Pro Rege Papers

It has just been reported that Homo floresiensis, an ape-man hopeful, is only a pygmy with a condition called microcephaly. This condition made the skull of the fossil look abnormally small, prompting researchers in 2004 to evaluate the skeleton as the remains of a “hobbit-like” ape-man. They crafted a new species out of that one skeleton, neglecting to collect further evidence (as usual). I remember watching a PBS show on it, with Darwinists touting it as a great discovery.

This is just another example of the hurriedness of evolutionists to accept a fossil that would prove evolution without checking out the facts completely. You see this in the already debunked Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, and others. This syndrome is almost identical to the hurriedness of the mainstream media to accept stories that would incriminate Israel, as shown recently in the masterful debunking of the “missile-destroyed ambulance” story by Zombie.

Evolutionists constantly have to retract or say something new that nullifies an old view. Another hypothesis is up and running now that says the Big Bang was just the colliding of a tiny bit of material with another universe existing in another dimension. The supposed age of the earth is constantly changing. I could go on and on with examples. Man’s views are constantly changing when he is not grounded on God’s Word. The Bible is the only solid foundation from which to work from. It is truth, and when you contradict it, you run into problems.

AiG said a year-and-half ago that “Homo floresiensis” was just a human with microcephaly. But as usual, the evolutionary community didn’t listen. But they now admit it, along with what we’ve been saying for years about no real races, and so on. It’s funny to watch sometimes.

About four months ago, Axinar posted a comment on one of my entries giving a whole list of ape-men that supposedly led us on the journey from hydrogen to human. One of the ones he listed was “Homo floresiensis”. GavinO and I had fun with his list, but my initial response has now been proven yet again, that all those are humans, apes, or fakes.

Note: The heads-up on this came from AiG’s great series, News to Note.

UPDATE: The link wasn’t valid for a while. This one should be good.

This is a short post, as will be many of my following posts, I’m afraid I’m getting really busy and don’t have as much time to post now as I did this summer. Daily posts will likely stop, and this blog will become more weekly.
AiG has a really good weekly series going, News to Note, where they reply to the various media articles about creation and evolution. This is their third or fourth one, responding to various things such as DNA discoveries, the ongoing ID controversy in public schools, various stereotypes about creationists, and a few other things.

Israel launched another raid into Lebanon with the expressed intention of stopping a shipment of arms getting to Hezbollah. Of course, everybody is angry about Israel’s supposed violation of the truce, without saying that Hezbollah violated it by trying to get weapons and refusing to disarm. People are disappointed with France, which hasn’t been very reliable or diligent in its obligations to keep the peace. That is to be expected, of course, along with the ceasefire not working, and the UN’s inability to do anything. Just another straw in the barn sized stack of hay showing evidence of the UN’s inability to accomplish its mission.
For you new readers, I would recommend going back to my previous posts and read them to get more of an idea of what this blog is mostly about. The Islam discussion was off topic, though still enjoyable and educational, as all debates are. I hope you will post your thoughts as they come to you in comments, which I will likely be able to answer, since that doesn’t take as much time.

UPDATE: This is also a commemoration of my 100th post, though that passed a few days ago. I also have exactly 200 comments total, as of this writing. That’s an average of 2 comments for every post. Thanks for the responses guys!

Over the years, I have noticed that most of the secular world view Jesus as a good man who taught that we should be good people. They completely ignore the rest of the Bible and the rest of Jesus’ life.

I’ve gotten many accusations from non-Christians lately that I’m not a Christian because I disagree with people (particularly Muslims). They imply that because I disagree with them, I hate them, and therefore am breaking Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself. But Jesus didn’t teach that we could fulfill all the demands of the law in ourselves, summed up in “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,” and “your neighbor as yourself.” As expounded by Paul and others in the New Testament, the law is to condemn us. Which one of us has always loved God and our neighbor perfectly? Jesus’ message was that we are sinful, and need salvation. He said that His purpose in coming was to be the Messiah who will save the people from their sins. He received the punishment from God for our sins when He suffered and died on the cross. That way, our sins were put on Him, and His perfect righteousness put on us. Then He rose from the dead, signifying that the Father accepted His sacrifice. This message (the Gospel) is contained clearly in the Bible. But you wouldn’t get any of this from the people who are accusing me. They profess to be Christians (while I of course am not because of my vehement hate) but reject the Bible’s message, reject God and His Son, and ignore the plan of salvation in favor of a self-righteous profession of the Law, just like the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned.

People need to look to God for salvation and read the whole Bible, looking at the context in the Old Testament to Christ’s coming, instead of quoting Jesus’ sermons without understanding who Jesus is or why He came.

I just got the heads up from Michael Prescott that two FOX News reporters were kidnapped in Gaza. That shows the persistent violence of the terrorists there, despite all international treaties and agreements.

Even though that is horrible, it is not so surprising. What is so surprising is the response from some of the liberal left. In an entry on a liberal site that recorded the incident, they posted comments that make me doubt why they are allowed to be citizens. The outpouring of hatred against fellow-Americans is so horrible to read, I’m not going to put it up here. Just go to the link above. The leftists wonder whether the FOX News reporters are human, and say that they deserve being abducted for their acts. They go on to make what amounts to death threats against Bill O’Reily and other FOX anchors. Of course the usual appellations of Nazi are repeated over and over again. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The moderator of the string didn’t shut it down till more hateful comments than you can read had been posted. He also deleted some of the comments, so there’s no telling what some of those contained.

These are the peace mongers we’re talking about here. The anti-violence and anti-war protesters are saying this stuff. I guess hate and intolerance only apply to other people, not them.

This is a response to Percival’s post about Islam. You’d better read his entry if you want to understand anything I say here.

If you read his entry, you’d think that I said a lot of things I didn’t. He makes some important mistakes about what I said that changes the argument. If you read my post and compare it with what he says that I said, you will find plenty of errors. Some of his arguments are actually convincing if I said what he thinks, but I didn’t. Whatever, this will set him straight.

…we should try to be less comprehensive - take one thing at a time?

Sorry, that’s my style. You should see some of the debates that Axinar and I have. They go on for at least one page per reply.

1. Bigotry v. Bigot:

You accused me of bigotry. The personal form of that noun is bigot. Logically you are calling me a bigot. Don’t shy away from the term, it doesn’t mean anything to me because I know it doesn’t apply to me. You said that bigotry is defined as “to condemn a group of people by ascribing negative qualities to them.” Now that’s a connotation, but we’ll deal with it anyway. You said that we, pronouncing “anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim rhetoric” are being bigots. We are not condemning Muslims as people, except when they are terrorists (and I hope you would agree on that point). We are condemning Islam as a horrible religion. Let me repeat that: We [at least myself, I can’t speak for others] are condemning Islam, not Arabs. That’s an important point that you should pay attention to.

2. Ranting:

Okay maybe not ranting per se, but it was interesting to see all of you, especially ThursdayNext talk in a self-righteous tone about how other people are so insensitive and horrible, whereas you guys are completely rational and civil. Then you had a round of agreements with wishes for peace. Okay, it wasn’t ranting, but it was funny.

3. Poop?

You say that you are “not attacking the Muslim way of life” but rather their “ideology, doctrines, and ‘end products’.” By “end products,” do you mean poop? How about consolidating your phrase into “beliefs,” which I think is what you’re trying to talk about.

This paragraph is based on an assumption that I said something that I didn’t. I didn’t say Muslim’s ideology, etc; I said ideology etc. of Islam. The end product of Islam is not poop. The end products of Islam are destruction, terror, and tyranny. I didn’t even say “the Muslim way of life”; I said the “Arab way of life”. There is quite a difference. Arabs are people with middle-brown skin, who speak Arabic, and live roughly in the Middle East. I hold none of those things against them. Most (but not all) Arabs are Muslims. Even that, specifically, I don’t have against them. If Islam were Christianity (which of course it isn’t) then I wouldn’t mind. It is Islam that I have the problem with. Islam is a religion that encompasses an ideology, doctrine, etc that is false. Its followers are called Muslims (which is not synonymous with Arabs). Okay, I’ll call it a religion. I just wanted to make that distinction in my last post for reasons that had come up at that time. Now that we’re clear on that, I’ll use it again.

Percival goes on in the next three paragraphs to pick apart a straw man. He repeats the phrase “Muslim way of life” over and over again as if I had said that; and fails to make a distinction between Muslim and Arab.

4. Defining Bigotry:

What he describes in the next few paragraphs is hatred, not bigotry. As I explained with my illustration about racism as opposed to disagreeing with Islam, bigotry is hating someone for something that they can’t help. It is part of their existence, they can’t change it, but you still hate them for it. Muslims can change.

Yet to suggest that people who hate blacks literally hate them for the color of their skin is absurd.

Yes it is, so you’re saying you’re not a racist; that’s good. Yes, of course people hate them for other reasons besides skin color. I just said that in passing. They hate them for other things too, but they still use skin color, physical features, etc. to identify them and thus discriminate against them.

Anyone who hates black people hates them because of the negative stereotypes they hold about them. You hold negative stereotypes about Muslims and the religion of Islam.

I don’t think that racists hate blacks because they hold stereotypes against them. What was the original act that they committed that could be applied to the whole? It wasn’t anything that would be different than what whites did. Again, it goes back to just the matter of skin color, physical differences, etc. The only stereotype I hold against Muslims is that they hold to Islam. That, in fact, is the definition of Muslim.

Percival then goes on to take a couple of my statements out of context and mesh them together.

You state: “You are implying that Aunty Belle, Stogie, and I are condemning specific persons themselves. You are implying that we hate certain Arabs. I definitely do not.” I’ve never cited any particular “Arabs” that you or anyone else hates – by “Arabs” I think you mean Muslims, which is the specific group I think we’re supposed to be talking about.

No, I don’t mean Muslims. I mean Arabs, the specific people in the Middle East. I don’t mean particular people, I mean the people as a group of individuals. If you’re talking about individual Muslims too, I don’t hate them either. I disagree with them. Disagreeing with them is much, much different than hating them. I hate Islam. (How many times am I going to have to make that distinction?)

you understand yourself as not truly disliking Muslims because “they’re capable of changing their beliefs” – to yours, I presume?

I define myself as not a bigot because they’re capable of changing.

Tolerance vs. Intolerance:

Intolerance is becoming something in many people’s minds that traditionally it wasn’t. People are being labeled intolerant because they refuse to say that another person’s beliefs are just as true as theirs. They’re being labeled that because they say that another person is (God forbid) wrong. However, I have always believed in absolutes. There is absolute truth, and absolute falsehood, and so on. Those absolutes demand that some people are wrong and that you shouldn’t change just to accommodate falsehood. So, in reality, you can’t stand me because I stand strong in my beliefs. That’s intolerance toward what you view as intolerance. Not to mention that Muslims aren’t exactly the most tolerant people out there. Remember the Danish incident?

Religion:

My point was that you, as an outsider should not be saying that you know more about a religion than the insiders. Yes, you can study at one of the best religious schools in the nation, but you still don’t have the scoop of what insiders have. The imams, clerics, etc. in the West, as I have said before, want to paint a wonderful picture of Islam. The communists did the same thing all through the ‘20s, ‘30s, and early ‘40s. People had virtually no clue about what was really going on in Russia.

By the way, just so everyone knows who keeps on saying this, I don’t watch FOX News. I don’t even get cable or satellite. I get my news largely from NBC, a little bit of ABC, the News Hour, BBC, and of course the blogosphere.

Mullahs:

Now those are the minority of mullahs, imams, clerics that speak out against terror.

Scripture:

Don’t even get me started on your example. Just read my blog.

Terrorism:

That paragraph still sounds like you’re giving an excuse for terrorism.

The major difference between them is that one attacks civilians willingly, whereas the other focuses on civilians primarily for their attacks.

I’m sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say that one attacks civilians willingly, whereas the other focuses on military (guerrilla Hezbollah troops) targets primarily for their attacks. If you want to dispute it further, first read my post that I linked to.

Between 2000, the year that Israel withdrew from Lebanon, and July 2006, exactly one Israeli civilian was killed by Hezbollah. The border during that period was extremely safe and stable by historical standards. Now, just this summer, we’re closing in on a thousand combined Israeli and Lebanese civilian deaths. All over the world there have been sustained truces for long periods of time with very low intensity conflict that has served to protect civilians. North and South Korea. Taiwan and China. The US and the USSR, East and West Germany – with the conflicts there coming to an end without warfare.

What does that have to do with present situations? The border was peaceful, now it’s not. Why? Because Hezbollah flared up the whole conflict again by kidnapping Israeli troops and launching rockets.

True Religions:

It’s a matter of faith. It’s something I cannot convince you of, Percival. You can see the fruits of Christianity as opposed to Islam and compare them (rather, contrast them): Science vs. backwardness, prosperous economies vs. oil-based and largely poor economies, a resemblance of love with the poring out of charity and aid vs. hate and terrorism, etc. Even these, however will not convince you. You need the Holy Spirit to work in you.

My story on Rush Limbaugh:

I did not tell that story in self-righteousness at all. I told it to contrast Christianity and Islam. Jesus said, “There is but one way to the Father, and that by me… I am the way, the truth, and the life… I am the door.” He didn’t say you could find salvation in Allah, or Muhammad, or your good works (which is what Islam is, a religion of good works). Percival then goes on to say that I can’t think rationally, without pointing out any holes in the story why Islamic clerics didn’t condemn 9/11 and censure Al-Qaeda.

I’ll say it one more time: I don’t hate the people; I hate the ideology.

Yes, the majority of Muslims don’t go out and try to blow up as many “infidels” as they can. They have responsibilities that they have to attend to. I might add also that many, many Muslims are nominal. The fact that the majority of Muslims don’t do those things doesn’t mean that Islam is therefore kind and gentle. Islam does not condemn terror. Neither do the majority of Muslims. What about Muhammad? Are you saying that he didn’t understand his own religion? He went out and did a modern form of terrorism: the “convert or die” approach.

you do have prejudice against Muslims

How many times do I have to say this?

A finally got rid of a lot of nagging problems today. I’ve displayed my name on the post info bar at the end of each entry. The italics in the sidebar headers are gone, although they never appeared anyway in Internet Explorer and Opera. I solved the big problem of displaying all my posts on the index page. Loading my blog should be much easier now.

I’ve also got the homepage up at www.prorege.org.

Many people pretend neutrality in their views. Journalists say time after time that they’re unbiased in their reporting. Educators, bloggers, and many common people usually pretend impartialness in their writing and speaking. In reality though, there is no absolute neutrality that a human being can possess.

All humans have an opinion on everything. Unless you’re going to say something completely factual like, “At 5:30 pm, Sally went to the store,” you can’t be completely unbiased. Bias is part of humanity since the fall. We cannot control our bias in what we say. We insert it unconsciously. Even the sentence above could be biased toward Sally, since it doesn’t mention anything about who was with her. She could have been a kidnapper, and was taking a victim to a store that she owned to hold that person hostage. We don’t know, but that is a very important part of biasness today in reporting is leaving things out.

People can have a completely wrong view if they don’t know all of the information in a certain case. If you leave out one, small, but essential fact, the story could take on a whole new meaning that could be completely false.

Educators always have bias toward a certain view. You can’t avoid making a statement in commentary on an event. Bias also directly affects the way you interpret an event. People sometimes ignore facts in their prejudice. Take the Hezbollah-Israel conflict, for example. Some people say it’s a case of an aggressor overwhelming a small organization of poor, unprivileged people. Others say that it’s a case of defensive measures to insure that the organization does not use terrorist tactics against the country. It all depends on your bias as to how you accept and interpret the evidence. The same thing applies to science. Creationists say that such and such is proof of creation, whereas evolutionists say that it’s proof of evolution. It depends on what evidence you’re looking at, and what your bias is.

Photos and videos can give impressions from the angles they’re taking the picture from. You can see the amount of deception that pictures can contain from the Reutergate incident and the following discoveries having to do with “The Green Helmet Guy”, “The Collapsed Building that was Destroyed Over and Over Again”, etc. More are coming out everyday. Just read a few of the things coming out of Little Green Footballs.

There is also no neutrality in worldview. You can’t be partly Christian and partly secular, or Muslim, or what-have-you at the same time. They are what you call mutually exclusive views. Either you accept God and the offer of the Gospel, or you are not saved. It’s that simple. There’s no “balancing your good works against your bad ones”. That’s a myth, and if you’re trusting in it, you are headed for trouble.