Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts

Friday, June 3, 2016

Ethics in Science and Human Embryos

Scientists like to get inside organisms to see what makes them go, but where do they draw the line? It's acceptable to donate human cadavers for medical research, but to take a living human embryo and watch it develop in a dish before killing it? According to evolutionary thinking, humans are equated with animals, and we are not specially created by God in his image. 


Secular scientists want to extend the time limit on experimenting on human embryos kept alive in a dish.
This "meme" is making a point, not a joke.
Interestingly, secularists are inconsistent with their ideas. There are protests against experimentation on animals (which led to the development of insulin to help millions of people with diabetes), but there are millions of human abortions each year, partly from the "it's just a blob of tissues" idea. Scientists are wanting to extend the limit on life in a dish for a human embryo. Is it ethical? Is it moral? Not for those of us who believe that life is a gift of God and begins at conception. Indeed, taking the reasoning to its logical conclusion can lead to extension after extension...
Secular biologists want to see how long they can keep embryos in a dish before killing them.

You can feel the undercurrent in Nature News’ story about a new record for keeping human embryos alive: they want to extend it past the 14-day limit set by international agreement. Sara Reardon writes:
To see what Sara writes, and read the rest of the article, click on "Tinkering with Human Embryos More Brazen than Ever".





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Intelligence, Neanderthals, and Celebrating STDs

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Hat tip to Doug McBurney for giving some inspiration for this article.

The atoms-to-acrobat evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have the view that people were stupid way back when. It's consistent with their philosophy, since we supposedly came from minerals, fish, animals, and up the ladder to where we are today. So, we're wired to be the best, right?


According to evolution, we're wired to be the best, and smarter than Neanderthals. From the way society is going downhill, one wonders who is smarter after all.
Image credit: Pixabay / Cornfreak
We're created in God's image but are in rebellion against him, so we're a mix of good and bad. Technological and medical advances, taming animals, the ability to compose music, write literature, and do all sorts of things that are not possible for animals to accomplish. We can also do something else that is unlike animals: self-destruct, whether individually, culturally, or destroy millions of our fellow beings in a short time. Also unlike animals, we can celebrate our downward spiral.

We've made same-sex marriage not only legal, but want people to celebrate it; the tiny minority is dominating the huge majority, even though marriage has been between a man and a woman for millennia, ever since God ordained it. Humans are happily killing our unborn children, and even celebrating murder for convenience on social media.

Our lusts continue. The Evo Sith are desperate to find ways to do away with God, and presenting the idea that monogamy is the result of germ avoidance. Love has nothing to do with it in their view. Right. Norman and Nellie Neanderthal figured out that they won't get sexually transmitted diseases if they stay faithful to one another, right? Amazing bit of guesswork there presented as "science".

Did you know that April is STD Awareness Month? Sure, and we can go to social media to brag about having a disease! Then they wonder why there's claptrap about a new super strain of gonorrhea going around. Helpful hint: heterosexual marriage and faithfulness, the way God intended it, then you won't have to worry so much (or have cause to celebrate the consequences of your lack of control).

I started out by mentioning ancient humans and evolutionary bias. According to the Bible, man was created in God's image, and wasn't a stupid partially-evolved brute that took millions of years to form. Yes, Neanderthals existed, and they were fully human, as the DNA and interbreeding indicates. Their cave paintings were too advanced to satisfy evolutionists (by the way, the dating methods caused them problems), and they did a lot of other things like us reg'lar folk. Of course, the facts don't interfere with fundamentalist evolutionists from clinging to their blind faith and telling amazingly silly stories about early man.

The Neanderthal people were smart, despite Darwinist protestations. Did they indulge in self-destructive behaviors? No records of it that I'm aware of. I can't imagine that they would use their version of social media to brag about perversion, getting a sexually transmitted disease, or abortion. We're going downhill rapidly, and it's accelerating. It's the result of sin. You know, I wonder who are really the smarter ones.




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, April 8, 2016

Evolution and Moral Relativism

When someone claims to not have a philosophy of life (worldview from presuppositions and axioms), just ask a few questions. You'll find out that yes, they do have a worldview. Everybody has one, even if they haven't written it down in a journal or something. A big part of that worldview is the question of right and wrong. An atheist or evolutionist cannot give a coherent reason for saying that torturing children for fun is wrong, but the Bible-believing Christian has a consistent foundation to oppose it. The atheopath who goes haywire with trolling and bullying biblical creationists on teh interwebs because creationists are "evil" and "liars" — that ornery cuss cannot say why his actions are "good" and creationists are bad, except for his opinion, culture, and relativism — a justification for "morality" that goes up in smoke.


Secular science approaches to morality is based on evolution and relativism, and is irrational. There is only one true source for a moral foundation.
Image generated at fodey.com
Secular scientists and their sycophantic press make proclamations about right and wrong, but contradict themselves with moral relativism. Notice that the secularists are trying to justify homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, and so on are using a leftist perspective? No room for the Creator who gave us the final source for morality in their paradigm! Trying to give a basis for morality from evolution, culture, societal trends, and so forth is ridiculous.
If morality evolves, then why do some scientists cast judgment?

Science reporters occasionally make the case for moral relativism: the idea that moral judgments can vary from culture to culture, depending on what the people in a culture were taught is right or wrong. Live Science, for instance, teaches that “Right or Wrong: How You Judge Others Depends on Your Culture.” But in other articles, they will promote abortion rights, gay rights and other moral questions in an absolutist manner. . .
To read the rest of this insightful but relatively short article, click on "Science Cannot Defend Moral Relativism". 

 



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Eugenics, Abortion, and Evolutionary Deceptions

One complaint that is raised against biblical creationists is that we're wasting our time dealing with a biological theory, but evolution is much more than that. Not only does it rely on various scientific fields, it is also a philosophy of life. This is ironic, since evolution is based on death. Evolutionary thinking has given us social applications of Darwinian principles in tyrants like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and others. This, in turn, is based on eugenics, where the unfit are disallowed to reproduce — and are eliminated.


Evolutionary thinking has given us social evils like eugenics and abortion, among others. Taking the view that God created humans in his image gives a radically different (and life affirming) worldview.
Image credit: Pixabay / Skitterphoto
The social Darwinism "science" of eugenics was popular in the United States, but fell out of favor when Adolph Hitler used it in his quest for power. However, eugenics never really disappeared. Eugenics has been used under different names, and is regaining popularity again. The worst way is the evolutionary eugenics is used to justify abortion. Taking the view that God created humans in his image gives a radically different (and life affirming) worldview.
Western society’s eugenics disaster of the early 20th century sought to weed out the “unfit”—people seen as genetically dragging the human race down. It flowed from a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. The U.S. Supreme Court punctuated this blunder with the Buck v. Bell decision (1927) that effectively legalized eugenics practices. Though eugenics became widely stigmatized by the 1970s, a captivating fitness-survival-death mindset has endured. These death-fueled practices haven’t missed a step following the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) decision that legalized abortion, the new eugenics.

The Eugenics-Abortion Link

Early eugenicists won a scientific consensus by using a few strategies. They established peer review to secure credibility, abused peer review to monopolize control, crowned “experts” to project authority, and marginalized dissenters to enforce compliance. Though the public found forced sterilization distasteful, recent research by social scientists Deborah Barrett and Charles Kurzman reveal how eugenicists perpetuated their practices right under society’s nose. They document how eugenics-driven peer review continued by merely renaming the existing periodicals. The Annals of Eugenics transitioned to the Annals of Human Genetics, The Eugenics Review conveniently became The Journal of Biosocial Science, and The Eugenical News/Eugenical Quarterly morphed into Social Biology.
To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Survival of the Fittest, Eugenics, and Abortion".





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, April 17, 2015

Evolution, Science Bias and Abortion

Much of the secular press in the United States and elsewhere is biased toward leftist politics. Both of these are are in favor of abortion. It should not be surprising that much of the science reporting is also sympathetic toward killing unborn children, and evolutionary thinking is at the forefront.


As we can easily see, much of the secular press in the United States and elsewhere is biased toward leftist politics. Both of these are are in favor of abortion. It should not be surprising that much of the science reporting is also sympathetic toward killing unborn children, and evolutionary thinking is at the forefront.

Evolution has been used to promote abortion, including the infamous fraud by Haeckel. It should not really be that much of a surprise, since morality cannot come from evolution (despite the claims of some adherents), morality comes from God. Evolutionists will even write abortion off not only as a result of natural selection, but even justify abortion for gender selection, which is usually to abort female babies. Seems like the ultimate punishment for the "crime" of being an unborn female.

I recommend that you read "Abortion 'Science' Shows Its Deathly Bias".
  




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 29, 2014

What Does Science Have to do With Sexual Activities?


Give us a kiss...

It is becoming more frequent when "science" is promoting an agenda — usually, a leftist agenda. Sure, science is great when discussing sex properly and scientists are actually doing real science. But when we have bad science and pseudoscience being used to ridicule traditional sexual values, promote promiscuity and abortion, get involved in government-mandated contraception, supporting gender confusion — the false researchers and the science press do not keep their own domain and abandon their proper abode, there is a problem. Especially since so many people will accept what "scientists say" without question, even when scientist say things that have nothing to do with science.
To what extent should scientists presume to offer advice about sexual matters?

Beyond providing descriptions of body parts and how they work, science exits its domain when telling people how they should behave or think about sex. Yet repeatedly, editorials in journals and articles on science news sites engage in advocacy about sexual morality. Except in rare cases, it’s usually slanted from a leftist, libertine viewpoint.
To finish reading, you can click on "Scientists as Sex Counselors". 
 




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Hitler and Question Evolution Day


We know that Hitler was an evolutionist, and no, he was not a Christian. Other tyrants were atheist evolutionists. (Today's vitriolic evolutionists are scary in their own right.) Some of those re captioned Hitler things are hilarious, and I had to try my hand at it when I got the inspiration to have him upset about Question Evolution Day. It's nice that there's a template for it. Takes some time to get it right, though. Oh, and the actor that played Hitler? Excellent work. So anyway, this video is just under four minutes.









Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, December 23, 2013

Haeckel — Worse Than We Thought

People say that "science corrects itself". (But "science" is not an entity, so right away, they are guilty of the fallacy of reification.) This is not completely true. When it comes to evolutionism, proponents will resort to various tricks to keep their worldview going despite the evidence.

There are anti-creationists who insist that creationists (especially biblical creationists) are "liars" and "fact deniers". Their basis for such accusations? It is primarily because we do not believe in the atheistic, old-earth, evolutionary interpretations of the evidence. Further, we promote evidence that refutes evolution and affirms a young earth. This is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry.


Interestingly, those who call us "liars" are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, promoting not only bad science, carelessness (by people who should know better), deception and even outright fraud. Worse than this, shoddy research and dishonest pronouncements in attempts to rehabilitate dishonesty and bad research prove the accusers to be the liars, not us!

In a previous post, we heckled Haeckle's blatant fraud in embryonic recapitulation. And it is still in textbooks today. While creationists make honest mistakes, they are not in the habit of defending untruths. Nor are we in the habit of trying to make up our own "facts" to promote a fundamentally flawed worldview.

Perhaps one reason people keep Haeckel in the spotlight is because his pseudoscience has been used to justify abortion. After all, why worry when it's not human, but just a fish, right?

E. van Niekerk continues the exceptional analysis of Haeckel's material, and demonstrates that not only was there more problems with his stuff than we knew, the attempts to rehabilitate, excuse and even reinstate him (by people who know the facts) are misleading at best. For example, the blatant proven fraud is brushed aside in this Wikipedia article.
Ernst Haeckel is well known for his fakery of embryos in the tailbud stage of development. There is also the earlier issue of where Haeckel illegitimately reprinted the same woodcut three times, alleging these three illustrations represent different animals, while drawing conclusions from the (artificially created) similarities. One historian makes a serious attempt to excuse Haeckel, yet further analysis shows Haeckel’s deception is even worse than was previously thought.
You should delve into "Countering revisionism—part 2: Ernst Haeckel and his triple-woodcut print".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Audio Download — Real Science Radio Discussion

Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart, Fred Williams, Creation Science, Evolution"Greetings to the brightest audience in the country." I'm the QED Guy! Let me explain this audio.

A few weeks ago, I was privileged to return to the airwaves from Bob Enyart Live. The first time, it was indeed live. This time, it was recorded. Looks like I was promoted, too. "Real Science Radio" has science discussions, and there are often interviews with real scientists. Guess my material on logical fallacies was worthwhile. Or he mixed up the recordings and played it on the wrong day.

This discussion on logical fallacies, atheists and evolutionists was the final prompt for me to begin making the Piltdown Superman podcasts. (I hesitated to get fully into the logical fallacies series because I did not know when this show would be aired and posted.) Some of the items discussed on this show will be dealt with on the podcast, since Bob and I discussed several things in just a few minutes.

One problem with logical fallacies is that several can be combined or used in sequence. They blend, overlap and are even known by different names. The one using the fallacies may think he or she is offering a devastating argument, but is actually just looking silly (except to friends with a similar mindset).



Early in the discussion, Bob Enyart brought up a comment from someone who was banned from The Question Evolution Project Facebook Page. First, there was grousing about being banned. Then he went into circumstantial ad hominem (I don't know anything about astronomy because I read creationist material), and the remark also contained a genetic fallacy. Perhaps the "it's a pity" remark was a plea for sympathy, but I am only guessing on that part.



I made an odd comment that is unlikely to make sense outside of Colorado. Bob Enyart is a strong supporter of the Personhood Amendment. Referring to "Question Evolution Day", I said, "It's my person", instead of the more common, "It's my baby". From this point, I'll let the material speak for itself. You can listen online or download here.
Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart, Bob Sorensen, Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project







Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Stem Cell Research Can Be Done Morally

In recent years, American voters were bombarded with questions about embryonic stem cell research for medical and other purposes, and if federal funding to destroy the lives of the unborn to further this research should be allowed. All sorts of claims were made about the benefits of ESR, but they were with little merit. It was mostly emotional hype based on leftist politics and the "right" to abortion.



Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has been progressing. There are some startling benefits from the stem cells of humans — and some animals. The results are very encouraging, and human life does not need to be sacrificed.
With adult and induced pluripotent stem cells in abundance, it should not be necessary to destroy human embryos to understand stem cell science.
Research with adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) is continuing to produce amazing discoveries.
Read about some of these amazing discoveries at "Stem Cell Science Can Proceed Ethically".





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 26, 2013

Evolution, Abortion and Violence Against Women

The real "war on women" is being done through abortion: Women are killing women. And evolutionary concepts are being used to justify this violence.

It is ironic that critics of the Bible misunderstand (deliberately, I believe) that it actually affirms the value of women — sometimes contrary to cultures of the times. In contrast, the evolutionary worldview devalues human life. "Survival of the fittest", natural selection, "It's only a fish going through evolutionary stages" and other excuses contribute to this concept.

In many cultures, women are of lesser value. With the increase of abortion "rights" in the West, there is also an increase in abortions because the mothers do not want girl babies. Here is the real "war on women"! Ironically, abortion is fundamental to "feminism" today, but history shows quite the opposite. What value does society place on women, born or unborn? Biblical Christianity stands in stark contrast, placing value on humans who are created in the image of God.

Lita Cosner writes,
Abortion-rights activists, especially among the modern feminist movement, proclaim abortion to be an important right for women. They often resort to scaremongering, claiming that if it were revoked, it would send the world back to the (largely mythical) era of back-alley abortions, and would represent a huge step backwards for women’s rights.
Later, she adds,
If society cannot interfere with a mother’s choice to abort for any reason she wants (‘abortion is between a woman and her doctor’), how can it be wrong for her to abort based on the sex of the baby? If it is okay for her to abort because she doesn't want a baby, why is it wrong for her to abort because she doesn't want a girl? In fact, the ability to choose the sex of a child is a logical extension of the ‘right to choose’ if that ‘right’ exists. If abortion is not objectionable in and of itself, why should we be troubled by the growing trend of baby girls being aborted in disproportionate numbers? After all, it is the woman’s choice!
You can read, in full context, "An Indispensable Right or Violence Against Women?", here. Then I hope you come back to see the video, below.





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Genetic Controls of the Embryo — Unfriendly to Evolution

Flickr/Ed Uthman (image use does not imply endorsement of this post)
Let me over-simplify: Neo-Darwinism relies heavily on a series of gradual mutations so that one organism can, eventually, turn into another organism. Microbes to microbiologist, goo to you, that sort of thing. This flies in the face of observational science. Everything has to be in place at the same time, or an organism cannot change, or even survive, because mutations are meaningless at best, but usually harmful.


The startling complexity of DNA and genetics should make anyone an evolution denier with even a cursory glance at the processes. It helps illustrate the design and wonder of life. For example, embryonic development has genes that switch growth processes on and off... Here, let the author explain:

As they say in the real estate business, location is everything. It looks like the same working principle applies to genes and their control sequences in the genome during embryo development. And not just the gene’s simple location in a linear sense, but its three-dimensional spatial location. 
During the growth of an embryo, genes that direct the developmental processes are precisely switched on and off. This highly complex process contextually confers specific properties to different cells that eventually become the various organs and tissues of the developing embryo. The precise timing and control of these genetic switches is critical to building a properly proportioned healthy animal. 
One of the best studied individual genes in this process encodes a protein called “Fgf8” (Fibroblast growth factor 8). There are actually a number of different types of fibroblast growth-factor genes that are not only important for basic cell survival, but also for embryonic development, cell growth, cell differentiation, and tissue repair.
Let your knowledge grow by finishing "Embryology Gene Control Confounds Evolution"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Abortion and the Evolutionary Worldview

Abortion has roots in the devaluing of human life. The evolutionary worldview does this very thing, and has been the basis of many kinds of evil in the world. Molecules-to-man evolutionary thinking easily supports abortion.
The "Meme" Police want these things to be funny. Too bad. This one is intended to make a point.
Today is the 40th anniversary of America's legalization of the holocaust against the unborn. We hear about "a woman's right to choose" and other emotion-based "arguments" that are quickly refuted. Ironically, "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) of "Roe v. Wade" fame, is now a Christian and pro-life campaigner.

Abortion has roots in the devaluing of human life. The evolutionary worldview does this very thing, and has been the basis of many kinds of evil in the world. Molecules-to-man evolutionary thinking easily supports abortion.
There are biblical and logical reasons to regard human life commencing at conception. Even many rabid abortionists today concede that the unborn does not suddenly become human when it starts to get its oxygen from air, rather than its previous source. Philosopher and ethicist and animal rights activist, Australian-born Princeton Professor Peter Singer, has conceded as much. He also states that the only reason to forbid infanticide as an absolute would be if we were made in the image of God, as was once believed. Since that is not so, he states, and since we allow in many countries abortion (i.e. killing the baby) right until the time its head appears (and for the sorts of reasons—including inconvenience or personal hardship, or just plain preference—that you mention in your email) it would be rational for a society to seriously consider giving parents of the newborn an arbitrary period following birth (say 3 months) to decide whether that baby should go on living. See this article. Singer also points out that similar things were customary in a number of pagan societies, e.g. ancient Rome. Singer’s writings show that his entire ethic is informed and driven by his understanding of evolution, so a rabbit has more rights than an infant in the womb at a certain stage of its development.
Read the rest of "Is Evolution to Blame?" in context, here.




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Has "Science" Helped Us Advance Morally?


Biological evolution has been taken as a scientific truth in nature and misapplied to society as a whole, with all kinds of evil as a result. Tyrants have based their murderous regimes on evolutionism [1, 2], eugenics and abortion [3], and more are based on evolutionary concepts like "survival of the fittest". Of course, Darwin's Cheerleaders are popularizing evolution with bad science, relentless publicity and rewriting history.
Ideas have consequences. Over the past century evolutionary thought has become dominant in much more than just the historical sciences. Other branches of science as well as education, law, history, public policy and media have increasingly been influenced by the idea that the world arose spontaneously. This tremendous influence of evolutionary thought has consequences that are largely misunderstood. The misconception is that, while there have been some missteps along the way such as in the twentieth century’s eugenics movement, those were both minor and largely behind us now and the greater and lasting consequences of evolution have been positive. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Evolution’s influence


An obvious example of evolution’s influence can be seen in the popular misconceptions held by those in positions of power. After the 2005 Dover trial, Judge John Jones, who ruled that evolution must be taught in our schools, recalled that he “was taken to school” by the evolutionists. It was, Jones recalled, “the equivalent of a degree in this area.” Unfortunately what evolutionists such as Ken Miller “taught” Jones was
a series of scientific misrepresentations.

But these were not the only misrepresentations that made their way into American jurisprudence in the Dover trial. For the judge did not enter into his new training as a complete novice. As Jones later
explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”

But the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, upon which the play is based, was a show trial used to promote evolution. The entire event was cleverly orchestrated by the ACLU to advance evolutionary thought and disparage skeptics.
You can read the rest of "There is a Big Misconception Right Now About the Impact of Evolution", here.




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Evolution and Abortion

Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read . . . that he had preserved his belief in God. I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head.
— Leon Trotsky


Eugenics Congress logo
Stop and think about it for a few moments. Masquerading as "science" and "proven fact", the faith-based philosophy of evolution is used as a scientific justification for all kinds of evils in the world. Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Communism, Nazism's extermination of the "lesser races", eugenics and more all evolved from a common ancestor called Darwinism. After all, it's "survival of the fittest", isn't it? While wars, selfishness, hatred and all sorts of other evils exist apart from evolutionism, this "scientific theory" gives a pseudo-scientific excuse for them, and even increases all kinds of evils.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic eugenicist and wanted to "exterminate the Negro population". Evolutionism is used as an excuse for abortion. Follow the excuses: There is no Creator. Life, the universe and everything all happened through chance. Everything came from nothing. You are the product of gradual change, mutations and accidents. There is no purpose, no meaning to your life. Do whatever you can get away with. You came from nothing, so you have nowhere to go. (Atheism has such a compelling message of hope!) Why not abort "that thing" growing inside of you because of that careless sexual adventure you had the other night? Or for guys, why not have her "take care of it" so you don't have to deal with your responsibilities?

Further, evolution tells us "that thing" in the womb is not even a baby. No, they say it's a "product of conception", "conceptus", "potential human" or "fetus". (Ironically, the word "fetus" means "offspring" or "bringing forth"; in other words, it means baby.) Those word games should not fool anyone except people who want to be fooled. After all, abortion is a highly profitable industry based on convenience, immorality and selfishness.

"But Cowboy Bob, what could possibly be wrong with aborting something growing in the womb if it is not even human yet? Science has shown that the fetus is simply going through the stages of evolutionary history; you're only killing a fish-like thing."

Here you go:

Haeckel's Embryo Drawing
Haeckel's faked drawings
In an evolutionary mindset, the unborn have been treated as though they are going through an “animal phase” and can simply be discarded.
Early evolutionist Ernst Haeckel first popularized the concept that babies in the womb are actually undergoing animal developmental stages, such as a fish stage and so on. This idea has come to be known as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haeckel even faked drawings of various animals’ embryos and had them next to drawn human embryos looking virtually identical. 
. . .

Through this deception, many women have been convinced that the babies they are carrying in their wombs are simply going through an animal phase and can be aborted. Author Ken Ham states:

In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
Evolutionary views have decreased the value of human life. Throughout the world the casualties of the war on children is staggering. Though deaths of children and the unborn did exist prior to the “evolution revolution,” they have increased exponentially as a result of Darwinian teachings. Source: "The Results of Evolution".
On the other hand, if evolutionism is false after all (and this site has plenty of evidence that it is, plus links to even more information discrediting evolution), you should seriously think about the implications: God is the Creator, he makes the rules, he loves you and you should find out what he has to say.

You have been given a great deal to think about. Here is a video to make you think some more. It takes about a half an hour:







Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels