "history" museums that tout their theory as fact, they're panicked because one museum says otherwise.
The loudest criticism came from those who complained that the (cool animatronic) dinosaurs are displayed as coexisting with humans. They were supposed to be dead for millions of years before humans existed. If that's true, then who drew all those cave drawings that look like dinosaurs? And why does nearly every culture on earth have artifacts and stories about them? They're even described in the Bible (Job 40:15-23) – beings with "ribs like bars of iron" and a "tail like a cedar" – coexisting with humans. But, of course, we can't believe that book. We'd rather get our "facts" from a racist guy named Darwin who wrote "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" – the real title of his famous book.
And what of that Tyrannosaurus Rex found in Montana that contained soft tissue and blood vessels? Can blood vessels really last 65 million years? That's a question they never asked in the debates.
And their theory that life came from non-living organisms has just one problem: Life doesn't come from non-living organisms.
Just because the evolutionists are arrogant doesn't mean they're right.
Oh, but there is a mountain in South Dakota that proves what evolutionists have been saying all along: that if you just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four U.S. presidents on it!
If we can all admit that the faces of Mt. Rushmore didn't just accidentally appear, how much more complex are the people standing behind the podiums who want to be president?
Here's a question I have for Chris Matthews and the smug reporters at CNN. Which is more complex?
a. The faces of Mt. Rushmore b. a 747 c. your cell phone d. a worm
If you guessed "worm," you are right. The DNA structures, digestive system and reproductive system are far more complex than those other things that obviously had a designer. Maybe, just maybe, someone designed that worm, too.
A while back, Cross TV asked me to host a television special on evolution. Take a look at what a leap of faith it takes just to believe in the "evolution" of the eye from a freckle. View the show online.
If you've gone to government school as I did, you were probably taught evolution. But was that flood a mythical story or historical fact? Some say it's a myth because an account of it appeared in civilizations all over the world. They assert that the tale of the ark, the animals and the flood was such a dramatic story, everyone must have copied off each other.
For example, Australian Aborigines, who were rather isolated and not known for their Christian beliefs, have an account of a flood. Their account was that that man had done something terribly wrong, and the flood came as a judgment from "the gods." But there was this boat, where a man and his three sons put the animals in it and were saved. The flood was a judgment because of sin, and so a man with three sons – just like Noah had – built a boat.
In Babylon, the story is also remarkably similar, but in their version the boat was a cube seven stories high. Now, I'm not exactly a nautical expert, but it seems to me that that a cube isn't the best design for a floating vessel. Similar story, whacked-out boat. Think about it. Could it be that everyone wrote about the flood because … there really was one? And there really was a man with three sons in a boat that contained all the animals? Could it be that it really was built with the sea-worthy dimensions that are recorded in the Bible and it landed on the mountains of Ararat as the Bible said it did?
And what about the fossil record? If the account of Genesis is true, and the flood really happened, the fossil record would be very explicit and predictable. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, explains it this way. If there was a great flood, you would expect the fossil record to reveal "billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth." What we find in the fossil record is: billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth. What do you know?
We also wouldn't see any "transition fossils," where fish are becoming reptiles and reptiles are becoming birds, for example. No, just distinct fish, birds, reptiles and mammals. How about that?
But didn't we hear about "Lucy" – the so-called "missing link?" What wasn't reported was that Lucy was a chimp. There are a whole bunch just like her at Monkey Island at the zoo – which never turn into human beings no matter how long they've been there.
No, order doesn't come from chaos; and Mount Rushmore wasn't the result of erosion and chance. And while the government schools have been teaching their primordial slime for decades, they still haven't convinced two-third's of America, a new museum and four courageous men running for president who stand for the truth of creation.
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
tex 63 is correct you make Christianity look bad when you preach out of arrogance and ignorance. You make many statements that show your lack knowledge on this subject. IT WAS BOTH THE CHURCH AND ESTABLISHED SCIENCE THAT OPPOSED GALILEO. The church stood on it's interpretation the scripture that said, "the earth is immovable" and said that Galileo was a heretic for writing that the earth went around the sun instead of the sun going around the earth. They Did the church damage that has never been repaired, for the church has never recovered it former authority. They imprisoned Galileo and have been proven wrong since then. Or do you think that the sun travels around the earth. The scriptures tell us to put the other person above ourselves and that truth comes to those who take everything they have and but the whole field and dig up the whole field. How much have you sought God for these answers. Or are you just assuming your interpretation of the scriptures to be true because there are many who agree with you. All of Jerusalem (the city of God) did not believe Jeremiah and stood against him, So I think that you should speak with much humility not arrogance that anyone who does not agree with you are against God. Many sincere Christians have studied Astro-physics and evolution and do not see where the Bible disagrees with either. The head of the Human Genome Project Dr. Francis Collins is a Bible believing Christian and says the evidence points toward evolution as truth. i have not made a life study of evolution so would not condemn the man but you seem to have no reservations in doing so. The Bible says that God created everything that there is but it does NOT say HOW. Look at what the Bible says in Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "LET THE LAND PRODUCE vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. Again in Genesis 1:24 And God said, "LET THE LAND PRODUCE living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. I hope you will not call God a liar as quick as you did some men. God said LET THE LAND PRODUCE animals. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth but notice God says that the land brought forth the animals. Here is a promise from The Lord of Truth and Justice Matthew 23:12 "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." This is especially true for Christians. I do not know enough about evolution to debate if it is true or not but you only give me 750 words while you have as many as you like. But I do challenge you to a even debate on this website on the question IS THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION EARTH DAYS OR SOME OTHER KIND OF DAY. I have sought the Lord on this question for thirty years and am confident that He has not lied to me either. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Huckabee was right - sort of ...
Posted On: 06/14/07 06:11:58 AM
Age 61, GA
Huckabee was right? Well - sort of. While I was pleased that he stood up in favor of God as Creator, I was disappointed that he hedged with his addendum: "I don't know how long it took ... ". The implication being that God could have “used” evolution in the process of creation. I'm one of those primitive "young earthers". I believe God did just what He said He did; that “in the beginning” He created everything, in 6 literal 24 hour days. Now I know this puts me in the minority, even among so-called "thinking" bible-believing Christians. But I'm also aware of the vast and growing undercurrent of doubt among mainstream scientists about the validity of Darwinian theory. They’ve been forced to come up with even more vacuous theories like P. E. – “Punctuated Equilibrium” (that complex life forms sprang up inexplicably in a series of spontaneous bursts); or "transpermia" (life landed here from other planets). Recently an unbelieving cousin, who is seeking to understand the Bible, asked me why Christians invest literal belief in biblical prohibitions against homosexuality but interpret the creation account metaphorically. This contradiction - obvious to one who is seeking "true truth" - ought to be red flag to believers tempted to hedge a "primitive" belief in the Genesis account with a syncretistic compromise that allows him to leave a foot in each camp. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right - sort of ...
Posted On: 06/23/07 09:19:35 PM
Age 45, MI
"But I'm also aware of the vast and growing undercurrent of doubt among mainstream scientists about the validity of Darwinian theory."
I do not know where you got your information about the current state of Darwinian theory, but I can assure you that there is no debate among scientists that evolution happens--that slow changes over eons gives rise to complex forms. That's a given. Biology ceases to make any sense without evolution. Really. There IS a debate about HOW evolution proceeds, not WHETHER it happens. As a matter of fact, you have heard of Richard Dawkins, I suppose, and Steven Jay Gould, right? Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium. Dawkins opposes this, but as we all know, he is a committed neo-Darwinist (he wrote The God Delusion). Before Gould died, they were going to publish an open letter saying that despite their differences, which were being touted by creationists as proof that evolution was in doubt (ahem) that there was no doubt in their minds that Darwinian evolution occurs. Dawkins published his first draft of this letter in his A Devil's Chaplain, if you care to read it. This should dispel the misconception that the scientific community is in any doubt whatsoever about the reality of evolution. This completely depends, however, on your willingness to read it--you know, so that your opinion, whatever it is, is informed. Transpermia, that's a new one to me and it seems not to be completely out of the realm of possibility, but my first guess is that it is unlikely since the conditions to survive in deep space are vastly different from those needed to survive on earth. I imagine that it is very small complex, self-replicating molecules came from space? Maybe. Not, you know, squirrels, which I will concede is pretty hilarious. RS Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right - sort of ...
Posted On: 06/16/07 06:27:16 AM
Age 76, AL
I only have to say one thing: AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!! you hit the proverbial nail right on the proverbial head. How can anyone be so dense as to believe EVOLUTION? I have heard it said, "It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than in the Bible. Again I say AMEN to that.
Of course, we know the reason they don't acknowledge the Bible as truth is because if they did that, they would have to be accountable for their sin and they don't want to do that. They would have to recognize the Almighty God as Creator of all things and they couldn't do that. So, they go on being wise in their own eyes and being stupid (foolish)in God's eyes Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right - sort of ...
Posted On: 06/15/07 11:22:23 PM
Age 63, TX
Genesis and the Lord Jesus
x
In the Gospels the Lord Jesus referenced these from Genesis: God created, creation, Abel, Noah, flood, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, and Jacob as if accounts of history. Accordingly, it seems to me, any attempt to interpret Genesis as other than a straight forward historical account has implications to be considered.
x
(1) If the Lord Jesus’ straight forward use of these are understood as accommodations made for the listener, then the same argument may be applied by critics to any or all His words. Every word becomes relevant to how the individual wishes to understand it.
x
(2) If the Creation account is some kind of metaphor or parable it could follow that the Garden of Eden with all its symbols is also and the Flood becomes part of myth. So, the real history wouldn’t start until Chapter twelve with Abraham? Such a position ends up giving no defense against any liberal deconstruction or mythological rendering of not just the rest of Genesis but all the way past the periods of slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, past the days of Joshua, the judges, and Samuel, through the period of the kingdoms, and into the Babylonian Exile to Ezra’s post exilic times when liberals and the world want to establish as the time of the writing of the Old Testament.
x
(3) It is exactly like the Apostle Paul stated about the Resurrection. If the Lord Jesus did not resurrect bodily form the dead there is no position to defend. Because the Lord Jesus and his Apostles used the Old Testament as genuine histories, the discounting of the Old Testament can compromises the legitimate defense of all the New Testament regardless of how rational the explanation may seem in applying some natural or accommodating scheme. The liberal or unbeliever can extend such logic to discount any other Scripture text.
x
(4) Compromise by interpretation using any other means of hermeneutics other than the grammatical-historical method of interpretation places the believer at the top of the ‘slippery slope’ with the skeptic competent to push the believer on the way. Accordingly, any understanding of the genesis account that is neither literal nor historical opens the same method to be applied to the next text and so on in order.
x
(5) Believers may interpret ordinary language passages using any form of non-literal method as allegorical or as parable to satisfy their own rational needs, but they do so at the risk of becoming defenseless both in apologetics and faith. This is not to say that such explanations may sway many converts in overcoming their skepticism. However, more and more are there those who have studied to ridicule the faith of the believers.
x
(6) How about the ridicule for taking the Bible at face value from Creation, to miracles, to Satan and the demons, to history, to the Incarnation and Resurrection, and to the Return? It is a certainty. First, if you are unashamed of the Lord Jesus you will be at peace. Secondly, know what your job is. If your walk is in the Spirit it is easy. Your job is to testify boldly what the relationship is between you and God at that moment (marvelous or tragic) and to the illumination you are currently receiving by fervent prayer and Bible study. Everything else is God’s job! Putting the right person in front of you, convincing that person, convicting that person, and converting that person are all the jobs of the Holy Spirit. If he leaves a skeptic you have done your job by being a witness to the Lord Jesus Christ into the ends of the world. If he believes, then you are to arrange for his discipleship.
x
(7) This works only if you believe. Don’t doubt! Start believing with Genesis 1:1. I’ve tried being smarter than the Revelation of God as recorded in the Bible. The difference? – power, peace, and victory opposed to tentativeness, frustration, and defeat. Everyday with the Lord Jesus is a parade through the camp of the enemy. old glen Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/14/07 05:20:28 AM
Age 65, NE
Great article Janet. I've been following the issue of creation vs. evolution for more than 50 years - I argued in favor of creation with a teacher in the 4th grade. Yes it is possible for a child to see that particles-to-man evolution is a lie. Science it is not - unless you redifine science to exclude anything that points to a creator. Particles-to-man evolution is religion. Here is how it works - the "scientist" looks at the evidence with the presupposition that there is no creator and then conclude that evolution has to have happened. With this presupposition in place - any evidence that points to a young earth, intelligent design or a global flood is automatically thrown out. It boils down to this - who are you going to believe? Man or God? Who was the only eyewitness to creation? Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 11:27:36 PM
Age 63, TX
Just to demonstrate with one point among many: You proposed this.
“Here's a question I have for Chris Matthews and the smug reporters at CNN. Which is more complex?
a. The faces of Mt. Rushmore
b. a 747
c. your cell phone
d. a worm”
The question about complexity is philosophically and scientifically irrelevant when made between manmade objects and biological systems. Believers should be certain of their abilities to defend a position; and if they are not, then they should testify to the things of God so their witness is not contaminated by ignorance before the unbelievers. Gratefully, this article is preached to the choir. We like thinking such things.
For believers, evolution should not primarily be rejected because of bad science but because our children and our children’s children will not thrive spiritually guided by evolution’s implications. Not because of the certainty of flaws in the scientific evidence or theory must we oppose what biological evolution teaches, but because of practical and spiritual necessity. Believers posses a Truth that transcends the ever changing theories of science (Science by definition changes theories.). Because many scientists are ignorant of any philosophical understanding of the scientific method and how to correctly express their evidence, believers do not have to join in being ignorant of the same method. Preaching to the choir is fun and safe, but it is before the lost that we must show competence, and this article fails. old glen Click here to reply to this post
Yes, I am preaching to the choir but not to say anything they wish to hear but to get them on tune rather than telling them that singing off key will sound great at the shopping mall. The choir may sing Blessed Assurance off key to me every day, and I am humbled before the Lord, but it may not work that way for those at the shopping mall. old glen Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 11:11:51 PM
Age 19, CANADA
It must feel good to get that off your chest eh? a good healthy rant. enjoyed the article, thanks. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 07:37:46 PM
Age 55, OR
I say thank you, Janet. You were right on. If only people would read God's Word and believe. All the answers are there. I will be looking for a debate from you and those from the evolutionist side of things. How can they come back at you with your knowledge of creationism and God's Word? They will not be able to. I will continue to read your articles every chance I get. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 11:02:34 AM
Age 23, TX
Yes, Huckabee was correct on the fact that "God created the heavens and earth." But what the author of this article failed to mention is the fact that Mike Huckabee does not believe in the literal creation that is explained in Genesis:
“Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” Genesis 2:1-3
Below is a partial transcript of the CNN Presidential Debates, where it shows Huckabee’s response. Yes, indeed he does say: “God created the heavens and the earth.” He also later says:
“Well, let me be very clear: I believe there is a God. I believe there's a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it and when did he do it and how long did he take, I don't honestly know. And I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.”
This is coming from a former Baptist pastor. He of all people should know what God and the Bible says on this matter.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
It seems as though Huckabee is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
In addition, Duncan Hunter did not raise his hand against evolution at the debates. At least not from the videos I watched. Only three people raised their hands: Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee.
CNN Transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html
FAHEY: (inaudible) do not believe in evolution. You're an ordained minister. What do you believe? Is it the story of creation, as it is reported in the Bible or described in the Bible?
HUCKABEE: It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president. I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an 8th-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States.
But you've raised the question, so let me answer it.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. To me, it's pretty simple. A person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own.
And the basic question was an unfair question, because it simply asked us in a simplistic manner whether or not we believed, in my view, whether there is a God or not.
Well, let me be very clear: I believe there is a God. I believe there's a God who was active in the creation process.
Now, how did he do it and when did he do it and how long did he take, I don't honestly know. And I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.
But I'll tell you what I can tell this country: If they want a president who doesn't believe in God, there's probably plenty of choices. But if I'm selected as president of this country, they'll have one who believes in those words that God did create.
And as the words of Martin Luther, here I stand. I can do no other. And I will not take that back.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Governor, but I think the specific question is, do you believe literally it was done in six days and it occurred 6,000 years ago?
HUCKABEE: No, I did answer that, Wolf. I said, I don't know.
My point is, I don't know. I wasn't there.
(LAUGHTER) But I believe, whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it. And that's what's important.
But, you know, if anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it. I don't know how far they will march that back.
But I believe that all of us in this room are the unique creations of a god who knows us and loves us, and who created us for his own purpose. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 11:44:54 PM
Age 63, TX
The evolution question is relevant and should be the interest of both sides due to the implications. On the side of evolution is Jeffery Dahmer, the cannibal serial killer, who exemplifies the implications. When asked how he could do such a thing, his reply was, “Because evolution is true.” The implication of scientific evolution is that there is not an ultimate moral reality, only manufactured ones, and eating a fellow human is not a real moral issue. Apply this idea to any law or judicial ruling and see what is permissible?
On the other side, believers may even disagree on the moral absolute, but we don’t disagree that we are subject to one. Believers should want a president who knows that the moral law emanates from the nature of God and is not manufactured by the intentions of “good” men. old glen Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/15/07 10:41:25 AM
Age 45, MI
Do you think that Jeffrey Dahmer really understood Darwinism? He certainly didn't understand prion disease! (Look it up.) And I really don't know what to make of the assertion that Darwinism leads to cannibalism. As far as I know, Darwin actually ate very few people. If you really believe that Darwin is a threat to your worldview, you gotta come up with a better proponent than Jeffrey Dahmer. Talk about a straw man! Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/16/07 12:06:26 AM
Age 63, TX
Good points. I assume Jeffrey Dahmer had prion disease. I did look up prion. You are right about there being many better proponents than Jeffrey Dahmer. The point of the illustration was not that Darwinism leads to cannibalism but to any kind of moral, amoral or immoral position of choice by a person of any arrangement or derangement. By his statement, I assume Jeffery Dahmer understood this aspect of Darwinism about as much as the public school eighth graders who were first taught it in 1959 and went on to be free of Biblical guilt and shame to populate the sexual revolution of the sixties. The point trying to be made is the moral absurdity to any natural system of morality. That is the justification for believers in opposing any naturalistic cause as in natural selection. Princeton’s Professor Charles Hodge in "What is Darwinism?" (1874) was perhaps the first to articulate this in his book. I choose to accept an absolute morality that emanates from the divine nature and would like to ask your view and purposes here? Mine has been an attempt, although perhaps a feeble one, to make the Christian presence less subject to justifiable criticism. old glen Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/23/07 04:07:31 PM
Age 45, MI
"The point of the illustration was not that Darwinism leads to cannibalism but to any kind of moral, amoral or immoral position of choice by a person of any arrangement or derangement. By his statement, I assume Jeffery Dahmer understood this aspect of Darwinism about as much as the public school eighth graders who were first taught it in 1959 and went on to be free of Biblical guilt and shame to populate the sexual revolution of the sixties. The point trying to be made is the moral absurdity to any natural system of morality. That is the justification for believers in opposing any naturalistic cause as in natural selection." A few points here. Could you be more specific about how Darwin led to the 60s? I think that your argument is a type of post hoc reasoning: "Because B happened after A, A caused B." You need to show that there is a causal link. You also suggest that people without Biblical guilt will invariably become sexual revolutionaries, for lack of a better term. But think about all the other cultures that do not have the bible where this is not the case! At the same time, consider the fact that most (if not all) of the world's major religions have some form of the golden rule. Is this because God gave it to them? If so, then their beliefs have the benefit of divine revelation every bit as much as Christianity. Another principle is then probably at work here, and I would suspect that it is that altruism and empathy are in the aggregate good guides to behavior.
"I choose to accept an absolute morality that emanates from the divine nature" But you just said that choice is what allowed people to make moral, amoral or immoral decisions? At any rate, can you really CHOOSE to BELIEVE something, and if so, does that make it true? I don't know that I could, and nothing is true because I believe it to be true, that's for sure.
"and would like to ask your view and purposes here? Mine has been an attempt, although perhaps a feeble one, to make the Christian presence less subject to justifiable criticism." Oh, nothing's outside the purview of justifiable criticism. Unjustifiable criticism, yes. But justifiable criticism...yeah, that would be my contribution to the discussion, I think. Of course, this is what the moderators want: "We encourage healthy debating but will not accept feedback with personal attacks. Commenting on a person's public statements, actions and writings is not considered a personal attack." That's just what I want to do, I think. Consider the ideas in as many ways as possible. RS Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 10:47:32 AM
Age 57, TX
Thank you. This was a well written article and I agree wholeheartedly. It is astounding (and very sad) that there are those who continue to reject the truth of a Creator in spite of all the evidence, while insisting on believing in a ludicrous evolutionary theory without having one shred of evidence. BTW: There is also a somewhat new museum started by Dr. Carl Baugh, The Creation Evidence Center, which is located in Glen Rose, Texas. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 10:39:59 AM
Age 57, NY
YOU GO GIRL!! Thank you for your excellent article. In our quite liberal slanted paper on Sunday, June 10th there was an editorial boasting about the website propagated by Mark Isaak www.talkorigins.org, as well as his book "The Counter-Creationism Handbook". I sent an email to the author of the editorial and sent a copy of a page from Chuck Edwards of Summit Ministries re: Dawkins new book. Your article is a good, brief summation of that article. Good writing. Keep on knocking down the giants of unbelief. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Huckabee was right
Posted On: 06/13/07 09:47:38 AM
Age 52, WI
This article is right on! It's great to see presidential candidates taking a stand and then to see the country backing them - much to the chagrin of the media!
When you look at the world through the lens of the Bible it all makes sense - creation, dinosaurs, the flood, one race of humans with different amounts of pigment in their skin - all of it makes sense when you start with what God says. Because, after all, He is the only one alive today who was there when it all happened! Who are you going to believe, people who guess what happened or the God who made it happen? Click here to reply to this post
Woodrow Kroll, David Jeremiah,Sean McDowell, Josh McDowell, David Barton, Carl Kerby, Frank Harber, Kerby Anderson, and the Branson Family Reunion DVD Set! This is a $74.95 value for only $34.95! FREE worksheet with purchase!
Russell O'Quinn, Steve Saint, Dr. Michael Youssef, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Bob Lepine, Star Parker, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, and the Branson Family Reunion DVD Set! This is a $74.95 value for only $34.95!
