Pinned Tweet
I pray that God changes my heart to be more like His and take away the fear and addictions in it. Whoever reads this, please pray for me.
Carina Santos retweeted
The mutation story still frames the advantage as the outcome of differential selection.
One population has accumulated more of the adaptive change relevant to survival than the other.
That is a ranking by evolutionary success.
“God made them that way” under a creationist account that treats all people as one race made in the image of God does not supply that ranking.
Variation exists, but it is not treated as unequal evolutionary progress.
The entire modern conception that has permeated western society, that informs us of slavery being wrong, stems from the Bible.
By contrast, the evolutionary account ranks groups by how much adaptive change they have accumulated.
That is what promotes the hierarchy.
The vast majority of modern eugenics movements and racist ideologies have stemmed from this very notion.
Again, the difference is the framework.
Not knowing the mechanism label does not remove it.
Carina Santos retweeted
1. These are not minor adjustments. Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and the coelacanth were major textbook and museum centerpieces used to illustrate clear progressive transitions.
Calling the resulting rewrites “minor” is itself the gaslighting.
The Cambrian explosion is not a minor adjustment either, it has been a recognized problem since Darwin.
2. That is the textbook summary, not the fossil pattern.
The record shows discrete body plans appearing abruptly (especially in the Cambrian), long periods of stasis, and then either extinction or survival essentially unchanged.
Gradual, continuous transformation of one basic kind into another is what Darwin predicted and what the fossils do not show.
Stasis and sudden appearance are the dominant signals.
3. That’s not an argument.
Many who reject a literal Ark still acknowledge the Cambrian discontinuity, the lack of continuous transitional series, and the prevalence of stasis.
Dismissing the data by association with a biblical account does not make the data disappear.
4. Coelacanth is already that example, just in living form.
It was supposed to be a Cretaceous fish that had vanished with the dinosaurs.
Finding a creature that was supposed to have gone extinct tens of millions of years ago, still swimming around today in the same basic form, is as close as you can get to “a fossil from the wrong era.”
Carina Santos retweeted
To believe in millions of yrs of evo, one would have to call God, Jesus and Moses liars.
"Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it Holy, for in 6 days God Created... " written with God's own hand/finger in stone. Jesus confirmed this.
I'll trust what God, Jesus and Moses said.
Carina Santos retweeted
Scripture tells me to walk in humility, seek truth and justice, apply mercy and grace, care for the widows, impoverished, and those at risk.
It does not tell me to outsource my responsibilities to a government that will then wield that power to exploit those in dire straits in order to retain power and take from others to skim off the top/middle before passing the left overs to those in need.
Spiritual abuse includes using Scripture for purposes outside of God's intention. He didn't intend his words to be used to guilt, manipulate, or lecture others into any political ideology or to vote for a particular candidate.
Directions given to individuals or the "Church", as in the body of Christ, were not directions to be weaponized for political intent.
For those who would ask, "but Robin are you doing those things"? I will respond with a question. What is your intention in asking that question?
Because, whether I am (and thus following God's directions) or am not (and failing in parts of my walk) has no bearing on whether my claims above are true.
I could be the most generous, caring, sacrificial, etc, etc, etc and still be wrong in Biblical interpretation.
I could be the most selfish and cruel person and still be right in Biblical interpretation.
Attempts to inquire as to my walk with Christ outside of the desire to encourage me in the Faith are not good faith intentions. They are ad hominiem attacks designed to distract from the claims made via attacking my character. Thus, more spiritual abuse.
Carina Santos retweeted
Projection. Lol
The level of reality dissociation to have blind faith in unobserved magical processes that can account for the origin of coded language information.
And yes, considering that we creationists, thought of it first. Lol
Carina Santos retweeted
Hell isn't rejection revenge. It's what you become by permanently choosing away from the source of everything good.
God didn't retaliate. He died trying to prevent it and still honors your choice.
That's not insecurity. That's the most expensive love in history.
Carina Santos retweeted
Atheism requires far more faith.
You believe everything came from nothing, life from non-life, specified information and irreducible systems from undirected chemistry, and mind from matter, etc.
None of which has ever been demonstrated.
That’s pure wishful thinking.
Christianity rests on historical events with eyewitnesses and public claims that can be checked.
Your position excludes every alternative by rule, then treats the resulting gap as “evidence.”
Carina Santos retweeted
All those claiming to “advocate for Palestinians” are, in effect, advocating for the terrorist group Hamas, because Hamas is the ruling power in Gaza and the group responsible for the violence that sparked the war. The last time Palestinians actually held a national election was in 2006- twenty years ago. You vote for terrorists that’s what you get.
A little history lesson on the Palestinians:
Carina Santos retweeted
Those 2 statements are logically inconsistent.
If you believe Gaza cannot be pushed aside for the past inhabitants of that land over there...
You shouldn't believe that Americans can be pushed aside for past inhabitants of this land.
Carina Santos retweeted
Abortion isn't passive refusal to save, it's actively killing.
With Terrisa Bukovinac @Terrisalin @PAAUNOW
Carina Santos retweeted
This is what happens when the Lindsay Clancy supporters defend child murder.
nitter.cf/nypost/status/21075585…
Carina Santos retweeted
Debates with atheists:
Me: There is no objective definition if kindness without God or a moral code.
Them: Ok, all normal humans agree mass murder of children is bad. I didn’t need God!!
Me: You support the abortion of one million babies a year.
Them:
Carina Santos retweeted
Bruh, the topic never changed. An example was given that left the atheist speechless. Same topic, just proof of the “mortality” atheists claim to have, but don’t. The proof you are defending is “killing children is bad, so we don’t need God.” Abortion is that killing. You didn’t catch a topic change. You caught the line that wrecks the proof, so now the argument is “religious people have problems in their head.” That is the topic change.
The actual dispute is still the one in the original post. Either “mass murder of children is bad” includes the child in the womb, or the atheist is defining “children” by convenience and then calling the result a moral consensus. Consensus cannot carry that weight. Men have agreed on evil before. “They built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them” (Jeremiah 32:35, NKJV). Agreement did not make that offering righteous. Image-bearing begins before birth: “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed” (Psalm 139:16, NKJV). Shedding that blood is murder (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 20:13), not a side issue filed under reproductive policy.
Carina Santos retweeted
The holdout juror was not only based but he was also the Left's worst nightmare: non-White and based.
They'll have to consult their TikTok gods on how to feel about this, no doubt.
Carina Santos retweeted
No silly. It’s simple. You cannot call unclean what Christ has made clean.
She has repented and is a new creation because of what Christ has done. Bringing up her past to silence her husband and shame him is what Satan would do.
You are currently actively sinning by bringing up her past. If she was still a cam girl and you were calling it out, then your point would be correct.
Understand the difference now?
