Those who know the God of all creation, also know He alone makes our brief journey on earth a fitting preparation for eternal life in His presence.  God’s revelation gives us all we need to bring us to Christ the Saviour, to new life, power over our fallen nature and a wonderful journey with the Lord, even in this troubled world.

Andrew Coyne is a great writer, but he remains a mere mortal.  Evolution is one of the biggest lies foisted on humanity, by the father of all lies.  Andrew is not the acme of evolution, and no human being is.  We are God’s handiwork, made in His image.  Evolutionists sneer at God, who spoke us into being.  That is a miracle they say.  We cannot allow a divine foot into the door.  Ah but then they furiously set about to pull millions and billions of years out of their magic hat, as many millions as they wish.  Then they do incantations that claim a singularity smaller than a pin-point exploded and in time organized itself into all the vastness of earth, its universe and all the galaxies beyond and beyond.  Then from no life, that is non-life, that is beyond anything we have ever seen or know to be scientifically accurate, …… never mind science for the next imagined millions of years, this non-life emerges as LIFE.  Oh but it was just ‘simple‘ life, don’t you know.  Yes and then Simple just pulled up its little sockies, determined to become Sampson, Solomon and Scientist one bright morning.  Simple needed bazillion, real-science defying miracles to get here, but just shut your brain down and BELIEVE.

Only if you can convince people that they are NOTHING,…..nothing but the result of junk science fables, about life emerging from non-life and painfully, slowly crawling itself upward.  Our so-called ascent from nothing, guided by no one.  Nothing to something, simple to superb, against all known laws of science.  Garbage stories that do not match the high standards of TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, FALSIFIABLE real science,

Andrew Coyne is wrong, and evolution is a gross lie.  But if you can tear faith, hope and trust in our creator out of the soul of humanity, then voila,……anything goes!!  Why not eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die, and return to nothing more than the dust you came from?  What then is wrong with men gorging themselves on vile, degrading, destructive pornography?  Why not use little children any way you want?  There is no god in the evolutionist’s worldview, (or at least he hopes not, and does his best to suppress all knowledge of Him in everyone else.)

See,….. if you can convince everyone, including children, that God is not real, that there is no ultimate Judge, whom you WILL answer to, why then you can use human bodies, and if babies grow in female bodies, just rip them out, call them mere tissue.  What can stop you from any and all forms of injustice, if it pleases you to become rich, powerful, sated?  Too bad if others get crushed or destroyed in the process.  Its a short trip, grab what you can.

Removing faith in God is of top importance to the evolutionists, because only when that succeeds can they overcome the still small voice beating within our souls, that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.  That a wonderful Creator and Lord makes life rich and full of meaning.  Life lived in the light of God is higher, lofty and we even catch glimpses of holiness, even in this present fallen world.

Evolutionists will face God, whether they scream and rail against him now makes no difference.  The end of the story has been written in the Book of Life.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/27/let-the-so-cons-sing-out-a-joyful-chant-were-here-were-square-get-used-to-it/

Excerpts from  – ANDREW COYNE – National Post

The problem with social conservatives, leading pundits agree, is that they are socially conservative. If only they would see the folly in this, and be something else — something, that is, other than what they are. Or at any rate, if they won’t be “cured,” can’t they at least shut up about it?

Until such time, the pundits concur, they must be shunned, silenced, expelled from the company of other conservatives. For they have committed the cardinal sin of openly expressing their convictions, and as such put at risk the perennial Conservative ambition of convincing the public they haven’t any.

This old standby — Why Can’t a So-Con Be More Like a Pundit? — has been given fresh life by events on the Ontario political scene, notably the discomfort of some conservatives, and Conservatives, with the Liberal government’s recently unveiled sexual education curriculum.

…….. Conservative Rick Nicholls somehow took the controversy as an opportunity to reveal to a waiting world that he doesn’t believe in evolution, with predictable — and richly deserved — results.

But it’s clear these irresistible fools were not what was really on the pundits’ collective mind. Brainless public remarks might be the symptom, but social conservatism was the disease. Bad enough these people will not let the abortion issue drop, but now here they are getting all worked up about teaching anal sex to 12-year-olds.

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with disagreement. If we think the so-cons’ fears about the curriculum are wrong or exaggerated — as it happens, I think they are — it’s part of our job to say so. Yet what is equally clear from much of the commentary is that the pundits’ complaint has less to do with the substance of what the so-cons are saying than the fact they are saying it.

I don’t mean to suggest they don’t disagree with the so-cons — they clearly do — but the sin of which they accuse them is not the sin of error, but the sin of sincerity. By saying what they truly believe about a matter of great ethical importance to them, the so-cons are putting their consciences ahead of political expediency. I repeat, this is meant as a criticism.

“Tory MPPs are plunging their party into a culture war,” fumed the Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson. And that’s wrong not so much because they are wrong, but because “Conservatives lose when they focus on social conservatism and win when they focus on economic conservatism.”

By contrast, the example of Stephen Harper was approvingly and repeatedly cited. “Mr. Harper has won three federal elections,” pundit Ibbitson enthused, “by prohibiting debate on abortion or other social-conservative hot buttons.”

My Postmedia colleague Michael den Tandt agreed. “Stephen Harper’s long political journey, from Reform Party theorist to sixth-longest-serving Canadian prime minister, would not have happened… without first turning his back on the evangelicals in his base.” The “successful formula” was that evinced by “his iron-fisted clampdown on B.C. Conservative MP Mark Warawa’s 2013 effort to ignite a national debate about sex-selective abortion.”

Now it’s entirely possible that my colleagues are right — right, not just in their aversion to social conservatism on its merits, but also in their apparent conviction, common to most pundits, that the position they think is right is also the politically winning position. They’re wholly entitled to think that, as they are also entitled to think that winning should be the priority.

I’m just not clear why they insist the so-cons should adopt the same priority. Perhaps it is the duty of a party leader, as they suggest, to enforce “iron-fisted” party discipline on dissenters, to the point not merely of whipping votes but “prohibiting debate.” But why is it the duty of journalists to help them? When did we enlist as party whips?

Me, I think so-cons should be so-cons. Or at least, I think they have a right to be: not only to think what they wish, but if they think it is important and right, to say it out loud, and to try to persuade others to believe it as well. Indeed, for members of Parliament, I might almost say it was their obligation: for there it is not only a matter of being true to themselves, but of representing their constituents.

That doesn’t mean they should say plainly idiotic things, make detestable insinuations or statements at odds with established facts. But that is a very different thing than merely being at odds with received opinion or upsetting the party whip. It isn’t radicalism that is objectionable in politics, for radicalism is often more thoughtful and well-considered than moderatism. It is extremism.

(…and in Andrew Coynes astounding, amazing complex brain, more intricate than any computer devised by man,……he thinks that he is just the product of a blind, clumsy, destructive evolutionary process.  And anyone who believes an astonishing designer, engineer, architect, artist God created him, is an idiot, worthy of scorn.)

Advertisements