Roundup

Some insightful thoughts about the pill and the sexual revolution by Raquel Welch — seems to be pro-life as well.

Go see a picture of a huge event of what, according to Liberal-speak, must have been a bunch of racists.

Below is a photo of a crowd of White people. Clearly the exclusion of blacks indicates these folks are hate-filled White racists. Can you identify this White racist event?

Predictable “Heads, we win, tails, you lose” reasoning from the evolutionists on the human eye — Just like they were wrong with junk DNA and not-so-vestigial organs, they miss again on the eye.  Its fantastic complexity mocks their neo-Darwinian theories so they take something they can’t quite understand (the blind spot) and use it as “proof” that an intelligent designer could not have made it.  Then they learn more and instead of recanting their theories they just change sides.  Hey, it is still proof of evolution!  Tautology 101.

University of Calgary convicts eight pro-life students for pro-life display — good for them for standing up for free speech!  Shame on the university.

John Piper on why homosexuality is wrong — a thorough and concise 7 minute message

A rather long list of specific contradictions made by Ergun Caner — I hope he repents.

Facebook group of the week: ‘Let’s eat Grandma!’ or, ‘Let’s eat, Grandma!’ Punctuation saves lives (I didn’t join it, I just like the title).

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. I ❤ that graph, but have one complaint: if something with 3.6 legs came up to me, I might put it in the "unfortunate" category (or the "kill it now", depending on how many legs members of its species normally have), not on its way to cooing-adorable.

    Like

    1. Ha! I must admit that I studied the lines and thought the same thing. It would have helped if they put diamonds on the discrete data points. Then again, perhaps I’m over-analyzing . . .

      Like

  2. Yes, the u of c students (propped up by a far far right wing american org.) are being censored, which is somewhat odd, but given their grotesque and graphic methods it’s no surprise.

    If anything, the real issue is the inability for this group to communicate a sensitive issue in a language that can be understood by university students.

    Not a single one walked by the bloody pictures saying, “damn! thank god for this, i love humanity and will never have an abortion again!”

    This type of display is unwelcome by both Christians and curious onlookers alike. Let’s be creative and come up with a better response.

    Like

    1. Why is a picture of the procedure being debated worthy of censorship? I find pictures of the Holocaust, starving children, etc. to be unappetizing but they can be very persuasive and should not be censored.

      The word abortion has lost meaning for too many people. Images remind them of what it really is — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv .

      I’d love to hear your plans for ending the crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings. Hopefully they aren’t the Obamacare “solution” of taxpayer funded abortions (“Let’s give free abortions to reduce abortions! Not that there’s anything wrong with them!”).

      Not a single one walked by the bloody pictures saying, “damn! thank god for this, i love humanity and will never have an abortion again!”

      That’s just speculation on your part. It may have made people re-evaluate their positions. And either way, free speech doesn’t require your arguments to be persuasive. It just says you are allowed to make them. For example, I find postmodern / emergent church / Brian McLaren type arguments to be intellectually bankrupt and completely unpersuasive. But I would defend someone’s right to share them all they like. That’s just a hypothetical, of course.

      Like

      1. A hastily added proviso, but I believe that your first attempt betrays your real views, that it is impossible for a True Christian™ to hold any leftist views.

        Like

      2. That is a huge broad brush. I have read Wintery Knight’s stuff in the past and I don’t get that sense at all.

        While their are some leftist views that are in direct conflict with true Christianity, there are some that are not.

        Two examples: believing abortion is a viable choice for a pregnant woman? Contrary to true Christianity.

        Believing that labor unions are a good thing? Not contrary to true Christianity (although extremely misguided).

        Like

      3. But I think the more significant point is that Democrats think that church is just a club. They don’t really go to Church to subject themselves to a set of moral standards and moral obligations – it’s all for show.

        A secular leftist woman should never be loved or married

        I think it’s important to understand just how radical people are when they pass themselves off as Christians, yet have no place for individual charity or the notion of private property, both of which are central in the Bible.

        You draw your conclusions, I’ll draw mine. The brush I use is no broader than his.

        Like

    2. Ah yes, the same tolerant left that shouts down Ann Coulter so that she cannot speak at the University of Ottawa, but will host Achmadinejad at Columbia.

      If this far far atheistic leftist commenter lived during the time of slavery, he would have been concerned about the rights of slavers to avoid being offended by someone showing images of slavery. Something that the envangelical Christian William Wilberforce regularly did in the Parliament.

      The only question we need to ask is “Is murdering defenseless human beings in order to make adults have fewer encumbrances in their hedonism morally wrong?” I know where I come down on that question.

      Like

      1. Ann Coulter canceled her speech in Ottawa, and then lied about the reasons. She’s a coward if she can’t deal with the protests she intentionally incites with her hateful garbage.

        Like

      2. The only thing that prevented her from speaking was the protests, which are legal in Canada. The University did not shut down the event. The people who invited her advised her of the extent of the protests, and with their advise, SHE CANCELLED.

        If she was concerned for her safety, that’s fine, she has the right to cancel and I understand that, but this was a peaceful (police were present and noted there was no violations of any kind committed), legal protest. It was a probably a publicity stunt by her to boost attendance in Calgary, where she has far more support in a more conservative community.

        But don’t worry, if these facts do not suit your message, you can just delete my comments and everybody will think you won the argument.

        Like

      3. Now you added some facts but not all of them. Keep trying. And if you wouldn’t violate the guidelines I wouldn’t have to moderate. Your problem, not mine. Short leash.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      4. Cannot speak at the University of Ottawa? She could have spoken, she had been invited and the venue was made available. The organisers cancelled the event. Sure, she might have faced some protest, but that’s the price of being a loud-mouthed, mean-spirited hack who courts controversy to sell opinions. We did the same to Conor Cruise O’Brien when he came to speak at the University of Cape Town in the late 1980s. At least he had the stones to show up. The crowd of screaming deranged liberals who would have torn Coulter limb from limb seemed to consist mostly of her own fans; I hope some of them have re-arranged their opinion of her after she demoted them to “rioting liberals.”

        Like

      5. I believe Coulter showed up (traveled to Ottawa), and was told it was canceled.

        Then again, I will have to defer to you and Ryan on “loud-mouth, mean-spirited hacks”. After all you two seem to like to rile up the faithful here at Neil’s blog. Personally I don’t go to atheistic blogs and post incendiary comments.

        I find those that take the biggest exception to Ms. Coulter are those that engage in the very tactics they accuse her of.

        Like

      6. I’m in a bitchy mood tonight and I learned bitchiness from two aging queens going through a mid-life crisis.

        Personally I don’t go to atheistic blogs and post incendiary comments.

        No, you have your own blog for that, where nobody else seems to bother to comment.

        Like

      7. And of course you won’t complain because it is all due to your beloved naturalism.

        Try living consistently wih your worldview for just 10 minutes sometime. You haven’t done it yet.

        Like

      8. Who pissed in your oatmeal?

        You should try a just a small portion of my “worldview”. it involves listening and learning in stead of preaching and plugging your ears.

        Like

      9. Who pissed in your oatmeal?

        That’s a new one on me! Is that Canadian or just something you came up with?

        You should try a just a small portion of my “worldview”. it involves listening and learning in stead of preaching and plugging your ears.

        Wrong again. I do listen carefully. I make careful arguments against the best of my opponent’s arguments.

        You are the one who hasn’t listened, and I get tired of repeating myself so you end up getting moderated. You can’t go three sentences without equivocating on the term “evolution.” Whether you do it deliberately or you are just conditioned to do it is not my concern. I find it pointless to debate people who are so continually disingenuous and/or ill-informed that they can’t make proper use of the most basic term being discussed.

        Also, despite countless corrections, you can’t even see the pro-science view on the issue of abortion. Considering the virtual unanimity on a topic where the texts OPPOSE the politically correct view, why would I even consider that you’d be open to learning on a topic where the establishment is aligned with the politically correct view — the view that people lose their jobs over if they oppose it?

        Life’s too short to waste time with people who have demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are immune to reasons and facts on a given topic. I’ve explained these before but you “forget” why I don’t bother letting some of your comments post. Please print and save this comment, as I won’t be repeating it again.

        Like

      10. Ryan, for a smart guy you can be a slower learner. Like I said, print the previous comment and just re-read it as often as necessary. I have been very consistent here. Stop wasting my time pretending otherwise.

        Like

      11. And remember, even if I was wrong then deleting your comments would be the tiniest fraction of what happens to scientists who dare to challenge the neo-Darwinian cult. I cost you a couple keystrokes because you repeat the same fallacies over and over? Boo-hoo. I’ll save my sympathy for people who lose careers for standing up for the truth and real science.

        Your homework is to see Expelled! and read Signature in the Cell, twice each.

        And no, don’t bother replying.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s