The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by AshleyD

Many 'true Christians' (Yes, I know how much non Christians love us when we use the term) do not believe the persecutors had the faintest clue as to what Christianity was about and abused their positions for power.

Another jewel from Dr Lennox tonight. On this topic of true and counterfeit Christians/ religion

He said something like... "Counterfeit money does not prove that the real thing does not exist, but it makes it hard to find."

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Mel would be able to do a much better job than me by naming specific examples with names and everything. What I've read about is things like 'sea dog' like creatures with feet, fish turning into amphibians, reptilian birds, etc.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Another jewel from Dr Lennox tonight. On this topic of true and counterfeit Christians/ religion.

Did your church by any chance make an audio or video of of his lecture?

reply to post by Conspiriology


Hey Con you can get the God Delusion debate from www.fixed-point.org...

The debate featured Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.

Dawkins, voted by Europe’s Prospect Magazine as one of the world’s most important intellectuals, is regarded by many as the spokesman for the “New Atheism.” BBC has labeled him “Darwin’s Rottweiler.” He has written numerous best-sellers, most notable among them, his recent book, The God Delusion. TGD has been on The New York Times List of Best-Sellers for over thirty weeks. It is a no-holds-barred assault on religious faith generally, and Christianity specifically. According to Dawkins, one can deduce atheism from scientific study; indeed, he argues that it is the only viable choice.

Lennox, a popular Christian apologist and scientist, travels widely speaking on the interface between science and religion. Like Dawkins, he has dedicated his career to science, but he has arrived at very different conclusions. "It is the very nature of science that leads me to belief in God," he says. Lennox possesses doctorates from Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Wales. He has written a response to the notion that Science has exposed the Bible as obscurantist in a book titled God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? The book was published this fall.

[edit on 3/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by AshleyD


Oh, no. By all means. Give us some examples of these "transitional" fossils, and how they actually disprove macroevolution.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I'm sorry, that is not a logical argument. Physical proof of money exists.

If all known money was counterfeit, and there were reports of their being "real" money... that would be a valid example.

That holds true for all things. You cannot prove a negative. If it doesn't exist, you can't prove it doesn't exist. That is why defendants don't have to prove they are innocent, they only have to prove they may not be guilty.

reply to post by AshleyD


I can check sometimes they make CDs. He is doing a longer lecture at South Eastern Theological Seminary on Tuesday and Wednesday night. I have plenty of friends that are in graduate programs there so I might go.

The Title of the Lecture series is "The New Atheism"

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh, no. By all means. Give us some examples of these "transitional" fossils, and how they actually disprove macroevolution.

Er... I think you need to have it the other way around, Foxy. These are fossils evolutionists claim confirm macro. Not me claiming they 'disprove' macro.

reply to post by AshleyD


Assuming you are saying they are wrong, then offer a rebuttal to them. That is, afterall, your responsibility once you claim it to be farse.

reply to post by AshleyD


And you disagree with their assertions. So, provide us with the fossils in question, and present your case against their being transitional.

reply to post by Sublime620


wooooooooooosh right over your head. Ever heard of humor?

Just wondering, how does counterfeit religion proves that true religion does not exist?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Was he joking when he said that? I'm not so sure that it went over my head.

Also, I never said that, you misread. I said that you cannot prove a negative. If a God exists, there may be proof to back it up. If God does not exist, it cannot be proven. The only thing that can be done is to offer a rebuttal to the proof that it does exist.

reply to post by Sublime620



Again it wasn't in reference to Gods existence.... where are you getting that from? I typed it clearly....

please just forget it your giving me a headache.

I think its time to crash soon this losing an hours making me cranky... sorry

reply to post by Sublime620


reply to post by TheWalkingFox


What I'm saying is, give me a specific example and I will then answer it from a creationist perspective. But since that was not done, here is an example:

The whale and its pelvic structure I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. They are believed by evolutionists to have been caused by a regression from land creature into sea creatures but creationists point out how the structure is necessary for reproduction and not evidence of a mutation. That is a living example.

For a fossil example similar to the above example: The 'Tiktaalik.' Evolutionists claim this is evidence of macro evolution of a fish developing 'feet.' Creationists counter this by claiming the 'feet' were navigational fins unable to support the weight of the fish and point out the lack (or 'gap') of where it had come from.

I'm no expert but it's nice hearing the explanations from both sides before making assumptions.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I understand now. It was in reference to "fake Christians"? That makes sense then.

I took it out of context. My bad.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by AshleyD


Does it have to be fossils? Or can it just be evolution of genes and such? We evolve in that manner all the time.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I understand now. It was in reference to "fake Christians"? That makes sense then.

I took it out of context. My bad.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by Sublime620]

That's right. See it's the nut jobs that give real Christianity a bad name. The leaders behind the crusades were obviously not obeying Christ. Killing in the name of Jesus is an oxymoron really - he taught peace. So... it makes the real thing hard to find wen there are lots of fakes...

I want to see that debate...

almost bed time

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I agree completely.

Religion itself should be completely harmless, and certainly beneficial. Unfortunately, some read to much into it, get too passionate, and end up doing harm instead.

Goodnight. The time change has screwed with me head also.

Originally posted by Sublime620


Millions of jews were slaughtered for being Jewish? Since they were not Christian and thought to be money hungry control freaks.

Maybe I didn't understand your question. Certainly you know of the holocaust. I must have been taught about that in school 20 times. They wouldn't drop that subject.

Well here is the dichotomy there,, as I have had this debate at least a dozen times here. I am certain you will find this is consistent with the types of crimes (genocide) this was and social darwinism.

Salem Witch Trials (25)
Crusades (10,000 to 100,000) - note that the Crusades were most likely a justified defensive war after 400 years of Muslim aggression, and were not used to spread Christianity or take revenge, but to free captured lands from Muslim oppression.
Atheism (>100 MILLION) - at the hands of the militant anti-religious atheists Adolf Hitler, (anti Christian) Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong


Hitler's rise and Governmental Policy is more linked to social Darwinism. He was fascinated with creating an accelerated version of an aryian (pure) race. Thousand of Christians were put into the concentration camps for NOT renouncing the Christian God, most were Jehovahs witnesses.

During the nuremburg trials it was determined Hitler albeit was all cozy with the Christians in Germany while trying to get popular vote, as soon as he got into power, he did a 180 and was totally anti christian.

"Religion is an: an organized lie that must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about destroying religion … with dynamite. I’ve since realized there’s room for a little subtlety …. The final state must be … in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women … The young and healthy are on our side … it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies …. It was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples ….

Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls. - Adolf Hitler"

The holocaust wasn't a crime of religion it was a crime of the state.

and the Nazi Party was well known as an atheist political party.

As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf that "Darwinism was the only basis for a successful Germany"

Aryan Race, Super Race, superior race, and many experiments done on those in the camps were largely given to his fetish of a quasi facism social Darwinism form of Government. Hitler's fascination with Darwinism and eugenics were topics of Hitlers agenda in speeches and letters.

"The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf)."

- Con


[edit on 9-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Sublime620
Does it have to be fossils? Or can it just be evolution of genes and such? We evolve in that manner all the time.

I don't think so, no. Which is why I used the existing whale as an example. Some evolutionists believe the platypus is also a 'macro' change currently in process. I typically stay away from those debates and let the professionals handle it though because the arguments pretty much boil down to:

Evolutionist: It's a transitional!
Creationists: Is not!
Evolutionists: Uh huh!
Creationist: Nuh uh!

...to infinity...

I think the similarities in the genes of apes and humans are a better debate than transitional fossils, IMHO. But I stay out of that one, too, as I know nothing about genetics on a professional level. Evolutionists will say it is evidence of having a common ancestor (proto-ape) while creationists will say the DNA is a coding and evidence of a divine creator. So it goes back full circle to the 'Uh huh! Nuh uh!' debates which is what I was trying to keep out of this thread. lol