Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)

In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,

"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."

John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.

Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.

Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,

“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.

Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:

“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:

“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)

“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.

From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

Happy Thanksgiving, dearest sister in Christ and all our FRiends on this thread!

Well, er — yes I disagree. You describe Truth as, in effect, the utterance of "recognized theological thinkers." That is to say, the only access to Truth comes "second hand" to the thinker, by way of human authorities.

Indeed, only God sees "all that there is" all at once - every where, every when. He alone searches the hearts and minds.

If He didn't care to, there would be no such thing as justice.

God alone knows objective truth. He alone speaks objective truth. He IS Truth. For when He says a thing, it is. It is because He said it.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1:3

For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. - Psalms 33:9

Indeed, God cannot lie - i.e. when He says a thing, it is.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; - Titus 1:2

Truth is not a product of human thought. One must know God to know Truth.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

God's Name is I AM.

“What say we ask the same question of the Creationists?”

Presumably you refer to the question in your back quote? Surely, no doubt resides in your mind that Judeo-Christians judge that it is Socialist louts, obviously seeking to hi-jack America, who pose a grave threat? The Judeo-Christian Tradition poses no threat to liberty. You have no logical reason to believe otherwise.

In the meantime, I note that nowhere in your reply is to be found an answer to the question I posed. I’ve asked it for nine years and have yet to receive an honest reply.

As for your observation to boop to the effect that “The capitalization of ‘Truth’ to a proper noun for which no established definition exists is a gambit to establish control by introducing a term that you get to define.” If recollection serves (and admittedly my forum memory goes back a mere 9 years), it was the Darwin Mullahs and Imams (that is, the self-proclaimed “defenders” of Science on this forum) who introduced the capitalized sobriquet “Truth” as a form of derision against Christians, usually expressed in a Romanesque and wholly uppercase mode, “TRVTH,” accompanied by scornful hoots proclaiming that there is no “truth” in Science, all “scientific” facts being subject (of course) to further discovery. Boop was simply being precise in carefully defining philosophical and religious (or perhaps sometimes mathematical) “truth” (or “proof”) from scientific “facts.” But you would seek to gain some ephemeral and imaginary advantage from your mischaracterization. Do you not understand that a significant portion of the assembly is aware of your mischaracterization and to what extent you are embarrassing yourself?

(if I’ve mischaracterized your intent to any significant extent, betty, please so inform the forum).

Here’s wishing everyone a most joyous Thanksgiving (even those who very much would like us all to forget to whom it is we are giving thanks). I hope everyone had as good a Thanksgiving as did I. There is nothing like being with family this time of year. Let us be grateful for what we have and may it fall to everyone.

betty boop: "You describe Truth as, in effect, the utterance of "recognized theological thinkers."
That is to say, the only access to Truth comes "second hand" to the thinker, by way of human authorities."

No, I was only trying to distinguish legitimate Truth from tons of other "Truths" which are anything but.
Should I cite a mild example? "Truth" claims of, oh say, tree-huggers seem to me anything but.

betty boop: "I see Truth, however, as the very Order of the universe, as embedded in all aspects of Nature.
The world is the way it is and not some other way because it is the reification of its essential organizational principle which is its Truth."

Of course I agree with all of that, certainly in general, if not in every specific.
Was merely hoping to distinguish between, dare I say it: true Truth and pretend Truth. ;-)

tacticalogic: "So we have "Truth" as being a something subjective on which there is no general agreement and having no formal definition."

FRiend, it's important to keep in mind that science itself makes no use of, or claims to the words "truth" or "Truth".
Those are reserved for philosophy and theology, and are defined by those disciplines according to their own rules and logic.
In those we sometimes find such qualifiers as "epistimically true", "ontologically true" and "God's Truth".
None of these words have anything to do with science.

Science itself is far too humble to make any such claims.
In science we have only observed facts, confirmed theories plus tons and tons of uncertainties between them.

As to the validity of truth-claims of the various philosophies and theologies, those are matters of some logic and some faith.

Surely, you do not disagree?

“The capitalization of ‘Truth’ to a proper noun for which no established definition exists is a gambit to establish control by introducing a term that you get to define.” If recollection serves (and admittedly my forum memory goes back a mere 9 years), it was the Darwin Mullahs and Imams (that is, the self-proclaimed “defenders” of Science on this forum) who introduced the capitalized sobriquet “Truth” as a form of derision against Christians, usually expressed in a Romanesque and wholly uppercase mode, “TRVTH,” accompanied by scornful hoots proclaiming that there is no “truth” in Science, all “scientific” facts being subject (of course) to further discovery. Boop was simply being precise in carefully defining philosophical and religious (or perhaps sometimes mathematical) “truth” (or “proof”) from scientific “facts.” But you would seek to gain some ephemeral and imaginary advantage from your mischaracterization. Do you not understand that a significant portion of the assembly is aware of your mischaracterization and to what extent you are embarrassing yourself?

Mischaracterization? As soon as the term was used, there was disagreement over exactly what it means. It's all right there in the thread. It wasn't a mischaracterization, it was predictable and turned out to be as predicted.

Spirited to Bro: “Now if it was true that your church—and you— goes by what God’s Revelation to man says then your pride would not be so offended by “Falling Stars...” that you have repeatedly tried to undermine the veracity of the author and joined with other offended posters in having the essay removed to the religion forum.”

Bro the sophist responds: Well, thank you! tacticalogic, at last the truth comes out! They can’t stomach spirited irish on the religion forum — she’s been banished! Or should I say shunned!

Spirited: Only the painfully twisted, upside-down, self-deluded reasoning of a sophist would see vindication of ‘self’ in those remarks.

The conscience of the sophist is polluted and depraved, and a depraved conscience is the most destructive force in political, legal, social, economic, and cultural life. This is because though the intellect remains intact, reason is warped and inverted, thus useless for pursuit of the good, the just and the true. In short, guided by a depraved conscience, reason is used in pursuit of the preservation of self-image at any cost. This is sophistry.

In a penetrating analysis of sophistry, J. Budziszewski observes that the sophists’ view of reality is paradoxical because it ultimately denies reality. Sophists are shock troopers of evil says Budziszewski, and according to their satanically-inverted view of reality:

“Man is the measure of all things, but man has no fixed nature. Man measures all things by his words, but words have no fixed meanings. Language is not an instrument for finding truth, but for changing it. Those who can master it, master all. It is a good creed for rogues, and commends itself to tyrants in every age.” (What We Can’t Not Know, Budziszewski, p. 167)

Sophistry is the religion of America’s left-right Ruling Class and legions of like-minded individuals. Sophistry says autonomous man is a free-thinker, thus the maker of his own truth and morality even though sophistry denies the reality of both truth and morality. It says depraved man
can unmake and then remake himself. Thus man is free to divinize himself as in days of old. Males can be females and females can now be males, or they can be androgynous, that is, transgender.

Sophistry’s’ favorite Scripture is “judge not.” The only judgment is the judgment against moral judgment. The only sins are the ideas that sin and immutable truth exists. The only truth is the idea that truth does not exist. Evil is the idea that evil exists. The greatest evil of all however, is to dissent against sophists.

Sophists are braggarts who love to boast of their scientifically-informed reason, yet reason is actually escape from reason. By way of unreason, arrogant sophists claim that God is dead, or just a jump-starter for evolution, His Revelation a myth, and evolutionary theory absolutely true, but sophistry also says that words have no fixed meaning. There is no truth in sophistry. Therefore,
God is not dead but rather evolutionary theory is, for as it must begin with the spontaneous generation of something from nothing, then Darwinism is also nothing. This means that Godless evolutionary theory is as meaningless as
spontaneous generation and the much-vaunted reason of sophists.

Sophistry is all the rage in contemporary America, even though it prefers longer, more intellectual sounding names to dupe the gullible. Thus for example, it calls itself postmodernism, empiricism, naturalism, epistemological relativism, anti-foundationalism, pragmatism, situational ethics, pluralism, multiculturalism, interfaith, evolutionary humanism, trans-humanism, positivism, rationalism, and progressivism.

“First of all, as I've pointed out before: “Darwinians” exist only in the warped fantasies of anti-evolutionists.?”

And “anti-evolutionists” exist only in the feverish brains of Darwinians.

“In reality, there are no such critters.”

Tell that to my MAC OSX dictionary . . . or to Dictionarty.com . . . or to Wikipedia . . . or to thefreedictionary.com . . . or to anyone on this forum who is not a dedicated defender of the Darwinianist perverted version of Science.

“I've never seen a thread or poster on FR whose purpose was “to attack and disparage Christianity”.

To “see” one must look. I’ve quoted a number Darwinians who do exactly that (attack and disparage). See my post #128 (to you), this thread. Bear in mind, the Forum is watching.

“I've avoided no issues raised by Ms boop, nor refused to answer any questions, though she does refuse to answer my questions.”

Name them (the “questions” boop refuses to answer) and demand that they be answered. I think it likely that the outcome will be that boop has given you answers, but that you do not like the answers (and that you therefore prefer to pretend your questions have not been answered - ‘tis a common tactic of Alinsky devotees).

From Marx to the present, it has been the mantra of all Liberals/Socialists/0bamatrons, that it is Science generally, and The Theory of Evolution particularly, which “proves” that Capitalism and the Judeo-Christian God are both dead.

Speaking of unanswered question - Since you seem to understand (see post #81) that my main objection is to Scientists of an Atheist persuasion, primarily if not entirely, who misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally, that Science proves God does not exist, why do you tell me all these things you apparently know I know?

“it is the anti-evolutionists who have declared war on science”

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you cannot even frame the issue accurately?

It is the Darwinian Mullahs and Imams who make war against the Judeo-Christian Tradition and invoke the name of Science for their inspiration.

“the “Socialist louts” don't log on Free Republic”

Where have I said that “Socialist louts” do?

“All of the subject changing and attempts at intimidation are coming from your side, FRiend, some even from you.”

So you assert. The assertion does not prove the fact. Prove the fact.

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.