Evolutionary Stimulus… The struggle for survival…
How many times have you read that it was the struggle for survival which stimulated leaps in the ‘evolution’ of new Creatures?
‘Change or Die’ is a Mantra of the Evolutionist priesthood.
Thus if we are to believe this Mantra…. the belief that Polar Bears are facing extinction due to Human action, we had better be ready! (See pic below)
Do you think my Polar bear comments are Ridiculous?
Why not apply that critical thinking to your whole Ridiculous theory!
You may realise that my comment above is silly only because the theory of Evolution is silly.
What is an even bigger travesty, is that many Highly educated ‘Christian philosophers’ that I know can find no contradiction between the Chaos and Cold brutality of theory of Evolution which renders man simply an Ape … and Christian morality and the Value of Human life.
They don’t hesitate to say the Bible is full of ignorant myths and fraudulent additions.
“Professing themselves to be wise the became fools”
They would Rob us Christians of our faith in the scriptures!
They tells us bible believers that we are ignorant fools because we have not been ‘educated’ in textual criticism, or in Rationalist philosophy, or in the verdict of modern Evolutionary science!
I say “let God be true but every man a Liar!”
The Evolutionists hope you never figure out that Species either Survive, or they Die.
*They never evolve*… even when facing extinction.
When you figure that out you will aprehend just how Stupid the theory of Evolution really is!
“The flu vaccine would not exist if scientists did not have a firm grasp on the facts of evolution. It is updated yearly to keep up with the evolution of the virus, which changes so much and so quickly that the previous year’s vaccine is no longer effective. How do these changes occur? You might think that the answer is mutation, but that’s only a small part of the process. Mutations are random, but the virus keeps growing more drug-resistant. Clearly there’s something else going on here.
When you get a flu shot, your body gains the ability to produce antibodies to the flu virus; if you are exposed to it afterwards, your body fights it off. The antibodies kill most, but not all of the virus particles. Some virions have genetic variations that allow them to survive the onslaught of your antibodies. They aren’t any better or stronger than the others; it’s just genetic randomness.
Eventually these survivor virions will be passed onto someone else whose body will perform the same process, helping to weed the virus population down to only those virions that are completely resistant to the vaccine. The following year when their descendants return, they will be immune to it. They will be genetically different from the ancestor virus. They will have evolved from a previous state.”
^^^^^ There you have the bold claim that *Evolution is an observable Reality*.
Yet I want people to think about this with a bit more depth.
Does the fact that life forms become resistant to chemicals or bugs… or that their genetics can be seen to be in some way different from their parents really mean they are ‘evolving’ ?
I dispute this!
I say when life forms adapt in such ways they are work within the designed parameters of their Species.
They are in no way ‘evolving’.
Thus I say it may be so that a flu virus may ‘change’ so as to become immune to our bodies own artificially enhanced defenses (re via a vaccine) … but it certainly does not *Evolve*….any more than we ‘evolve’ when we get a vaccine and start to manufacture new antibodies.
Let me suggest to you that the shyster Evolutionists have set up a scam.
The scam is they have two definitions for the word evolution… they have legitimized a form of philosophical equivocation and via cunning trickery have managed to deceive people into believing that Evolution is both the Continuity of species… and it’s transmutation.
I am referring to the scam claims of Micro-Evolution.
Real Darwinian Evolution is the claim that species transmutate from one species into a completely *new* and fundamentally *different* species like from Germ to fish. Fish to Mammal, etc.
And while I admit that this is said to be a process which takes place via thousands/ millions of tiny steps, I wish to point out that the so-called evolutionary steps are not like gaining immunity, but are like a flipper slowly turning into a foot via a linear series of fortuitous genetic accidents.
I say this ‘Flu virus argument is completely bogus because it does not involve anything like this linear transition from one specific species into another.
It is completely dishonest to say that when anything becomes immune to something that the thing has evolved.
That is pseudo science and it evidences just how vacuous the theory of evolution is in that they must grasp at straws in attempts to justify their absurd superstition.
So-called Micro-evolution is nothing more than a ruse.
I could say that your nose is turning into beak, or that a birds beak is turning into a nose!
There is *no science* at all in the so-called notion of Micro evolution.
Merely wild conjecture based upon a very doctored and systematically arranged/ cherry picked samples of comparative anatomy… and a heavily ideologically imposed interpretation of everything biological.
*This claim of Flu Virus ‘Evolution’ is a perfect example*
The Virus is not evolving but doing what it has always done… ie it is being a virus!
The reality is that many species have the capacity for a great variation while remaining true to their kinds.
Dogs are a good example.
And this can easily be proven by comparing the so-called ‘latest’ virus with the ‘older one’ and realizing that there is no discernable linear progression from some unknown pre-virus… into some unknown Post-virus life from.
Ask the Evolutionist from what is the virus evolving away from and into what is it transmutating?
The facts are the Virus is going nowhere.
It remains a virus.
It is maintaining it’s ‘Virus-ness’… and this is the exact opposite of evolution… ie it demonstrates a continuity and fundamental integrity of the species.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Update: 17 June 13. Here is a link to an article which validates my asertions above Re: When bugs become resistant to antibiotics and vaccines they are not evolving. This one is about Bacteria… Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?
Read about The Ludicrous claims of Evolution Here:
Read about how Russells Teapot really refutes Atheism not Theism here:
^^^^ WoW that was Great to hear Live!
Auckland 22 April. Vector Arena.
Update:
My blogpost generated immediate debate.
In the process of looking for supportive sources for my position I came across several interesting sites…
………………………………………………..
Has the HIV Virus Demonstrated Evolution In Any Way?
No! Many false claims have been made. Here are the facts.
#1 If we had an example of new information being added by a random mutation, by random chance (though we do not have any example of new information being added by random chance, neither in HIV nor anywhere else), we would not have any evidence that evolution ever took place causing one kind of plant or animal to become another kind of plant or animal. If there were such an example, which there is not, in HIV or anywhere, then we would have shown that such addition of new information could possibly happen, (though present observation implies that it is absolutely impossible, but, if an example were to be be found, which it has not, then such an observation (which is only imagined at present) would only show that such a thing would be possible.
“Viruses can have no evolutionary relationship to any other form, and so whatever may have happened to say, the AIDS virus, has no relevance to the supposed history of truly living organisms in any case. An apparently major effect is probably caused by only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity…. Long after this article was published, the PBS/SBS Evolution series used HIV/AIDS as ‘proof’ of evolution. Yet the new data has done nothing to make the principles in this article obsolete. Rather, in one case, HIV resistance to drugs was clearly caused by a deleterious mutation, as shown by their inability to cope with the ‘wild’ type when the drugs were removed; and immunity to AIDS can be conferred by a mutation that causes loss of certain receptors on the immune cells preventing the HIV from docking on them.” ~ Creation.com
And here is an interesting you tube vid which confirms my point about Evolution’s ‘Equivocation’ and non-falsifiable pseudo scientific nature.
Update 2. 26-4-13
Thinking about this more… the most important aspect of this is Mutation and *the question of new Genetic information* Ie In what way do random mutations bring ‘Change over time’?
And anyone knowledgeable on this subject understands that *Mutation does not add improved codes but destroys portions of code…adds errors etc and I… though no geneticist can easily see how such a random degenerative step caused by an error in replication of a virus could fortuitously render it capable of escaping detection by our immune system… yet in itself clearly not represent any thing that can be described as an evolutionary change.
An example I have used in my arguments is the creation in the Lab of the Wingless fly.
Scientists bombarded flies with radiation and caused various mutations in their young.
One was the Wingless Fly.
Now clearly it’s genetics have been altered and a ‘new’ type of fly created… yet it is still a fly… a grotesquely deformed fly.
Other ‘mutations’ to the genes occurred too that were not as detrimental to the fly as this heinous deformity, yet none can be said to have been the addition/ writing in of ‘advanced’ DNA which can vindicate the claims of the evolutionists that mutation is the mechanism by which Germs became people… the transmutation of species… and lets not forget that that is what the theory of evolution is!
do not be smoked into thinking that ‘any’ change is evidence of evolution… or proof that the theory has merit.
Mutation is in reality a degenerative force, and the Math is so far against the wild conjecture that Mutations can be used to advance Evolution that it ranks up there with the ‘Spontaneous generation of life’ in statistical absurdities.
This is the extreme unscientific basis Atheist Naturalist evolutionist must go to deny Intelligent design and the existence of God!
Life indeed has all the hallmarks of having been designed for a purpose!
Random accidents cant draw up blueprints… cannot write turn a Model A into a Bugatti Veyron!
Our recurrent laryngeal nerve inefficiently loops round our hearts instead of directly connecting to the brain stem; this, like cleft palates are a consequence of our fish ancestry.
I plan to post evidence for Evolutionism as I find it, to balance my pro-Creationist rants.
This is the first piece of evidence I’ve found worth posting.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box). It branches from the vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Why doesn’t it take a more direct route? That it takes this circuitous detour is cited as evidence of evolution.
The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve’s route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.
If we (and the giraffes) did indeed evolve from fish, then the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve has a simple explanation. Its course is less simple to explain if we (and the giraffes) are products of special creation. Thus, the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not merely evidence of evolutionism, but evidence for evolutionism.
I have a question. How difficult would it be to genetically re-engineer a giraffe (or a human) so that the recurrent laryngeal nerve passes directly from the brain to the larynx?
In comments on Tim’s post, Terry (who is both an Evolutionist and an Objectivist) says
a camera is NOT an eye (nor is an audio recorder an ear, etc). A camera is a piece of equipment used to record images, whereas an eye is an organ of sight. The former mimics the functions of the latter, but apart from that they are worlds apart.
simply because human technology [has] been built so as to mimic certain biological functions does not justify grounds for claiming that the reverse applies and that biology can therefore ‘possibly’ mimic human inventions via the process of evolution. … Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process, which means that new functionality only develops and is maintained in response to the need to survive.
Terry has just committed Objectivism’s “stolen concept” fallacy and violated a fundamental tenet of Evolutionism! Doubleplusungood!
According to Evolutionism, there are no biological functions. The eye, for example, is an organ of sight, but the eye has no purpose. Its function is not to see. It has no function.
According to Evolutionism, there are no biological malfunctions, either. A blind eye, by definition, is not an organ of sight. A blind eye has not malfunctioned, because there is nothing it is supposed to do. An eye has no purpose to be fit for.
If it’s the case that the eye was designed for a purpose, as Creationists claim, then we can say that the function of the eye is to see, and that there is something wrong with an eye that does not see. It ain’t doing what it’s supposed to do, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But Evolutionism is quite explicit that no biological organ is designed for any purpose. As Dawkins says
Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose
and, as Terry himself puts it, “Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process.”
Evolution according to Evolutionists is a blind, stochastic process. Any appearance of design, purpose or function is just an appearance. The reason that we have eyes that see is simply because having eyes that see helped our ancestors to survive. But eyes do not, in virtue of their evolutionary history, ever acquire a purpose or a proper function.
All talk of biological functions is pre-Darwinian. Consistent Evolutionists should not talk of biological functions. If they do, they must explain that their use of the word ‘function’ is just shorthand for facts about an organism’s evolutionary history. If they don’t, they are guilty of Ayn Rand’s stolen concept fallacy.
The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.
The concepts of ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ logically depend on the concept of a Creator. They are pre-Darwinian. Evolutionists have no right to use them.
“…Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind…”
From Wikipedia here:
I was inspired to write it in response to an atheist friend of mine whom suggested in the comments/ discussion following after the above Blogpost on Russell’s teapot that because A Flew expressed belief in ESP that this was a clear indication he was of dull intellect.
Now I don’t believe Humans have ‘ESP’, yet I don’t discount the possibility that there may be modes… ‘some completely natural’… of sensing things which in the current state of scientific knowledge we are currently completely oblivious to. Others could be ‘spiritual’ powers…like free will.
Of course it is exactly statements like that which cause ‘rationalists’ like my friend to pour scorn against anyone whom suggests things like ESP, or any ‘spiritual powers’ at all may be possible.
Let me place a caveat on my position as enumerated above.
I don’t believe humanity has or ever will develop a ‘Naturalistic’ ESP… why? * because I don’t believe in Evolution!*
To my way of thinking it is the Atheist Evolutionist whom ought not to doubt the possibility of Humans having/ or developing a naturalistic form of ESP as by my reckoning their wild theory seems to give room for every fantastic myth conceivable!
To appreciate this it is only necessary to apprehend just how fantastic are the claims of evolutionists Re the Evolution of Man from a single celled organism.
Let me explain.
Ever seen an X men movie?
All those Fantastic characters… mutants whom are Super-human and have ‘special powers’… but not spiritual powers… they are all advanced Bio tek.
That is what evolution is all about!
Lets talk ‘Naturalistic ESP’.
Now Evolutionists believe that a protozoa type organism slowly developed into the human animal with the five senses, taste, sound, touch, sight, smell… all via the inexorable march of Evolutionary process/progress.
On that basis I cannot see how my friend can insist that an atheist whom claimed decades ago to believe in ESP is some how being ridiculously inconsistent with Naturalistic theory *unless my friend assumes Evolution’ has already exhausted all the possibilities.* …yet it is easy to cast doubt upon this.
I believe I can expose his own inconsistency and in the process expose just how silly belief in evolution really is.
Consider these things…
An ear is a microphone.
An eye is a Camera lens.
A nose and mouth are chemical detectors
An hand is a load scale, temperature probe, and compression tester.
Animals have various other senses too eg lateral lines and sonar/radar etc,
My Atheist friend claims unguided ‘Evolution’ designed and built all these Bio tek instruments.
I ask why then he would doubt that evolution has not/ could not also build a biological ‘wireless cell phone/ ‘walky talky’ like device/system’ directly into our Brains so that we could mentally communicate at a vast distance…without speech?… ie a form of ‘Natural’ ESP?
We do today know that such communication is possible via external devices… a reality which not too many generations ago would have been considered ridiculously impossible!
Obviously a race of X human beings with a Bio wireless telecomunication system would have a superior survival advantage over ordinary human beings.
We must ask why ‘Evolution’ which is… Or so we are told… obsessed with ‘Survival’ has not bothered to supply us which such kit?
All evolution has to do is install such a devise inside our bodies and hey presto we have ESP!… not that difficult to grasp… if as you claim Evolution is capable of ‘upgrading a lifeform from a Germ into a human being!
The crux of my arguement is that if you balk at the idea of Evolution creating ‘Bio-cell phones’ then you must also question the rationale that evolution could create sight, sound, taste, etc… for the very same reason.
Ie because these are incredibly sophisticated ‘gadgets’ too!
Thus the evolutionist position really is that Si-fi movies like X Men are believable!
I ask what freakish creatures… via Evolution…are we destined to become?
An atheist whom balks at the Idea of ESP exposes the simplistic level on which they function. ie They redily will tell you it is rational to believe that evolution is capable of installing Cameras… but irrational to suggest it might install cellphones!
Spot the contradiction!???
Does my friend believe Mankind has reached the Zenith of evolution?
Now for some Funny Evolutionary Theory… Our X-Men Post-Religious future! 😀
Obviously I am not suggesting this video is anything other than a ridiculous fraud… what I’m highlighting *is the Atheist evolutionary myth* upon which it is based… is precisely what Atheist believe.
Its funny because Evolutionists actually *Believe this sort of stuff*… yet mock Theists faith in God!
Think about this…. They believe we came from Non-Theistic sub-creatures… evolved into what we are now, whom have been described as ‘The Worshiping Animals’… which they theorise as though being delusional Fables… non-the-less this trait must have had ‘survival advantages’… yet still they insist that Atheism is an ‘Enlightenment’…a progressive step away from ‘Primitive superstition’… so that ‘in the future’ Humanity will abandon ‘all religious superstition’… and be in atheist thinking ‘Fully rational’… fully knowing… without faith… etc etc… so by their reasoning Atheism both Precedes and Follows Theistic faith… all by the blind forces of Nature!
Talk about a Dung pile of Materialist Fables and superstitions!
It is the theistic position which makes the X men movie an absurdity.
Theism says *Evolution is a Joke!*, and that the blind forces of Nature cannot create life… cannot design new Gadgets/ senses/ biological capacities, etc, and thus the only way a human being could have any form of Naturalistic ESP is if our Creator designed and installed such Gadgetry into our bodies via writing it directly into our DNA… just as he has done with our Eyes, Ears, Etc…all of which are irrefutible testaments to the existance of God!
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:’
St Paul. Romans 1:20
Tim Wikiriwhi
King James Bible believer.
Libertarian. Dispensationalist.
[47] “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. [48] When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. [49] This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous [50] and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NIV)
Verse 47 is about selection. It is about a net. A net selects fish on the basis of size. Fish smaller in size than the apertures in the net pass through it. Fish larger in size than the apertures in the net do not.
Verse 48 is also about selection. The fishermen collect the good fish in baskets, but throw the bad away.
Verse 49 too is about selection. The angels separate the wicked from the righteous and (in verse 50) destroy the wicked by throwing them into the blazing furnace.
I can’t help but think that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has precedents in Scripture.
“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.
“Yes,” they replied.
He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” (NIV)
It has always amazed me that the atheist world is so enthralled with Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot as a supposed logical argument against the credibility of belief in God.
This argument is routinely deployed by atheists in debates with theists, and so it was on a discussion I am having on face book about Science and belief in the after life.
I was going to simply make a direct reply but then it occurred to me that I ought to blog my answer because of the important place Russell’s teapot (and it’s mate… the flying spaghetti monster) play in the Great controversy between Faith and skepticism.
I don’t know why Russell’s argument is so revered by atheists when it only takes a small amount of contemplation to realize that His argument is actually a refutation of blind faith in Atheistic Evolution, not belief in God.
Let me explain.
The reason we ought to doubt the existence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is simply because we know that Teapots are the product of mind over matter… ie that unless Mankind, or some other intelligence formed a teapot out of china and placed it in that orbit that there is no way Nature could produce such an Object via it’s blind/ unguided forces!
The Theory of Evolution. The Illusion of Design.
This is an argument from design, and it makes a mockery of evolutionary theory because atheist evolutionists believe that something far far more complex than a china teapot can and has been made by the pure blind and unguided forces of Nature… I refer to the spectacle of Life on Earth!
For Atheists to believe life could possibly be the result of blind chance, and yet balk at the idea of a Celestial teapot being formed by pure chance exposes their credulous Absurdity!
According to their theory their ought to be all sorts of objects in space which have a quirky resemblance to Designed artifacts… teapots… not a problem!
(I am reminded of ‘The Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy’ when it mentions the existance of “Casinos, all of which have been formed by the natural erosion of wind and rain…”)
Hilarious!
Well we all know there very much is a problem!
Nature does not work like that!
Russell’s argument is actually a very poor argument given the nature of what he was attempting to disprove… ie religious belief. It is also a great testament to the duplicity of atheists whom Balk at the idea of a Celestial teapots yet will look at you square in the face and tell you they believe life started by accident! That is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel!
He has in fact furnished theists with a great argument against atheism… for it would be much easier to believe in a celestial Teapot than in the spontaneous generation and evolution of life…
Not to appreciate this is to be Pig headed indeed.
Russell’s teapot arguement from RationalWiki…
In an unpublished article entitled “Is There a God?”, commissioned in 1952 by Illustrated magazine,[1] Russell suggested the following thought experiment to illustrate the burden of proof and falsifiability:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
St Paul Colossians 2vs8.
*Everything* is energy you say Albert? Why should I believe that *I* am merely energy?
This is an unproven materialistic assumption… not a scientific fact.
Does anyone appreciate the truth of what I am saying?
Albert himself said something to the effect that “Blind submission to Authority is the enemy of truth”.
Does anyone here have the courage to challange the authority of The great Albert Einstein?
It is because of the Prevalent acceptance of this sort of unscientific atheist fundamentalism in the Academic communities of the world that brings into question the existance of Free will and the human soul.
Because Modern infidelity and Rationalism has succeeded in portraying belief in supernaturalism/ spiritual reality as being a hallmark of scientific ignorance, many Christians have been duped into thinking this Materialistic world veiw is a scientific fact rather than an unproven atheist assumption.
These rationalist Christians also tend to follow their atheist brethern and also abandon the Classic Judeo-Christian Morality as being valid… and faith in the reliablity of the scriptures.
They have stepped away from being true theists and have become Deists.
Those Christians whom pride themselves as being the most ‘Educated’ and Ruggedly consistent rationalists will then go further…as a matter of course… and deny the existance of Eternal Damnation, because to their rationale, it would be grossly unfair to Damn someone to eternal torment if they had no freewill choice in the evils they committed or had no freewill in their decision to reject Christ.
I wonder how they can reconcile all this with their voluntarily accepted moral obligation to preach the gospel of God’s grace in Christ to the lost?
Do they believe they have the freewill to actually bother?
Can they justify their own inaction as being materialistically determined and that therefore they are not morally responcible for not bothering to preach?
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”
St Paul 1 Tim 6:20
Thus a little leven leveneth the whole lump.
The mind boggles at just how utterly corrosive the Materialist world veiw is.
How effective it is in absolutely destroying faith in the Bible, in particular the classic moraity of a Holy and judging God and Mankind as a fallen yet Free willed and morraly culpible beings.
It is Sad yet interesting to witness the responce of Humanity to testimonies which dare to suggest that the Bible is the preserved word of God!
Such calls to true theistic faith are met with venimous cursings and accusations of maddness and folly… from all quarters!
The unadulterated arrogance of the skeptics!
They speak with the highest authority!
Human Rationalism!
Kneel Petty theist they command!
How dare you challenge the consensus of High academia?!
Humble thyself before the edifice of Modern scholarship ye unlearned fellow!
We will not yield to that ghastly Bible!
A harmony of outrage, and a choris of ‘rational proofs’ batter the Bible believer From both Atheists and so-called Christians alike.
The Bible believer finds himself alone.
The Rationalist Christians assure the atheists that these Bible believers are deluded fools… Throwbacks from a bygone age….not at all representative of the modern Christian position.
Mankind simply cannot bear the Idea that God’s Pure revelation Exists.
They know that to admit such a thing places them and all their Rationalisms under condemnation… under Judgment.
They don’t want to admit there is a light shining a path in the darkness!
They want to carry on the delusion that ‘nobody knows’…nobody can tell me what I should do, what I should believe, how I should live, why I should change…etc.
And they certainly don’t want to admit that the Great Moral light is that accursed and judgmental Bible!
To the Proud Sinner that is the most unacceptable proposition of all!
The Rationalist Christian doe’s not even want to believe that!
It’s too filled with things which they find repugnant… like Hell!
It is relatively easy to understand why the average sinner does not want to believe in moral culpability and a judgment day.
There is pleasure in sin.
The low road is an easier path to travel than the high steep path, and many Christians prefer to deny the reliability of the scriptures than having the burden of preaching an unpopular message to the lost.
What is truly sad to grasp is that these rationalists Christians have completely smoked themselves!
They have chosen to follow the delusions of the children of Darkness rather than the Light of the word of God.
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
I would like to point out that though there may be a cozy bit of kinship between atheists and Modern Rationalist ‘educated’ ‘Christians’ in their mutual hatred of ‘Fanatical Bible believers’, that in reality the Atheists are laughing at the so-called Rationalist Christians whom have abandoned faith in the scriptures, and share the atheist views that the Bible is unreliable.
Atheist laugh when Christians claim to also accept the theory of evolution instead of believing the book of Genesis.
They Laugh because they know they have won!
They have managed to get the Christians to abandon the Bible and instead accept atheist Materialism as the truth!
It is my solemn belief that is is impossible to convert the lost to faith in the truth of the gospel of Christ without preaching and teaching faith in the trustworthiness of the scriptures themselves in which the gospel is found.
News Flash Ye Christians!
Materialism is not a scientific fact!
Belief in the supernatural is not definitive of Ignorance!
Ye of Little Faith!
“ O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”
Jesus Christ. Luke 24:25
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian
Dispensationalist.
King James Bible believer.
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
St Paul 1 Thes2:13
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
St Paul 2 Tim 2vs 15
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
St Paul 2 Tim 3:15
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
Jesus Christ John17:17
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
Jesus Christ Matt 24:35
“…So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
St Paul Rom 10:17
UPDATE: Did Albert Really say that?
Thanks to Eternal Vigilance commenter and Libertarian ‘Terry’ I have been made aware that there is a dispute as to whether this Meme has a genuine Einsten quote or whether it is an evil deception. It is a testament to the sickness of Humanity that unfortunately there are millions of unscrupulous liars out there whom manufacture Frauds either to push their own agendas or simply to cause chaos and destruction. I must Therefore warn readers that there is doubt as to this quotes reliability. I will leave the blogpost up because even if the quote is a fraud, my argument against Materialism still holds good, and it may be discovered that Albert did in fact say this. Thus the controversy! Check out this discussion here… http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=583449
Keep Vigilant!
Update 2: Pondering further upon the problem about the verasity of this Meme raises a very interesting dilemma, very similar to the basic premise behind the Face book page ‘Did Abraham Lincoln really exist?’ https://www.facebook.com/alincolnism.
Ie that is is impossible to say with certainty that Einstein did not say this quotation…even if no reference to it can be found in the common places one looks (eg Google)
All that skeptics can claim is that *they cannot find sufficient evidence to convince them in their own minds that Einstein did say this.
The reality is that this could very well be a genuine quote from an obscure source… ie It may be a record of a conversation, or a lecture he gave which does not enjoy fame.
And this is a very common reality!
Not everything famous people say becomes common knowledge.
The majority of their sayings actually get quicky forgotten.
I find this dilemma very interesting because it also relates to arguments used by textual critics in their attacks against the trustworthyness of the King James bible because according to them it includes portions of scripture the authenticity of which they dispute.
What is of grave concern is that all valid and truthful historic records can be undermined via such devious rationalisms which only need to caste doubt to destroy faith… and what sort of Malevolent spirit loves to caste doubt against the truth?
The Thinking person must navigate this Dominion of Devils filled with snares and stumbling blocks deliberately engineered to keep people in the dark.
This is the very latest meme from an Evolutionist friend on Facebook.
It seems to me that both Dawkins and his interlocutor miss the point entirely.
Yes, DNA and fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution! But …
According to Creationism
(1) All living things are DNA-based. We’re carbon-based life-forms. One theoretical reason for this is that we’re all creatures of the same Creator. One practical reason for this is that predators need nutritious prey. Silicon-based prey, say, would be indigestible to a carbon-based predator.
(2) When living things die, their remains (or the remains of the thing that ate them and then later died) end up in the ground, to be dug up millennia later by archaeologists.
So, there is an astonishing amount of evidence for Creationism. You can see it in the DNA and fossils that we found which are in the museums right now …
In one sense, DNA and fossils are evidence for both Evolutionism and Creationism. In another sense, DNA and fossils are evidence for neither, since their mere existence does not help us to determine which is the correct explanation for life on Earth as we know it.
What Dawkins interlocutor seeks is that which Dawkins fails to show, viz., evidence that militates in favour of Evolutionism over Creationism.
