Principled Conservatives Voting for Hillary?

Oddly enough, there are still some Conservatives who are mystified at the claim that a choice to vote for a third party candidate or not to vote at all is, in the end, a vote for Hillary. So here is one last attempt to paint a picture of the problem.

 

hillary-trump

It is simple, really. In order to defeat Hillary Clinton, Conservatives must turn out on election day and they must cast their votes, in unity, for a candidate other than Clinton. Every one who understands the concept of elections and voting understands that whoever gets the most votes will win.

In the last Presidential Election some 126 million votes were cast. Let’s say this happens again and the voters are equally divided between Conservatives and Liberals. If all the Liberals turn out and vote for Clinton and all the Conservatives “turn out” but on principle

  • some vote for Trump,
  • some stay home because they reject both Hillary and Trump,
  • some decide to go ahead and vote for Hillary,
  • and yet others decide to vote for a third party candidate of which there are hundreds.

It is obvious that Hillary would win because (assuming the number of Conservatives and Liberals are equal) the unified Liberal vote cast all of its votes for Hillary while the split vote of the Conservative voting block decided to divide its support among Trump, no one, Hillary, and third party candidates.

The Non-Voters

Specifically addressing those who decide not to vote, it should be obvious that a “no” vote in this case (let’s call it a vote cast at home) leaves the Trump ballot box short a ballot while the Hillary box received its Hillary vote. In essence, a “home vote” leaves its corollary Hillary vote unmatched.

The Third Party Voters

Those who say that we should vote for a better third party candidate may be right but the problem with that logic is that there is no consensus on who that third party candidate should be. So, the third party vote movement helps to splinter the Conservative vote. Now, the unified Liberal vote that is cast for Hillary is essentially unmatched by the Conservative vote because votes have been spread across many candidates instead of just one.

The Conservatives-Turned-Hillary Voters

For those Conservatives (if they really are that) who have decided to vote for Hillary because they are offended by Trump, they will, on principle, cast there vote in a way that makes them feel more authentically Christian, and yet they will simply be helping put a different offensive candidate into office that will continue the policies of Obama yet adding her own sophisticated brand of Clinton corruption to the mix. Further, she will support abortion, homosexuality, religious intolerance, illegal immigration, etc.

Splintered Conservatives VS Unified Liberals = President Hillary Clinton

It should be obvious, then, that unless Conservatives remain unified and vote together for Donald Trump, (who at this point is the only candidate with enough support or name recognition to even come close to competing with Hillary),  then Hillary Clinton will be elected. So, those voting for Trump are doing the only viable thing that can be done to avoid another Clinton presidency. Those who, on principle, decide to stay home or vote for a third party candidate are simply helping to put Hillary in office.

 

 

Tagged , , ,

Even Conservative FOX Doesn’t Get Trump!

I was disappointed in several of the Fox News team last evening (Hume, Megyn Kelly, Dana Perrino) when they made a big deal about Trump’s unwillingness to accept the results if the election. Are they paying attention? With the Veritas videos, the State Department/FBI situation, the missing 33,000 emails, and a shamelessly biased media, why would anyone expect a fair election? As he said today, he will accept the outcome of a CLEAR (read: FAIR) election but he reserves the right to challenge an unfair one. Would Dems do any less? Would Republicans? No!

Tagged , , ,

The Mind, the Soul, and a Clear Path to Victory

head-shot-3Good morning SGT family! I hope you will hear from the Lord today.

Today I will be sharing a message entitled,  The Mind, the Soul, and a Clear Path to Victory (just click the link and you will have my notes).

Tagged , , , ,

It’s All Good!

Hey for those of you who were turned away at SGT today (if that’s you you know what the situation was), FYI–It’s All Good Now! Come back! We are going to have a great day today!

Philosophical Theology: Why it Matters |

What it is . . . Let me first give a simple working definition of philosophical theology. If philosophy is an attempt at a rational interpretation of reality, and if theology is the study of God, t…

Source: Philosophical Theology: Why it Matters |

Modernistic Bias

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow comRichard Lewontinpel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997 Issue
Tagged , ,

When the Wheels Come Off the Wagon

I suppose no one should be surprised that in a world that has accepted homosexuality and transgenderism there would also be a place for whales evolving from small land animals. It fits right in.whale evolution video image

Here is a great little video which not only demonstrates some less than inspiring animation but also how obvious it is that the wheels have come off the wagon with evolution. Hey, there’s an idea! Let’s see a video with the wheels coming off of a wagon as it goes barreling down the trail. That would be a more accurate representation of the value of evolution.

Evolutionists unite! So much to be proud of with this video!

Tagged ,

Texas mom wakes up from surgery with a British accent

Wow! You think you’ve heard it all…

Rare speech disorder leaves a Houston-area mother of three sounding like she belongs on “Downton Abbey”

Source: Texas mom wakes up from surgery with a British accent

Bears Evolving into Whales!

An interesting story surrounds the following passage from the first edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Here’s the passage:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the wGrade 4 Unit 4 Lesson 1 Whale Evolution-1ater. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.[1]

My first interest in this passage is the sheer silliness of the idea that whales evolved from land mammals. It is, I think, one of the most outlandish suggestions (I’m being kind here) made by scientists today, up there with the multiverse and Panspermia. Dr. Carl Werner[2] lists no less than nine parts of the small land mammal (he uses the so-called Pachyaena a so-called hyena-like creature as his subject) that would have to change by chance mutations in order for the hyena to become a whale.

  1. The hyena would have to develop a dorsal fin
  2. The bony tail of the hyena would have to change into a cartilaginous fluke
  3. The hyena’s teeth would have to develop into a huge baleen filter
  4. The hyena’s hair would have to nearly disappear and be replaced by blubber for insulation through chance mutations in the DNA
  5. The nostrils would have to move from the tip of the hyena’s nose to the top of the whale’s head, disconnect from the mouth passage, and form a strong muscular flap to close the blowhole
  6. The hyena’s front legs would have to change into pectoral fins
  7. The hyena’s body would have to increase in size from 150 pounds to 400,000 pounds
  8. The hyena’s external ears would have to disappear and then develop to compensate for high-pressure diving to 1,640 feet deep
  9. The hyena’s back legs would have to disappear

According to Werner, the odds of this happening would be 1 in 364 followed by 1,625 zeros or less likely than throwing 2,000 dice at one time and all of them coming up “3.”[3]

Darwin got a lot of flak for the above passage. It threatened to derail the success of his theory. One story has it that Professor Richard Owen prevailed upon Darwin to leave out the passage about bears evolving into whales.[4] But James T. Costa tells a different story. Here’s his account:

The bear and whale comparison became a sore point. When Darwin told Richard Owen that he dropped the example for the next Origin edition, Owen replied, “Oh have you, well I was more struck with this than any other passage; you little know of the remarkable & essential relationship between bears & whales.” Darwin swallowed the line and restored the passage; far from believing any such relationship, however, Own scathingly wrote in his review of the Origin: “We look . . . in vain for any instance of hypothetical transmutation in Lamarck so gross as the one above cited” (Owen 1860, p.518). In the remaining editions of the Origin, Darwin simply inserted a qualifier: “. . . catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water” (emphasis mine.)[5]

However, the addition of the word almost has not been the only adjustment in this section of Darwin’s Origin. The 1909 Edition, published by P. F. Collier & Son of New York, merely says, “In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water.” Gone is the last part of the paragraph where Darwin imagines that, with no competition for bugs, a “race of bears . . . more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths” might eventually produce a creature “as monstrous as a whale.”

I would like to tell you that scientists have seen the folly in imagining such a thing. Werner reports that, “Modern evolution scientists do not believe that whales evolved from a black bear by acquired characteristics and natural selection as Charles Darwin once speculated.”[6] Whew! Thank goodness, right? No. Werner goes on to explain, “They now theorize that whales evolved from a land animal through a complicated series of chance mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.”[7] Complicated indeed!

 

NOTES

[1] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: Classic Illustrated Edition (Kindle Locations 2375-2379). Heritage Illustrated Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[2] Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, (Green Forest AR: New Leaf Press, 2014), 40-54.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See Werner.

[5] James T. Costa, The Annotated Origin: A Facsimile of the First Edition of On the Origin of Species, (London: Harvard University Press, 2011), 184.

[6] Werner, 42.

[7] Ibid.

Tagged , , ,

Too Many Turtles!

One of the common arguments against the idea of a First Cause of the universe or a Prime Mover is the counter argument, “What caused the First Cause? This comeback is a little like the person who, not paying attention to the details of a story being told to him by his friend, asks questions of his friend at the end of the story that belie the fact that he was not paying attention. If we are postulating a First Cause, Prime Mover, asking what caused the First Cause is nonsensical. 5_08_turtlesThe very definition of an un-caused, First Cause is that there is no prior cause responsible for it. If you want to posit that you believe in an infinite regressive chain of causes (multiverse, aliens from another universe, etc.) then please admit that you believe that the universe and or all of its prequels are infinite. Then, please recognize (say it out loud, perhaps) that you are embracing the turtle theory. Which is recounted nicely by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

Those who reject the First Cause argument are guilty of believing in an endless supply of turtles. In this way they can push back the question of the origins of the universe and the design question.

Tagged , , , , ,