@Alton

Josh Hammer #fundie #homophobia dailywire.com

HAMMER: Remember Those Who Told Us Gay Marriage Would Not Lead To Polyamory? They Were Wrong.

“Slippery slope theory is a form of logical fallacy.” – Knaves and fools
The concerted social push is now unequivocally on to normalize non-monogamous, polyamorous relationships.

Just yesterday, CBS News ran a rather disturbing story entitled, “Not Just ‘One Big Orgy’: Fighting The Stigma Of Consensual Non-Monogamy.”

The article, we are informed, is timed to coincide with CBS News’ premiering this weekend an original glowing documentary entitled, “Speaking Frankly: Non-Monogamy.” The article not-so-subtly attempts to guilt-trip the reader to care more about the purported woes of polyamorous couples people: “It is illegal in all 50 states to be married to more than one person — which is known as polygamy, not polyamory,” the reader is told. “Polyamorous people who try different kinds of arrangements — such as a married couple with steady outside partners — run into their own legal problems.”

The timing of the CBS News and concomitant documentary overlaps rather naturally with the lascivious new sex scandal involving Congresswoman Katie Hill, Democrat of California. As The Daily Wire has reported, Hill is now under congressional investigation over allegations she engaged in a “throuple” sexual relationship with her estranged husband and an erstwhile female campaign staffer, in addition to a separate affair with a congressional staffer. But it is also worth nothing that as far back as 2012, “Polyamory: Married & Dating” became a relatively popular reality TV series. Vice, furthermore, wrote a laudatory piece in 2017 on polyamory entitled, “Polyamorists Are Secretive, Stigmatized, And Highly Satisfied.”

Well.

I am only 30 years old, and even I am old enough to remember how leftists and social libertarians alike repeatedly assured us social conservatives that the popular legalization — and, subsequently, imposed constitutionalization via risible black-robed fiat — of same-sex nuptials would lead to neither a normalization of non-monogamous relationships nor a push for polygamous “marriage” itself. Never mind that social conservatives, led by the veritable “What Is Marriage?”-authoring triumvirate of Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, quite persuasively pointed out that the only reason human civilization ever came around to the number “two” as rightfully constituting a marriage is because it takes precisely two individuals — one biological male and one biological female — to create human offspring. Never mind that social conservatives quite persuasively pointed out that once you remove biologically based sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage, the removal of that underlying number “two” would also logically follow. Never mind that social conservatives, led by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, persuasively argued that slippery slope social theory is not a “logical fallacy” — it is demonstrably borne out by real, tangible civilizational results over the span of at least the past half-century.

We are now here. The push for de-stigmatized polyamory — and, to be sure, the push quite soon for legalized polygamous “marriage” — is already unfolding right before our eyes. Purportedly “objective” CBS News, after all, is now publishing non-opinion section journalistic content that tries to shame monogamous readers into sympathizing with the legal “plight” of the polyamorous.

Those who reliably informed social conservatives that the de-coupling of sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage would not lead to such an obvious eventual social trend ought to now be held accountable for their merely shoddy prognoses, if they are to be given the benefit of the doubt — or their intellectual disingenuousness, if they are not to be given the benefit of the doubt. That would include Andrew Sullivan as far back as 1996 and any number of prominent pundits in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision year of 2015 — including Jonathan Rauch, William Saletan, and Cathy Young. Each and every one of these pundits and social theorists ought to be challenged and asked why he or she did not possess the logic- and common sense-based prescience to foresee what was so obvious to some of us.

In the interim, those of us who still proudly self-identify as social conservatives ought to dig in our heels. We have a new pernicious civilizational trend to fight, and it is happening right now.

Rayburne F. Winsor #fundie biblicalarchaeology.org

We have many scientists today who are “Ever learning , and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7). How can they they when they not believe that the Creator-God was able to convey to fallen humanity His divine will and plan in written form, including the Genesis account of the global Flood of Noah (Genesis 6 to 9), without error , which is why they start with the wrong premise–that Genesis is a myth or story borrowed from ancient Babylonian clay tablets (i.e. Gilgamesh Epic or recent Babylonian clay tablet that makes the ridiculous claim that Noah’s Ark was round. So you has a very unstable ship the shape of a huge cube or square box in the Gilgamesh Epic and now you have another obvious corruption of the original Genesis account (Genesis 6 to 9) that postulates the Ark was round. Brilliant? Bible skeptics and liberal theologians would have us believe that the Jews who wrote the Bible borrowed myths of Babylonian origin concerning the Genesis Flood from the Gilgamesh Epic or a recently discovered 4000-year-old Babylonian clay tablet that postulates that Noah’s Ark was round. The big problem with this assumption is that the details of the Genesis account of a global flood are far more reasonable and believable than those of the Gilgamesh Epic and this Babylonian clay tablet, which merely reflect the true record of divine revelation (Genesis 6 to 9). For example, ship builders have calculated that Noah’s Ark (dimensions 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits or 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high), with a rectangular or barge shape and a very low center of gravity (ratio 6:1) was an extremely seaworthy and stable ship compared to the dimensions of the ship in the Gilgamesh Epic (dimensions 10 rods by 10 rods by 10 rods or 165 ft. by 165 ft. by 165 ft.), which was shaped like a cube or square box and would not have been very stable in a global flood of very turbulent and high waves. The global flood of Genesis lasted 150 days before the waters receded whereas the flood in the Gilgamesh Epic lasted one week only, hardly sufficient to bring about a global cataclysmic flood as evidenced by the worldwide distribution of billions of fossils of all life-forms (many more examples).

The true record of the Genesis Flood–given by inspiration of God to Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis, from the time of creation to the world-wide flood of Noah–is supported not only by God’s providence in preserving His inspired, infallible Word over the centuries until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down by Moses, as evidenced by the accuracy and credibility of its details, but also by the One-Source Theory that leads back to the historical event of the Flood and Noah’s Ark, by the fact that the Hebrews were well known for handing down their records and tradition, and also the fact that the Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological. On the other hand, it is quite inconceivable that the details of the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as those of this subsequent Babylonian tablet, could be handed down for hundreds of thousands of years (Gilgamesh cuneiform tablets date as far back as 4,000 years), to be fully incorporated in the Gilgamesh Epic of the Babylonians or even later Babylonian clay tablet without being corrupted. By the way, the Gilgamesh Epic alone delivers a fatal blow to the idea of a vast antiquity for Noah and the Flood. God bless.

Rayburne Winsor #fundie facebook.com

Rayburne Winsor: First of all, you must distinguish between operational or experimental science, which can be observed, tested and repeated in a laboratory, from historical or Origins science which cannot. Even evolutionists admit hat. Neither biblical creation nor "goo-to-you, molecules to man" evolution can be proven. The Tree of life (GTE or Thesis of Common Ancestry) is just an unproven hypothesis at best. What evolutionists conveniently do is extrapolate "change in gene frequency over time" or "descent with modification" and rapid speciation (which creationists have always believed to be compatible with biblical creation) as evidence for vertical (primitive to complex) change that increases the genetic information content in the genome. It is not. All alleged "proofs" of "evolution in action" today do not show that functional new information is added to genes; rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of genetic information. Let us examine the fossil record. After, 150 years after Darwin and alleged millions of years of gradual evolution-by-creeps [too slow to see], evolution-by-peaks [too fast to see] and evolution-by-freaks (genetic mutations still harmful-produces nothing new by way of transmutations: snails remain snails, clams clams, trilobites trilobites, jellyfish jellyfish, birds birds, fish fish, apes apes, man man) , we have only a few highly disputed intermediate or so-called transitional fossils that could cover a billiard table and are highly disputed even among evolutionists themselves.

What scientists find in the fossil record are completely formed and intact fossils of all life-forms without a hint of evolutionary ancestors or "transitional" fossils in the geological strata beneath them (evidence for biblical creation). And what do we have in the so-called hierarchy of human evolutionary ancestors that you see neatly and orderly arranged in some museum? You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.


David Murray: abiogenesis is not evolution, open a grade school level science book as you are not smarter than a fifth grader. Then learn how to use google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia


Rayburne Winsor This is not science; it is science fiction. You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.

(...)

Rayburne Winsor: I have heard the same old crap during the last 40 years of discussing this topic with atheists, science students and skeptics. Most of which is highly speculative in nature and not surprisingly based on evolutionary assumptions and predictions (nothing ew). But what real evidence, if any, do they have. As I said, a few supposedly “transitional” fossils that even evolutionists highly dispute among themselves.
Charles Oxnard, formerly professor of Anatomy and biological Sciences at the University of Southern California and Professor of Human Anatomy and Human Biology , University of Western Australia, showed that the big toe of the famous “Lucy” stuck out as in chimpanzees.

Also, Dr. Fred Spoor, Professor of Evolutionary Anatomy at University College London, UK , and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution , performed CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals , the organs of posture and balance. This showed that they did not walk habitually upright (See Spoor, F, Wood, B., and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369 (6482):645-648, 1994). This is all contrary to Dawkins’ claim that Lucy “walked upright on her hind legs...on two feet which were pretty much like ours although its brain was the size of a chimpanzee. Indeed, evidence now suggests that Lucy had wrist-locking abilities “classic for knuckle walkers” which is hardly consistent with Dawkins claim that ucy walked upright like we do (Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287 (5461) :2131, 2000, citing the first author of Richmond, B. G. and Strait, D.S. , Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor , Nature 404 (6776):382, 2000). Museums once featured Australopithecus africanus as an ancestor to humans---A. Africanus includes “Mrs Ples” (now thought to be small “Mrs Ples”) and the Taung child (Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p.189-193) . Donald Johanson , the discoverer of “Lucy” , places Australopithecus africanus in a side-branch not leading to man (Johanson, D. C. and White T.D. , A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids , Science 203:321-330, 1979) and many museums have now demoted this once certain human ancestor to a non-ancestor.

Time magazine reported on a specimen called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated between 5.6 and 5.8 million years old. Time claimed that this new specimen was already walking upright , at (what they claim was ) the dawn of evolution. But how clear is this really> Time reports the opinion of the discoverer of “Lucy”, Donald Johanson : “Beyond that, he’s dubious about categorizing the 5.2 million year old toe bone (Ardipithecus) with the rest of the fossils : not only is it separated in time by several hundred thousand years, but it was also found some 10 miles from the rest (Lemonick, M.D. and Dorfman, A., One Giant Step for Mankind, Time magazine cover story, 23 July 2001). Note that this toe was the major “evidence” for uprightness, yet, at being found 10 miles away , it boggles the mind how it could be regarded as part of the same specimen. As one researcher put it regarding the fossils and human evolution, “Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear” ( Shreeve, J., Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990).

When the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. That is my last comment. I don't really care what you come back with. You believe what you want. You seem to enjoy calling me dishonest and a liar, but David the truth is you would not know the truth if it was standing right in front of you. I will leave it to the readers to decide who is honest and truthful based on real evidence and scientific research, for which I gave clear references, mostly from evolutionary journals and publications, not straw dummy arguments without evidence to support it. Of course, I know you will deny that too as dishonest and a lie. Right?
Honestly, I don't feel sorry for guys like you who are brainwashed by the fairy tale for grown-ups (Evolution) but the truth is, as both you and I know, you do not want to know the truth, just promote your evolutionary faith that is nothing more than a philosophical justification for not wanting to believe unbelief in a Creator/God. It is not rocket science, David, as I hope and pray you find out before you exit this life on earth (and you will).

For example, Pakicetus (whale from Pakistan) was first drawn as an aquatic creature based on a few skull bones and teeth (Gingerich, P.D., et al., Science 220 (4595): 403-406, 22 April 1983). Its discoverer Philip Gingerich proclaimed it to be perfectly intermediate in time and in its morphology, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales (Gingerich , P.D., J. Geology. Educ 31:140-144, 1983. Since a few scraps of bone were interpreted in an evolutionary framework, it is not surprising that they were thought to be a “missing link”.

However, when the rest of the skeleton was found, it was realized to be a fast-running land creature (then drawn by the same artist as the diagram in Dawkins book (see Thewissen, J. G. M., et al., Skeletons of terrestial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413: 277-281, 20 Sept. 2001; and Pakicetus...eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell www.neoucom.edu/Depts.Anat/Pakicetid.html ).

This is hardly the only example of evolutionists misleading the public , exaggerating the evidence from a few scraps of bone. The moral of the story, as one evolutionist put it, is:”Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear (Shreeve, J. Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990 (in reference to human evolution).