Posted on 02/25/2015 5:09:59 PM PST by cotton1706
If the constant media haranguing of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker over his religion tells us anything, its that the political media absolutely loathe what they perceive as authentic Christianity.
First, there was the ambush against Walker about whether he believed in evolution. Then, there was the question from two Washington Post reporters about whether Walker believed President Barack Obama was a real Christian. And over the past couple of days, writers from several outlets have begun to mock Scott Walkers habit of praying to God for guidance.
Its easy to see why theyre doing what theyre doing: they think Christianity is a wedge issue. Just get a candidate to confess that he actually believes what the Bible says, and the American people will turn against him and never look back. Oh, a candidate believes the 3 billion base pairs that comprise the human genome didnt arrange themselves randomly? Throw him in a lake and see if hell float. A politician wont opine on whether a man who cynically used Christianity as a shield for a blatant same-sex marriage lie is a real Christian or not? Burn him at the stake. A governor who claims to seek Gods divine guidance via prayer didnt write down every single prayer and file it away so know-nothing progressives could one day FOIA proof of his super silly prayer life? Hes obviously not fit for higher office.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
As I see it, they denigrate Christianity because they fear its power.
So mock it, laugh at it, make people uncomfortable with it.
The worst sin would be to allow a Christian to get traction with the public.
When can we be shut of these cretins?
I know the questions about Obamas faith was a gotcha question...however it is important to me the faith of a politician if they have one.
I think it`s extremely important that our leaders are Christian, I do not think it`s a unimportant thing as I hear so many saying.
On Obama, the answer is NO he is NOT a Christian, I only wish someone would ask me about his faith with a camera microphone etc...I am ready to say now with a clean conscience that he is in fact NOT a Christian.
On evolution they discussed this on FNS with Chris Wallace, and they all including Steve Hayes, spoke as if only the fringe of the Republican party does not believe in evolution.
Christians do NOT believe in evolution, they do NOT believe in the right to an abortion, they do NOT believe in homosexual marriage, and they do not vote Democrat and give their OK to the removal of God/Christ from the classroom/public square etc
I think the question of someone’s faith is very very important...
Wrong. The “Scott Walker flap” shows how much the liberal media FEARS Scott Walker.
Walker would make a lot of heads explode as a president. For that he is worth overlooking a lot of peccadilloes.
No, they fear Christianity's faith...just as they fear faith in family, faith in your fellow citizens.....socialism requires faith in only one thing...government.
For six years we forgot how vicious the media could be.
Pray America is waking
The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.
The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:
The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.
The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)
The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)
The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
The question of irreducible complexity.
The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.
The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.
The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).
The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...
The question of genetic entropy.
The obvious evidence of design in nature.
The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.
Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
I ask you: What could be stupider than that?
Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.
Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal. There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
If he’s said that, he’d be a laughingstock by the end of the day.
Evolution “belief” is just atheism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.