November 10, 2009
For Release: IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT
Contact: August Brunsman – (614) 441-9588 – august@secularstudents.org
COLUMBUS, Ohio – The Secular Student Alliance is mobilizing student groups to counter the Living Waters Ministry program to distribute an edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species containing a special introduction misrepresenting the book’s claims. The SSA national leadership is encouraging its campus affiliates to schedule protests, host speakers, write letters to the editor, show films, and distribute the original version of Darwin’s 150-year old masterpiece.
“We’re asking students to respond proactively. We believe the best way to respond to misinformation is with a positive, educational campaign,” says August Brunsman, executive director for the Secular Student Alliance.
Living Waters Ministry, an evangelical ministry group headed by Ray Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron, calls the project The Origin into Schools Project. It plans to print an edition of Origin of Species with a 50-page introduction that attempts to cast doubt on the theory of evolution and connect Charles Darwin to Adolf Hitler. Over 100,000 copies are set to be distributed to over 100 college campus across the country and in Canada.
Students are aware that the distributors have the first amendment right to pass out their anti-evolution literature, but are being encouraged by the Secular Student Alliance to use their own rights to respond with a friendly, science-based message.
The Secular Student Alliance at Yale University, for example, has plans to set up a table promoting "alternative theories on sexual education," appropriately named Students for Stork Acknowledgment.
"People engaged in such lunatic endeavors are legitimized by opponents who attempt to take them seriously. My organization intends no such legitimization," stated Michael Wright, president of SSA at Yale, adding that past attempts at rational debate with creationists have failed, "but where reason fails, satire triumphs."
The Secular Student Alliance is assisting campus groups by providing resources from national groups like The Center for Inquiry, National Center for Science Education, the Brights, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science in order to combat misinformation on campus. Secular Student Alliance has also partnered with the creators of Flock of Dodos, the 2006 documentary highlighting the debate over evolution, granting the rights to students who wish to show the film on campus.
Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the original Origin of Species, and books and protests are set to hit campuses around that time. Students can find ways to get involved at www.secularstudents.org/origininschools.
The Secular Student Alliance is an educational nonprofit whose mission is to organize, unite, educate and serve students and student communities that promote the ideals of scientific rationality, secularism, democracy, and human-based ethics. Learn more at http://www.secularstudents.org.
-- This press release was sent to you by the Secular Student Alliance, 1515 W. Lane Ave., Columbus, OH 43221. You are not on a list that will be reused. This relesae was sent to you because we believe you are a member of the media that would be interested in this story. If you do not want to receive press releases from the Secular Student Alliance, please email August Brunsman at august@secularstudents.org.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
143 comments:
Students are aware that the distributors have the first amendment right to pass out their anti-evolution literature, but are being encouraged by the Secular Student Alliance to use their own rights to respond with a friendly, science-based message.
I wonder if a single one of these misguided lemmings knows that the underlying premise of evolution is logical rather than scientific.
Surprised Ray? I think you see a big bucket of FAIL in your future.
Wow... Rational students behaving rationally!
I wish I could pat them on the back.
They're doing the right thing... combating ignorance with intelligence. I'm extremely pleased to see students taking action against your ill-conceived publicity stunt.
Jeepers, Ray, I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
'The Stork Alliance'! Classic.
However I will point something out: if these folks, instead of taking the sensible route of amiable engagement, tried to persue litigation channels to silence your efforts I would be the first to object.
good for them
People are funny about intellectual dishonesty.
I know its one thing that would get me to mobilize.
Its kind of sad really, because rather than inspiring you to look at your own continual blatant intellectual dishonesty, all this action will confirm for you is that you are being persecuted for the gospel.
Ray, the reason why so many people have an issue against you, is not because of the gospel. Its your continued misrepresentation of what the atheist and the non christian theist believes.
And rather than go "Oh my goodness, I could have been wrong, or I dont know about that, but let me find out for you". I think you would win yourself many battles.
If you showed that you were prepared to listen, to really listen and put aside your preconceived notions, you may find that people would be alot more willing to listen to you.
Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, by definition. You can't say you didn't expect this kind of backlash, Mr. Comfort. Completely justified backlash, by the way.
Ray, I'd like to second (or third, fourth, whatever) KTaylor's suggestion that you review one of the recent books by prominent biologists on the evidence for evolution. KTaylor seems to prefer you read and review Shubin's Your Inner Fish; I'd suggest Coyne's Why Evolution is True or even Dawkins' new The Greatest Show on Earth (if nothing else, that might at least convince Terry that Dawkins really wrote such a book).
The theory of sexual reproduction is just a theory. It's changing all the time, and scientists keep coming up with new "evidence" that proves that they were all wrong before. Obviously, we cannot trust them.
Meanwhile, the fact that stork deliver babies to their mothers is a fact because if storks did not deliver babies then there would be no babies, right?
If someone said that they received some mail without a mailman it would be an intellectual embarrassment...
...and yet that's exactly what they do with babies when they say there was not deliverer!
JD Curtis:
What do you mean? What, in your view, is the underlying premise of evolution and why is logical rather than scientific (for the moment accepting that dichotomy). Evolution does not logically have to be true, it just so happens to be the theory best supported by the available evidence (although, as Dawkins points out, evolution would still be a very persuasive theory of how life could arise even if we had no life to observe).
Or do you mean that the theory was first proposed for logical reasons rather than by the assembeling of empirical laws? If so, then there are many other areas of science to which the same applies. This statement doesn't apply to evolution anyway - Darwin's work grew directly out of experiments and observations he was performing / making, as well as some inspired leaps of logic)
You must be rubbing your little Christian hands together Ray. You've got exactly what you wanted, a reaction.
I wasn't taking you seriously, you're somewhat of a joke and if anyone were to take your introduction it would only point to failures on the part of science teachers and not your ability.
Or was that a reaction?
Happy Veterans Day! God Bless!!!
JD Curtis said "I wonder if a single one of these misguided lemmings knows that the underlying premise of evolution is logical rather than scientific."
What does "lemmings" have anything to do with it? Stay on the issue!
Where is the logic in an unexplainable 'big bang'?
I will agree it is not based on science. That's why atheists continue to search for the 'missing links' (transitional forms). You are wasting your time!
Without them, your religion is a hoax. Just a thought process to delude the masses, and promote socialism in our world today.
History shows us that the USSR, the Nazis, and Red China use your religion to promote their form of government. People will think of themselves as mere animals with no immortal soul, and no purpose.
You brain wash them into thinking they are a mere 'accident', from a "nothingness".
Have a Nice Day! Think twice before you promote this hatred of GOD among your fellow citizens.
GOD's Wrath abides on you, and you will not escape Judgement.
In His Love,
Terry Burton
NeedGOD website has the answers to the 'after life' and eternity!
Maybe now that the stork alliance is coming forward we will finally start getting equal time in the classroom for the true explanations for all these "theories." Alchemy should be required in chemistry; Phrenology needs to be taught against the ridiculous THEORIES of psychology.
Most importantly though, is the need to teach the controversy of the earth's shape. All you Pythagorists have been hiding the real evidence. Just look around- does the earth LOOK round to you????? I see hills going up all around me!!! How then can the earth be round?? Even wikipedia is a part of this bias. Their article on "Flat Earth" ASSUMES that the earth is round. This THEORY about the earth's shape is clearly based on presupposition by "scientists" who force their data to support their own pet THEORY. It takes more faith to believe in a round earth than a flat earth- just look around and you will see it can't possibly be round. All you ROUNDISTS are simply worshiping your own gods Pythagorus and Columbus.
/sarcasm
Keep up the good work, Kirk and Ray!
Angela
"that past attempts at rational debate with creationists have failed"
At least they admit that when they debate creationists, evolutionists fail to be rational. :b
Good for SSA and their defense of free speech.
"but where reason fails, satire triumphs."
:-) That's funny. "Where reason fails, satire is used" would probably have been more accurate, but "triumphs" has more zest. (It is also shorter.)
@ Me "ridiculous"
You obviously have no sense of reasoning as the "Intro" gives us valid arguments for deleting
the religion of evolution from our society.
DNA by itself shows the complexity of life, and how it could Not be a mere accident evolving over a long span of time.
Wake up and smell the reality of life my friends. Hiding behind a hidden profile and making false statements, does not change the world we live in!
Use "good science" to analyze the data, and you will see there must be an "Intelligent Designer".
You can not have a masterpiece painting without the painter!
Understand ? Praying for you.
In His Love,
Terry Burton
WayoftheMasterMinute
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
'The Conflict'
Are you grieved to see God's mercy ignored? At the same time, do you cringe in fear for those who have no fear of God before their eyes?
Jeremiah had this conflict. He cried, "Oh, that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for ... my people. Oh that ... I might leave my people and go from them! For they are all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men."( Jeremiah 9:1-2)
Sadly, many professing Christians lack this conflict. They don't know the terror of the Lord and so they don't seek to "persuade men."
They have lost contact with the world. Life consists of Saturday night fellowship, Sunday services, Wednesday Bible study, and a few other social activities.
They are living in a Christian comfort zone. If this is you, please, break out today.
There goes another minute.
Gone forever. Go share your faith while you still have time.
"The theory of sexual reproduction is just a theory. It's changing all the time, and scientists keep coming up with new "evidence" that proves that they were all wrong"
Lurker,
Sexual reproduction has nothing to do with evolution. You need to PROVE your theory / religion before you compare it to a scientific fact.
Teaching your propaganda does not change the facts of 'no evidence' to support evolution.
You are proclaiming macro-evolution, which is impossible.
Micro-evolution (variation) is seen throughout our world.
You believe descended from a 'rock'
How did big bang occur? Where are the transitional fossils in the beds? Why can' mankind duplicate the creation of life in the lab?
Too many questions, and no answers in "evolution the religion".
I will agree with you on this statement:
"Obviously, we cannot trust them."
I agree, stop promoting your "lies" and recycle the evolution books in public schools!
We can not put our trust in
your meaningless religiion.
Have a Nice day! Wake up and smell the reality of Creation Science!
In His Love,
Terry Burton
*Free PDF download of Origin of Species on my profile webpage!
atheists,
August seems to be a "raving lunatic" with some of his wild comments.
Example: "but where reason fails, satire triumphs."
Since when does 'satire' triumph over reason and logic?
Anyone who knows anything about the evolution theory, will know it is not based in "good science".
It is only a theory that has never been proven, therefore it is Not a science!
You can not jump from a unproven theory to a science without empirical evidence. Got it ?
Creation Science on the other hand does not depend on a 'big bang' fairy tale story, a puddle of Ooze, or being seeded from a galaxy far far away!
Use the force Luke!? lol
In His Love,
Terry Burton
*Get the real scoop of Truth at LivingWaters website, or WayoftheMaster website. DrDINO website has the real science on fossils, and Creation Science. God Bless!
I should correct myself...
Could there be a more useless source of "misinformation" than "DrDINO"?
Apologies.
Terry wrote...
"Anyone who knows anything about the evolution theory, will know it is not based in "good science"."
Actually, Terry, the theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of hard, scientific scrutiny including many experiments that would have falsified evolution had the results been different.
It is only a theory that has never been proven, therefore it is Not a science!
In science, a theory is the highest attainable status of an idea. The fact that it's the theory of evolution speaks wonders in its favor.
You can not jump from a unproven theory to a science without empirical evidence. Got it ?
You mean like the millions of fossils and genetic sequencing we have?
Creation Science on the other hand does not depend on a 'big bang' fairy tale story, a puddle of Ooze, or being seeded from a galaxy far far away!
The theory of evolution doesn't depend on a big bang either, nor does it rely on abiogenesis. Evolution stands on its own merits as it accurately describes and makes predictions for the biological sciences. In other words, the theory of evolution only deals with speciation, it doesn't say anything about how the universe began or even how life on Earth began.
Like it or not, Terry, we are related to all living things on Earth biologically, the Earth chemically, and the cosmos atomically.
Terry (who is still not Terrence),
As my beloved brother in the almighty Lord I am concerned and feel I must ask:
When you were hanging around with your salty chums, being roughly tossed on ‘old briney’, did you receive a blow to the head?
I hate to say this, old bean, but I am forming the opinion that you are, shall we say, “one Christian short of a congregation”.
Phil
Atheists are one class of men who do break the law of God willfully and grievously; for they hate God. The infidel, who gnashes his teeth against the Almighty; the atheist, who spits the venom of his blasphemy against the person of his Maker. You will find those who rail at the very being of a God, down deep in their consciences they know there is a God, yet with their lips they will blasphemously deny the Creator’s existence. These men say there is no God, because they wish there were none. Their vile wish is father to their evil thought; and the evil thought demands great darkness of heart, and grievous hardness of spirit before they dare to express it in words; and even when they express it in words, it needs much practice before they can do it with a bold, unblushing countenance. They hate, despise, blaspheme, and malign God, and try to deny His being, and impugn his character. O Christless and hopelesss sinner! God says you shall love Him with all thy heart; and inasmuch as you hate him, you stand this day condemned to the sentence of the divine law.
Hi, Ray, it's me again, I am Dorothy who are from Hong Kong, if my comments which I sent to you before would inconvience you when you publish them, you could not to publish them. I just hope I can hear from you through my e-mail indeed.Thanks.
@Andy Duchemin--
You must be rubbing your little Christian hands together Ray. You've got exactly what you wanted, a reaction.
Somebody just HAD to do it. Best thing to do with a publicity stunt like this is let it just go on my unnoticed.
But nooooooo. Somebody just HAD to do it. Somebody just HAD to rise to the bait. Well, now that Ray's got his little reaction, the heathens might as well make it good.
Time to switch to wide open ridicule. Which shouldn't be to hard, considering what Ray is doing here is trying to sell that good ol' born-again tree-stump Christianity by intellectually picking his nose and wiping it on Origin of Species.
Hi, Ray,it's me again,I am Dorothy who are from Hong Kong, if my comments which I sent to you before would inconvenience you when you publish them or reply me in hear,you could just not to publish them as I just hope to contact you, and I hope that I could hear from you trough my e-mail indeed. Thanks.
Last but not least, I apologize for any inconvenience I may cause.
Lurker's remark is an intellectual embarrassment to the scientific community. Please do not represent them this way. Ray's point has nothing to do with delivery of a life form or object, it has everything to do with the object itself and who made it. His argument is, a letter doesn't write itself. Where did the mail come from? Where did the baby come from? Make sure you make good, rational, and well informed arguments even if they are satire.
Is it just me, or has Terry Burton completely lost his tenuous grip on reality???
DrDINO???
Seriously. Could there be a more useless source of information???
Oh, wait... DUH!
"Living Waters"!!!
Athieolutionist are teh Nazi.
Why do they hate God?
Why don't they accept that Ray tells the Truth?
Seculism is teh Nazi.
Why can't it accept that ppl have a diff point of view?
Darwin gave Hitler his ideas against the Jews, and 'evolution' is a crock but the seculist evoluatheists cant admit it bcuz they liek to sin so they try to silence ppl like Ray who arent afraid of presenting the embarassing truth about 'Evolution' in a way that is easily understood by ppl who won't be fooled like the foolish sicntist/atheist who worship Darwin.
(How did I score?)
Is that hypocrisy I smell? Blatant foolishness and ignorance? Someone's afraid Ray.
I would like to see someone put the FULL title of the book:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Racism at its finest.
"Since when does 'satire' triumph over reason and logic?"
Since they started believing that evolution was true, silly!
Hi, Ray, I am from Hong Kong.
Recently, I am worrying about my friend, since he cannot determine which one he should believe in, Christianity or atheist.
Thanks God as he let me read the article that talks about you have decided to give free copies of Origin of Species, and your new book Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution.
I think that really is a good news for me because these two books must help my friend a lot in the recognition of the truth, however, I cannot afford neither a copy of Origin of Species nor Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution, I have a presumptuous request, would you please give a free copy of Origin of Species and Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheist Evolution to my friend? I really believe that these two books can clarify my friend’s doubt.
I know my request is an extremely insensible request, but I really cannot afford these two books and want my friend knows the truth indeed, so I ask for your help.
If I could have your help, it would be a big good news for me and my friend.
I have included my e-mail address in my personal profile. I am looking forward hearing from you soon.
Lurker said:
"If someone said that they received some mail without a mailman it would be an intellectual embarrassment..."
AOL has a lot for which to answer when it comes to intellectual embarassment.
Terry said: "People will think of themselves as mere animals with no immortal soul, and no purpose.
You brain wash them into thinking they are a mere 'accident', from a 'nothingness'. "
Your appeal to consequences says nothing about the truth value of either evolution or creationism. You not liking the outcome does nothing to change whether it is true or not.
Terry shows his ignorance of the scientific method, despite numerous attempts to inform him: "It is only a theory that has never been proven, therefore it is Not a science!
You can not jump from a unproven theory to a science without empirical evidence. Got it ?"
Neither theories nor laws can ever be "proven." That is not how science works. A theory is not a "wild guess" it is an explanation for a large number of observations that explains the pattern of nature and predicts future discoveries. Evolution fits this perfectly.
A theory does not grow up into a law when evidence is found- they are fundamentally different things. A law describes a specific observation (e.g. things fall toward the earth, offspring look like their parents). A theory describes a large number of these observations (the theory of gravity, germ theory of disease, theory of evolution). There is as much debate (if not more) about the specifics of gravity than about the specifics of evolution.
ITs all about Lithium!!!:"Creation Science on the other hand does not depend on a 'big bang' fairy tale story...or being seeded from a galaxy far far away!"
It merely depends on a "Let there be Light!" fairy tale story, and being Created by a God who exists outside Time & Space. That's perfectly fine, right?
"Sexual reproduction has nothing to do with evolution."
You want some cream and/or sugar to go with that hot cup of FAIL, Terry?
>At least the debate can happen outside the classrooms.
>Even if it is not in the classrooms.
Curtis: "At least they admit that when they debate creationists, evolutionists fail to be rational."
Actually, they are acknowledging that creationists fail to respond to rational argument. But if taking cheap shots like this makes you feel better, go for it.
Terry "It's ALL About LYING for JESUS!" Burton says,
JD Curtis said "I wonder if a single one of these misguided lemmings knows that the underlying premise of evolution is logical rather than scientific."
What does "lemmings" have anything to do with it? Stay on the issue!
Where is the logic in an unexplainable 'big bang'?
Do you even know what a "lemming" is, Terry? JD Curtis is on your side, moron.
It really is hilarious how you manage to raise the FAIL bar with each and every one of your posts.
@ Ray Comfort.
Ray this is just a small contribution to the secular students case on today's particular blog, but it's adressed mainly to you.
We start on Tuesday November 3 09. The blog titled "A genuine apology"
In this heading you said: "Still, that doesn’t give me the right to misrepresent your beliefs, even if it was done in ignorance."
Forward to November 4 09. The blog title; "Taking us seriously" In this blog you start off with a very bold euphemism;
"Sadly, you are like a man who is slowly sinking in quicksand."
Exactly what this is a euphemism for, I'm not exactly sure, yet it is bold, and it is apparently euphemistic. The dramatic irony is almost unbearable. The audience is on the edge of their seats already Ray, and you've only said but a single sentence!
Forward again to Friday November 6 09. An untitled blog for which a charming little comic frame features a beached whale, and onlookers commenting; first to call for help, and then to leave it alone because it's trying to grow legs. With the phrase "it's evolution in action"
Ray, if this isn't a patent misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, than what is it?
I'll refer you first to your November 3rd blog, relative to your november 4th blog. Apology/ Serious.
Now asess the implications of the previous two blogs assertions, in comparison with the charming comic clip of the whale.
All of this suffice to say, begs the questions;
1. Do you offer apology for things you continue to do anyway, and then ask to be taken seriously?
2. If anyone is to take you seriously, how can they do it when you plainly demonstrate hypocrisy and an ignorant and sloppy attitude with regard to your reasoning?
It would seem that both the irony of your apology, and the grip of the quicksand, appear completely poetically justified.
I'm afraid the joke with regard to the comic whale bit is not on the Darwinian Ray. No reasonable or sane scientist would ever predict, or excpect a whale to grow legs on the beach. That analogy is pedestrian at best my good man, and entirely misrepresentitive at worst. Which I by the way Ray, believe is the latter. You provide the irony pretty much any time you assert things.
Ray, if this whale's going to grow legs, I ain't got all day. Even worse than that, as little time as I do have, I have even less rope for you. Word of advice Ray, the more you struggle the deeper you'll sink in that stuff...
Toodle do Ray.
God Sent,
You are officially in the list of idiot creationists (there are other creationists who are not idiots).
Is that hypocrisy I smell? Blatant foolishness and ignorance?
Only if what you smell is your own stench, blatant foolishness and ignorance, as you show later in your post.
Someone's afraid Ray.
Nah, just worried about the propaganda being put into a book that should be judged scientifically and within context. I think, though, that we should not even pay too much attention to Ray's give-away. Except denounce it for what it is. Creationist propaganda. Then leave it alone.
I would like to see someone put the FULL title of the book:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
You mean like the journals "nature" and "science", which used the full title in the issues announcing this year's celebration of 150 years since the origin and 200 birthday of Darwin?
Racism at its finest.
See what I say? Your stench, and blatant foolishness and ignorance does not allow you to put the word "races" into its proper context, which has nothing to do with "racism" (as in human enmity of peoples of different places, color, whichever). The book is clearly about the evolution of species in general, and "races" was then a proper reference to somewhat different groups within a species (the word is falling into disuse for political correctness, which seems justified given how idiots, like yourself, easily take the word out of context to mean something it is not trying to mean).
You should know about putting things into its proper historical and cultural context. After all this is what exegesis is about, isn't it?
G.E.
Call-Upon-Jesus put forth
A load of hatred, oddly reminscent of Luther's scorn towards Jews.
I hate to break it to you, tuppence, but I no more know your deity than I do 'Shiva' or 'Allah'.
Neither do I 'hate' things that don't exist.
I certainly gag at your cultist propaganda and stigmatization of non-Christians, THAT does actually exist, worse luck.
"Sexual reproduction has nothing to do with evolution."
go on, pull the other one
God Sent said:
Is that hypocrisy I smell? Blatant foolishness and ignorance? Someone's afraid Ray.
I would like to see someone put the FULL title of the book:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Racism at its finest.
Have you ever actually read Origin of Species? It does not discuss human races. It barely discusses human evolution at all: there's one line in the last chapter which predicts that "light will be shed on man and his origin." It doesn't use the word "race" much, or define it clearly, within the text, although it does discuss "races" of cabbages. Apparently by "races" it means different varieties or variants within a local population, not different subspecies (the usual meaning, in biology today, of "races").
God Sent said...
Is that hypocrisy I smell? Blatant foolishness and ignorance? Someone's afraid Ray.
I would like to see someone put the FULL title of the book:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Racism at its finest.
endquote
And show you as nothing but an idiot. As has been discussed here and if you had bother to actually read something other than creationist screeds. Darwin uses race and species interchangably. Go and actually look in Origin of Species and the do a search on race.
Again "Real Christian" dishonsety comes to the fore.
Wow Just listening to Howard Stern and they are just mocking your whole effort... its hysterical, they are really piling it on Kirk!
When you're dying, you're going to need to know the God that made you, not just 'the god' you've made up in your mind. Human pride is self-idolatry. The end of Self-worship is the Lake of Fire.
Steven J. said...
"Ray, I'd like to second (or third, fourth, whatever) KTaylor's suggestion that you review one of the recent books by prominent biologists on the evidence for evolution. KTaylor seems to prefer you read and review Shubin's Your Inner Fish; I'd suggest Coyne's Why Evolution is True or even Dawkins' new The Greatest Show on Earth (if nothing else, that might at least convince Terry that Dawkins really wrote such a book)."
In the past Ray has offered books for free to atheist's on this blog. Maybe it's time to return the favor. If you want Ray to review a book why not buy one and send it to him?
Hey, the newest cartoon actually looks pretty cool.
I do love the Darwinian Athiests keep complaining that a Religion is based on Faith and not science; while their science requires the faith of a religion.
We get these great scientific answer from the atheists like :
- Big Bang
- Primordial Soup
- Tangled Bank
- Punctuated Equilibrium
Man, what big brains....
@ Lying for Jesus:
The arguments you put forward in your reply to me have been thoroughly refuted multiple times in at least the last 800 years or so.
I'll save you the embarrassment of ripping them to bits again.
Jeremy Spears said...
"Lurker's remark is an intellectual embarrassment to the scientific community...
Ray's point has nothing to do with delivery of a life form or object, it has everything to do with the object itself and who made it. His argument is, a letter doesn't write itself. Where did the mail come from? Where did the baby come from? Make sure you make good, rational, and well informed arguments even if they are satire.
Wow. Someone missed the point.
Ray's arguments against the theory of evolution can be applied to ANY theory.
That includes the germ theory of disease, the sperm-egg theory of sexual reproduction, the theory of gravitation... you name it.
It's called an Argument by Analogy. Look it up.
God Sent said...
"I would like to see someone put the FULL title of the book:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Racism at its finest."
You realize that at the time it was written... cabbages were seen as having different races, right?
To quote Chapter 1:
"...it seems to me not improbable, that if we could... cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil... that they would ... revert to the wild aboriginal stock"
The term "race" isn't racist in EVERY context, God Sent. You may have God-sents as you name implies, but you certainly lack common-sents.
Call-Upon-Jesus said, “...one class of men who do break the law of God willfully and grievously…”
Are you capable of forming original thoughts?
It is considered dishonest to copy and paste without giving credit for the source of your material. Answers in Genesis is copyrighted, as is Spurgeon's Sermons for this modernized version of his 1857 sermon. For future reference, here’s Answers in Genesis’ Web Use Guidelines:
Since we are constantly updating the articles on the website, we request that any reference to website published articles include no more than the first paragraph, and must include the ministry’s name and a link to our website, preferably to the actual article. Copying entire articles (other than the first paragraph) or materials to other websites is strictly prohibited; however, we encourage links to the article from your website.
If you did seek, and obtain permission from Answers in Genesis, please state so in future postings.
Rando said:
"Do you even know what a "lemming" is, Terry? JD Curtis is on your side, moron."
Actually not only is JD Curtis on Terrys side, until that post I though Curtis was one of Terrys sock puppets.
OK Ray. I've asked you several times (quite nicely I think) if you would be prepared to review a modern evolution book. I know you get a lot of comments, but a simple 'no' or 'yes' would have been sufficient.
So I'm going to interpret your silence as a 'no'. That tells me that despite your claims to want to 'debate' evolution you really have absolutely no interest in doing this. Your agenda of course is to preach the gospel - all this "evolution" stuff is just a ruse. You don't understand and you really don't care to either.
Doing such a review would have gone a long way to establish your credibility and for people to take you seriously - and perhaps even contemplate your real message. Instead you've become a circus side-show (entertaining though). But of course I don't really expect you take to advice from a heathen - you probably sincerely believe that an "unsaved" person is so degenerate that I could not possibly have anything of value to say (true Ray?).
Still, I do find you a fascinating study. It's interesting (and sad) to see how fundamentalism can ruin a person's ability to think critically!
I am so glad to see the Secular Student Alliance will combat misinformation on campus.
Perhaps they could start by listing everything Darwin got wrong...wouldn't that help?
So are they really attempting to combat misinformation, or just information they disagree with....
Call-upon-Jesus said: "Atheists are one class of men who...[unpleasant long-winded pointless diatribe follows]...condemned to the sentence of the divine law.
CUJ - I'm curious, did you write this yourself? Do you have much luck with this line of polemic in converting people? Or, as I suspect, does it make you feel better to stigmatize and stereotype atheists as worthless beings in your eyes? Does it make you feel special to feel the "wrath of God"? Because after all you are in the "in group" and we are in the "out group"?
Of course the obvious reason why many of us are atheists has nothing to do with being in secret rebellion to some invisible entity who hasn't shown his face for 2000 years (and the original visit is questionable anyway and not historically corroborated ) - but simply the basic fact that your "god" has not provided no where near enough sufficient evidence for his existence. It really is that simple.
Of course if you were to accept that, then your whole worldview might start to crumble, and we wouldn't want that would we! Might make you even more angry...
Lurker said... The theory of sexual reproduction is just a theory. It's changing all the time, and scientists keep coming up with new "evidence" that proves that they were all wrong before. Obviously, we cannot trust them.
Meanwhile, the fact that stork deliver babies...
No, we actually all know babies come from the 'tangled bank'...
I thought you were going to explain the EVOLUTION of sexual reproduction...darn...still haven't gotten an answer on that one.
What are they afraid of? Knowledge?
Maybe they should rename themselves the Alliance of Secular Students. :)
Students for Stork Acknowledgement. That's a joke, right?
Steven J. said...
Ray, I'd like to second (or third, fourth, whatever) KTaylor's suggestion that you review one of the recent books by prominent biologists on the evidence for evolution. ""
Do you have any peer reviewed documentation from real scientific journals, say from Richard Dawkins? That would be a HUGE help.
Mr. Comfort,
I would encourage you to read and view the following, then furnish your commentary:
1. Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
2. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
3. Watch: "A Universe From Nothing" by Prof. Lawrence Kruass, which is posted on YouTube
I contend these works contain some of the more compelling evidence, explanations, and data answering many of the questions you frequently raise.
Ray--if that cartoon means what I think it means (evolution biting itself in the gluteus maximus), then you are wrong. Any student can buy a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species for just a few dollars. I got a pocket version for $5.00 at Barnes & Noble. That's less than lunch. Replacing Darwin's introduction with yours is indeed a trajedy, since Darwin's introduction is so good and yours is drivel to put it nicely. But the wonderful thing is that evolution can be taught quite well without ever reading Darwin's classic book. It's in most high school biology books and in literally all college Bio-101 books. Too bad you wasted all that money re-printing Darwin's book just to be able to stick in your little propagandist tract in the front. You can pass out as many anti-evolution tracts and books as you want, but you will not take the study of evolution out of public colleges. It's just not going to happen.
Is the bible in the public domain Ray? You must've considered that when to penned your drivel. I give it a month or two before someone's written an introduction to it.
Hey, here's an idea ray; for your next trick write and introduction to the Qu'ran and hand it out outside Mosques. Go on Ray, it's what Jesus would do.
Mr. burton said, "Sexual reproduction has nothing to do with evolution."
(Haewood looks around curiously) Really?
And he said, "You need to PROVE your theory / religion before you compare it to a scientific fact", referring to sexual reproduction.
Terry, sexual reproduction has not been proven. Obviously sex is not required for reproduction (ie. Jesus), so sexual reproduction fails. Something else must be causing all of these babies. Personally I don't believe in the Stork religion either. I think babies are caused by a virus. Sometimes the virus is spread during sex and sometimes during kissing. That is why there can be a pill to avoid pregnancy. Obviously it's a disease that can be cured. It’s about time we get the germ-theory of reproduction taught in the health classes instead of, or at least next to the sexual reproduction THEORY.
Are the following three points logical?
1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
2. Something exists now.
3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.
If that is logical then what do you make of the following?
The Bible says:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
What evidence is there to show that the above statement in the Bible is wrong?
God Bless.
Neil.
@ Call-Upon-Jesus
Plagiarize much?
It's fine that the stork delivers the babies, but then who delivers the stork?
Also it is well known that Darwin was not a racist, and was against slavery. Hitler was a Catholic creationist, not an evolutionist.
If someone wrote an introduction to the Bible attempting to refute the truths therein, then handed out the introduction and the Bible for free, I would celebrate. I would be disappointed for the person who wrote the introduction, but the idea that God's Word, which is living, active and a double-edged sword, would be handed out for free, is exhilirating.
It seems this secular organization is afraid.
Where's Starbuck?
I miss him. Let me post in his place...
These students should be sent to Iraq or Afganistan instead of prancing around campus spreading their lies. I knew students like them in my younger days. They'd come through the McDonalds drive through where I worked, cussing and listening to rock and roll music.
You all think Christ is a joke, and his followers should be ridiculed. You marginalise me. But I won't self-harm. I'm through with that. I get all the pain I need in the Holy Book.
These students are making jokes of themselves and their parents, probably Democrats, because they cannot comprehend what Ray is talking about. I can't comprehend it either most of the time, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Sometimes I cry on the bus.
You claim high intelligence because you believe (BELIEVE) that evolution is true. It's FAITH and you don't even know it. I don't even care if you're the one of the ones who knocks down my letterbox each night. I sometimes wonder: what if I filled that box with explosives? Give you a REAL surprise.
Would I destroy my own property and wake the neighbours to stand up to the Atheists? Sometimes I wonder.
Evolution is biting it's own tale, the cartoon has it right. My father was barely around when I was a kid.
Sure, you'll twist these words, like you always do. Am I crazy? I'm not crazy. Maybe I am crazy.
I'm going to create a new handle right now.
Mark,
Perhaps you need to read MORE of Darwin's books.
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”
“Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.”
Then there Darwins best friend, Huxley. Here’s what he had to say on that topic. “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites.” (1871, p. 20)
I would guess Huxley believed Darwin was 'rational'.
Hitler referenced evolution, “Entwicklung” in German, many times in Mein Kampf. Look it up in your copy. Sir Arthur Keith, himself an evolutionist had this to say about Hitler: “The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.”
CharlieDarwin Said: "I thought you were going to explain the EVOLUTION of sexual reproduction...darn...still haven't gotten an answer on that one."
Search "evolution of sexual reproduction" into google and click on the first link (wikipedia article). That should give you a good overview of current understanding. Try looking for information before you start complaining.
Howard Stern. I'm sure HIS opinion is keeping Ray and Kirk up at night.
"Students for Stork Acknowledgement. That's a joke, right?"
Well done, Amy2!
Very perceptive. You weren't born yesterday, were you? A sly dog, this one.
i just lolled all over my keyboard @ the original post, then again @ terry's inane rant.
this thread is AWESOME!!!
A++ :D
Charlie Darwin
"I do love the Darwinian Athiests keep complaining that a Religion is based on Faith and not science; while their science requires the faith of a religion."
FAIL.
The difference between us is that if irrefutable evidence was unnearthed tomorrow to disprove evolution or put forward and even stronger theory, we'd switch to it.
Can you say the same about your faith in God?
Call Upon Jesus
"When you're dying, you're going to need to know the God that made you, not just 'the god' you've made up in your mind. Human pride is self-idolatry. The end of Self-worship is the Lake of Fire."
When you're dead, you're not going to know anything at all. You won't know the 'God' you wasted your life worshipping is a pernicious, man-made myth because you'll be gone, annihalated, wiped-out. Theist pride is life-wasting. The end of ficticious God-worship is oblivion.
Which is just as well for you, I guess, because you won't be around to realise what a fool you were.
Ryk said (answering Rando):
"Rando said:
"Do you even know what a "lemming" is, Terry? JD Curtis is on your side, moron."
Actually not only is JD Curtis on Terrys side, until that post I though Curtis was one of Terrys sock puppets."
Y'know, despite the fact that they are having a little tiff at the moment I'm not sure that this is sufficient evidence to show that JD Curtis isn't a Terry puppet.
Maybe Terry just kinda blanked out for a moment and "JD Curtis" took over the typing...see where I'm coming from? ;)
Michael,
I wasn't born yesterday. It was the day before. Amazing how much you can learn in two days.
CharlieDarwin said:
"I do love the Darwinian Athiests keep complaining that a Religion is based on Faith and not science; while their science requires the faith of a religion.
We get these great scientific answer from the atheists like :
- Big Bang"
I have a question or two. How does the Bible explain:
Redshift that increases as a function of distance from Earth?
Cosmic microwave background radiation?
Structural elements of same?
Age of the Universe of 13.7 billion years? (If you believe a shorter age of the Universe, how does the bible account for light travelling for this amount of time?)
Changes in morphology of galaxies as a function of distance?
Imbalance of matter and antimatter?
Interested in your response.
Neil Smith said:
Are the following three points logical?
They form a valid syllogism. Of course, the trouble with syllogisms is that they can be valid without being sound: if the premises are flawed, the conclusion may not be true (or it may be: e.g. "all chickens have four legs, Mr. Ed was a chicken, therefore, Mr. Ed had four legs").
1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
We don't really have empirical experience with absolutely nothing. Even a vacuum is something; it has physical properties, follows physical laws, and is full of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. Can our intuitions about something we're utterly unfamiliar with be trusted?
2. Something exists now.
Point conceded.
3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.
I know of no cosmologists who claim that there was such a time.
Lawrence Krauss has defended the notion that the universe emerged from "nothing," but his "nothing" is actually a "something" (the aforementioned vacuum with physical laws and potentialities), a relative rather than an absolute "nothing."
Steinhardt and Turok propose that the universe may be cyclic, and may always have existed in some form. Time may be eternal, but there was always something, in their model.
And Hawking argues that time began with the Big Bang: there was literally "never a time" before something existed; something has existed for all the time there ever was, even if that is a finite amount of time.
If that is logical then what do you make of the following?
The Bible says:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
It does not logically follow from the premises provided. That does not mean it is not true, but you have not shown its truth.
What evidence is there to show that the above statement in the Bible is wrong?
The above statement is open to numerous interpretations (e.g. over what span of time did God create, did He create through purely supernatural causes or work through natural mechanisms, etc.). Broadly interpreted, it is consistent with the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. Interpreted in the context of a literally-read rest of the chapter, it is not even consistent with a heliocentric solar system.
like the cartoon... lol
Some publicity for Kirk and Origins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kENWGkRRjrY
CharlieDarwin replied to Mark:
Hitler referenced evolution, Entwicklung in German, many times in Mein Kampf. Look it up in your copy.
And when you do, you will see that invariably, it refers to the evolution or development of political institutions and cultures. The book makes no mention of biological evolution, or of humans having nonhuman ancestors and relatives.
Hitler, even in Mein Kampf, shows signs of creationist thinking: his famous line "the Fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger" is more about the absolute distinctness of species than about their fixity -- but the former implies the latter; a person steeped in evolutionary thinking would note that species distinctions must on occasion be fuzzy, not sharp, and be aware of "ring species" and "clines" where species boundaries are fuzzy or indiscernable.
Sir Arthur Keith, himself an evolutionist had this to say about Hitler: “The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.”
Keith (who abhorred the idea of basing morals on evolutionary theory) was apparently using "evolutionist" to mean "natural selectionist;" the Nazis proclaimed a highly-colored version of natural selection (like many creationists, they accepted natural selection as real), but saw it only as a means to preserve the purity of races and species, not as a means of transforming them. Himmler, of course, denied that apes were his relatives, and some Nazis banned Darwin's books from libraries and ordered them destroyed.
Darwin, Keith, and Dawkins all agreed that ethics and social policy should not be based on natural selection. For my own part, I don't think it's even possible to actually base policy on the real principles of natural selection: since all policies will have some effect on which traits help individuals leave descendants, all policies are equally "Darwinian" and the theory gives you no reason to favor one set of selective criteria over others. And attempts to impose some particular selection criteria means that one is using artificial, not natural, selection.
Note that Hitler's approach to selection ignored important Darwinian principles, such as variation existing in all groups, so that there could be no trait, common to all members of one race and absent in all members of other races, on which one could base a claim of superiority or inferiority.
Seculism is teh Nazi.
Why can't it accept that ppl have a diff point of view?
Darwin gave Hitler his ideas against the Jews, and 'evolution' is a crock but the seculist evoluatheists cant admit it bcuz they liek to sin so they try to silence ppl like Ray who arent afraid of presenting the embarassing truth about 'Evolution' in a way that is easily understood by ppl who won't be fooled like the foolish sicntist/atheist who worship Darwin.
(How did I score?)
hukt on fonics wurkt four mee
I think that I too am now convinced that Terry Burton is just messing around... I think he just likes to play games with people in here.
QED
CharlieDarwin opined:
"We get these great scientific answer from the atheists like :
- Big Bang"
Charlie, it was a Creationist Christian (Abbe Georges Lemaître) who first proposed the Big Bang theory.
Why do you imply that Christians cannot observe science?
What is it that makes your knee-jerkingly poo poo the Big Bang theory as 'atheist science' (sic)?
CharlieDarwin replied to Mark:
Perhaps you need to read MORE of Darwin's books.
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”
Note that the distinction Darwin drew between "the Negro" and "civilized man" was not biological, but technological: it was, he held, easier to grasp the similarities between humans and other primates when the humans in question used stone-age tools and didn't read or write. Darwin's point, I think, is confirmed by creationists like James Perloff (who argues that humanity can't be much older than written records, because even six-year olds can learn to read and write -- as though preliterate tribes weren't quite as human as literate cultures).
Note also that he isn't advocating genocide: he's noting that it was going on as he was writing, in Africa, the Americas, and Australia. Remaining stone-age cultures were disappearing, and he noticed it; he did not encourage it. His point was that the same sort of behavior explains why there are no ape-men walking the Earth today: they existed once, but were killed off in fights over land by early Homo sapiens.
“Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.”
And your point is what? Do you claim that there are no differences in average temperament between different groups of people? Or do you acknowledge that such differences exist, but hold that they have no genetic basis? Where is your evidence for either proposition? Or is your claim that if psychological differences exist between individuals or groups, this proves that some people or groups are "superior" or "inferior" to others? Darwin made no such claim.
CharlieDarwin replied to Mark:
Then there Darwins best friend, Huxley. Here’s what he had to say on that topic. “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites.” (1871, p. 20)
I would guess Huxley believed Darwin was 'rational'.
Presumably he did, although Darwin did not actually claim that the average black African was less intelligent than the average white European, and Wallace's claim here does not follow logically either from the observation that many low-tech cultures were facing extermination at the hands of higher-tech cultures, or that different local populations of Homo sapiens had different average temperaments and intellectual skills.
Alfred Russell Wallace explicitly denied that different races differed in intelligence, but Wallace aside, Huxley would have met very few rational men, creationist, evolutionist, or undecided, who disagreed with his statement (the creationists differed mainly in not bothering to specify "average;" they were comfortable speaking as if all blacks were dumber than any white man). The "politically correct" assumptions of the 19th century were not those of today; the abolitionists to whom Huxley was speaking (he was, like Darwin, passionately anti-slavery) would not have found his words shocking. Huxley was arguing that it was safe for white people to free all the slaves in the world.
Since you bring up Hitler in your post, I should remind you that evolutionary theory (common descent with adaption through natural selection) doesn't automatically imply that the human species is even divided into different races, much less that different races must differ in intellectual abilities. Huxley's opinions on racial differences (indeed, Darwin's opinions) are not inferences from evolutionary theory, but conclusions based on observations in light of the prejudices of his culture.
CharlieDarwin,
Perhaps you should truly be reading what Darwin wrote rather than those second-handed quote-mined texts.
Perhaps you should also learn to put things into their proper historical and cultural context rather than keep showing up as the idiot you appear to be.
Or perhaps you are the idiot you appear to be and do not wish to change that.
G.E.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... (Romans 1:20-22).
I had to come back for this thread. Absolutely amazing. The metal plate in Terry's head has shifted beyond the point of no return. He even started fighting with himself, or someone a lot like him in terms of ignorance and insanity.
Curtis (not JD), and Melanie proved they have the reading comprehension of a dead parrot.
Amy2 continues to celebrate her self-enforced lack of knowledge.
Charlie Douchebag is a recently outed Darwin fetishist. Even going so far as to assume the name Darwin. He asks stupid questions and pulls out the most thoroughly debunked quote-mine as if it hasn't been used (and failed) before. He has nothing but a rather large mouth and an even larger posterior to rest it in when not in use. He's angry about something. More than likely it's that he has a black man for a president.
Dorothy is from Hong Kong and wants a free book.
MChad requested that someone send Ray a book. He can have my copy of Greatest Show on Earth when I'm through with it. Although he'll probably just look at the pictures.
God sent asserts that he can smell hypocrisy and proves once and for all that he hasn't opened the book he's attempting to criticize.
And call upon Jesus is a plagiarizing git who found the "Find/Replace" button somewhere. In typical hardcore Christian fashion he ignores the charges against him and spouts more plagiarized nonsense.
The only Christian who made any sense in their post was stranger. Thank you for that.
And Ray is jumping up and down because he's getting noticed and that's all that matters to him. Yes he lied about being sincerely apologetic about his distortions and outright lies. But that's all in a days work for Jesus.
It seems to me that Ray has jumped the shark. And it's fun to watch.
Actually, from a biblical standpoint, the stork theory makes a lot of sense.
The Bible doesn't really describe people having sex. Sure, it says they "knew" each other but it doesn't say anything about sex. "Knowing" could mean that the man and wife had been properly introduced and then the Lord provided a baby via stork.
And there's a whole lot of "begetting" going on in the Old Testament, but that could mean that they would be getting babies from a stork. Not a word about getting babies the icky way.
Mr. Darwin seems to have invented sex. I mean if you look at old movies and TV shows they aren't having sex or anything. Those people don't even get nude. People back then probably didn't even have nudes. We probably didn't even have nudes till Mr. Darwin came along.
As for having to go to the bathroom, I won't accuse Darwin. I blame Satan. I don't think that God made us that way. I think we were meant to hold it in till we got to heaven.
erikloza wrote: If someone wrote an introduction to the Bible attempting to refute the truths therein, then handed out the introduction and the Bible for free, I would celebrate. I would be disappointed for the person who wrote the introduction, but the idea that God's Word, which is living, active and a double-edged sword, would be handed out for free, is exhilirating.
I'm glad someone else understands the childish futility of the atheists writing an introduction to the Bible argument. If a prominent atheist ever attempts this with the Bible I'm going to find him and kick him in the head (it would be a man, you know). Now I really am behaving like a nihilist.
Of course, the same is true for Darwin's book. I'm frusterated that atheists are making such a big deal out of this and giving Ray all that delicious publicity.
I hope I'm not the only atheist here who thinks Ray is shooting himself in the foot. He's handing out unabridged copies of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species with a poorly written introduction glossing over Darwin's life and a whole bunch of also poorly written propoganda to university and college students. I still don't understand how this is a threat.
@ Terry Burton
"Sexual reproduction has nothing to do with evolution."
Sexual reproduction has EVERYTHING to do with evolution.
Without reproduction, evolution could not happen.
Sexual reproduction creates variety in our children - they're not identical to their parents because their DNA is a mish-mash of their parents' DNA. So, some kids are taller than others; some are more good-looking, some can run faster. When these characteristics affect their success in getting partners and having children, you're watching evolution in action. The characteristics that made your child successful have a high chance of being passed on to their children. This is how characteristics that aid survival, like strength and speed, spread through a population and blot out all other alternatives. This is how populations - not individuals - change over time. This is evolution.
Creatures that reproduce asexual (that is, by cloning themselves like some types of bacteria do) evolve more slowly than sexually reproducing species do because you don't get all that extra variety introduced intoduced into the lineage every time reproduction happens. This is why there is a greater variety of sexually-reproducing life than there is asexually reproducing life.
There's no reason why you cannot believe in God and Jesus and not believe in evolution too - I did for a very long time.
Tenebrae wrote: Its kind of sad really, because rather than inspiring you to look at your own continual blatant intellectual dishonesty, all this action will confirm for you is that you are being persecuted for the gospel.
And here we see the heart of the problem.
Despite what creationists believe I would welcome an honest intellectual discussion on directed evolution or even pure creationism for that matter, if you can back up your theory with facts and observations. Sadly, the usual discussion actually goes sour fast.
First the creationist makes a claim about the validity of evolution by asserting that X, Y and Z are false - and we're already way off track.
The atheist calmly explains that the creationist is mistaken in his understanding of X, Y and Z. The misunderstanding is usually something that could be resolved through a General Bio course.
Then the creationist claims that X, Y and Z are all a fantasy and from here on out the conversation is the equivalent of two dogs barking at each other through a fence.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. It would be interesting to talk to a creationist who actually knew a lot about biology and was forming his own theories and trying to test them. Todd Wood comes to mind. In the pursuit of scientific truth we should always be willing to investigate new possibilities.
But the fact is there is no credible research into creation because of men like Ray Comfort. Ray Comfort and other creationists have made anyone with a desire to investigate the hypothesis of creation look like complete loonies - not to mention the harm he's done to his fellow Christians.
Please, if you have a genuine interest in the origins of life on earth, don't consult Ray or his "colleagues" at AIG. Do your own research.
"People engaged in such lunatic endeavors are legitimized by opponents who attempt to take them seriously. My organization intends no such legitimization," stated Michael Wright, president of SSA at Yale, adding that past attempts at rational debate with creationists have failed, "but where reason fails, satire triumphs."
I think that reason has ultimately failed to substantiate Darwins claims, and the ongoing darwinian movement is itself a satire, a comedy of errors. The idea that satire can in any instance triumph over even failed reason is a sad view of life, and an flight from resources which have been before us for the entire length of craetion.
CharlieDarwin said...
I thought you were going to explain the EVOLUTION of sexual reproduction...darn...still haven't gotten an answer on that one.
That is an out and out lie. Steven J has explained the evolution of sexual reproduction many, many times on this blog.
Seriously do you think they making demonstratably false comments supports your argument?
Amy2 said:
Howard Stern. I'm sure HIS opinion is keeping Ray and Kirk up at night.
Well something is keeping Ray up at night. Some of his posts are at 2 AM PST. I don't think he's really conquered his insomnia like he claimed.
Alphgeek replied to me:
"Maybe Terry just kinda blanked out for a moment and "JD Curtis" took over the typing...see where I'm coming from? ;)"
Good point, I shudder to think what Terry is doing in between these "Switches."
Terry sits down at the computer, JD makes a post, Terry wakes up at the computer covered in blood and pudding. Frightening.
Amy2 said...
"Students for Stork Acknowledgement. That's a joke, right?"
Right. And since you don't "get it," the jokes on you! LOL
Alphgeek: "Maybe Terry just kinda blanked out for a moment and "JD Curtis" took over the typing...see where I'm coming from? ;)"
The First Rule of Atheist Central is: you do not talk about Atheist Central.
The Second Rule of Atheist Central is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT ATHEIST CENTRAL.
Dr. Benway,
The use of the term "d/bag" shows your lack of sophistication AND your age.
Yawn.
@It's all About Jesus
"It is only a theory that has never been proven, therefore it is Not a science!"
Ok so first off, you have fallen victim to Ray's misrepresentation of what science is.
In science a theory is a unifying explanation of facts.
The single biggest misconception, or misrepresentation, of science is that it tells us what is right. This it does not. Science is used exclusively to show us what is wrong.
So when coy remarks on Ray's blog are posited, such as; "Science changed it's mind again, how can we trust it?" It only serves to demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the subject matter being adressed.
Much to the shagrin of yourself and Ray Comfort, sciences main strength is it's ability to self correct, or as Ray might patronizingly say "change it's mind".
Science is only in the business of falsification my friend, not "proving theories".
If I ever heard Ray humbly admit he grossly misinterpreted his own data set, or that he's decided to go back to the drawing board because he's discovered an error in his method, I'll be the first one to say bravo. Somehow, I don't think Ray would be very comfortable with the concept of never being absolutely right about anything.
Terry madly screamed (probably):
"It is only a theory that has never been proven, therefore it is Not a science!"
FAIL!
Look up 'scientific theory' on google. As if no one has ever told you the difference between a hypothesis and a theory before. Tsk.
"You can not jump from a unproven theory to a science without empirical evidence. Got it ?"
FAIL: A nonsense statement in almost every regards. WHere does theory stop and science begin for you Terry? In your well-washed brain.
"Creation Science on the other hand does not depend on a 'big bang' fairy tale story, a puddle of Ooze, or being seeded from a galaxy far far away!"
It also does not depend on evidence it seems otherwise you would take a moment to present it. Where is YOUR evidence? (And, FYI, complaining about evolution is not evidence FOR your premise.)
Go and have a word with your mad self Terry.
Ethan said:
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..."
Could I respectfully ask you to clarify something for me Ethan?
How can invisible attributes be clearly seen? What senses are involved in seeing the invisible?
If the invisible is seen, is it truly invisible?
-For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, -
Um...how? I mean if you can see something thats invisible, it's not really invisible.
@Ethan--
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... (Romans 1:20-22).
7And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16: 17-18)
How smart do you have to be to think you can drink Clorox and not be harmed, Ethan? I mean, are you a believer or not?
-(How did I score?)-
Not enough CAPS!!!eleventy!!
Dave aka lambsev said...
I think that reason has ultimately failed to substantiate Darwins claims, and the ongoing darwinian movement is itself a satire, a comedy of errors. The idea that satire can in any instance triumph over even failed reason is a sad view of life, and an flight from resources which have been before us for the entire length of craetion.
endquote
Says the man who will mess himslef in excitement once the voices in his head tell him to shoot the unbelievers.
So tell me ever been diagnosed with mental illness ?
OutlawGirl Said "I'm glad someone else understands the childish futility of the atheists writing an introduction to the Bible argument"
Check out the skeptics annotated bible, its online and actually quite enlightening.
The use of the term "d/bag" shows your lack of sophistication AND your age.
Yawn.
And I bet you'd be as far off about my age as you are as anything else you don't set your mind to.
He is a douchebag.
So the Atheist point is Darwin couldn't be a racist because everyone during his time was a racist.
What profound logic. Do you think the fricans are included in this Atheist logic?
The use of the term "d/bag" shows your lack of sophistication AND your age.
Yawn.
And I bet you'd be as far off about my age as you are as anything else you don't set your mind to.
He is a douchebag.
The idiot possing as CharlieDarwin said...
So the Atheist point is Darwin couldn't be a racist because everyone during his time was a racist.
No idiot, the point is that you should learn to put the things in the proper historical and cultural context. That someone would describe people as customary by their times does not mean the terms are meant to be racist as they would be today. If you actually read the whole texts, rather than the second-hand quote-mines, and remembered what times Darwin was living, you would even admire the guy.
What profound logic. Do you think the fricans are included in this Atheist logic?
I don't think you are pretending to be that stupid. You have to be for sure. Do you see how racist your comment here is?
G.E.
For the supporters of Ray and Kirk who visit here, there are two (among hundreds) of video series on YouTube addressing the topic of evolution and the certain claims that are being made regarding the very foundation and truth of evolution.
The first set is under the title of 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism'. (17 videos created by AronRa)
If after watching these you are still having doubts when it comes to the validity of Evolution, then watch the series with the title "Why do people laugh at creationists?" (30 Videos created by Thunderf00t)
I will purchase a steak dinner for two if after watching all videos in both series you still hold true to your convictions that there is no evidence for Evolution and you can successfully negate the information presented there-in.
I have yet to purchase anyone a steak dinner.
Consider yourself challenged.
CharlieDarwin said..."So the Atheist point is Darwin couldn't be a racist because everyone during his time was a racist."
No, the point is that,in historical context, Darwin was a progressive on race relations.
More importantly however, Darwin's personal politics don't matter. His explanation for the diversity of life on earth has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny. Nothing about Darwin the man is important compared to that.
Amy2 said...
The use of the term "d/bag" shows your lack of sophistication AND your age.
Yawn.
One could say the same about your A) childish preoccupation with swear words, your B) gotcha-style approach to rebuttals of replacing "cuss words bad" with a genuine critique of the person's point and your C) incessant use of false conceit (or is that narcolepsy that drives you to yawn so much?) as a replacement for a genuine argument. None of these are in the least bit sophisticated (though they don't affect my estimate of your age, as I've known many adults to act peevish).
Be thankful folks here do not follow your method; they genuinely address your arguments, rather than simply ignoring them in favour of mocking your vain yawnings and "the adults are speaking" noises. Such conceits must be earned; you have not done so.
Good on the Secular Student Alliance!! There should be rational opposition to religion. It's time that atheists, agnostics and non-religious people had a voice!
CharlieDarwin,
Do you believe the genocide and infanticide commited in the Old Testimate was alright for that cultural context and time in history?
And what does Darwin's racism (or lack there of; there are pleanty of sources you can look up online that attest to his disgust of racist) have to do with the validity of the theory of evolution anyway?
Outlawgirl, my only intro would be a hazmat sticker on the front cover,with a list of side effects that include, paranoid delusions, hostility , intolerance and self righteousness.
Oultawgirl, my only intro would be a hazmat sticker on the front cover.
CharlieDarwin said...
So the Atheist point is Darwin couldn't be a racist because everyone during his time was a racist.
What profound logic. Do you think the fricans are included in this Atheist logic?
hey trollboy,
did the structure of DNA change when James Watson made a racist comment?
Photosynthesis,
I think I made my point. People defending Darwin and claiming Africans in his time weren't really people.
Note that the defense is Darwin thought the same as all people at that time...BUT HE DIDN"T, he thought like the caucasians of the time. It was certainly not the thought of the Africans of his day.
Next you'll be claiming some of his best friends were African...
Do you deny Darwin believed he and his fellow whites were more evolved then blacks of his day?
Perhaps you need to read his other books. He doesn't just say blacks are less evolved; he also doesn't think much of the evolution of women, finding men to be superior.
“[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.... [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.... [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman”
I know, don't tell me, everyone thought that in his day......but I thought he was a thinker....
CharlieDarwin said:
"So the Atheist point is Darwin couldn't be a racist because everyone during his time was a racist.
What profound logic. Do you think the fricans are included in this Atheist logic?"
I find it somewhat ironic that a person who defends a religion that, not 200 years ago but in the present day institutionalises the bigotry of homophobia and passes it off as a virtue would have the temerity to accuse anyone of possessing discriminatory attitudes.
CharlieDarwin: "Do you deny Darwin believed he and his fellow whites were more evolved then blacks of his day?
Perhaps you need to read his other books. He doesn't just say blacks are less evolved; he also doesn't think much of the evolution of women, finding men to be superior."
I need to tell you something, Chuck, that may shock you.
Brace yourself...
Darwin is dead.
Has been for many, many years.
The current year is...2009.
I know it's a big shock. There, there.
The science of evolution has progressed a lot since Darwin's time. It has a great deal of evidence and research supporting it, and its accuracy does not depend on the personal political or social views of Darwin. Indeed, it never has.
The racism of Charles Darwin is no more meaningful to modern science than the racism of Abraham Lincoln is meaningful to modern politics.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Champ.
Welcome to the future!!!
CharlieDarwin,
I think I made my point. People defending Darwin and claiming Africans in his time weren't really people.
Darwin did not claim such thing. He claimed Africans and other peoples were less civilized (as in had less technological advances than the Europeans).
Note that the defense is Darwin thought the same as all people at that time...BUT HE DIDN"T, he thought like the caucasians of the time. It was certainly not the thought of the Africans of his day.
You cannot expect Darwin to have thought like the Africans of his time. Yet, he did not think like the Caucasians of his time. He wrote against discrimination, trying constantly to convince his society that the differences they saw were due to cultural and civilization issues, not intelligence.
Next you'll be claiming some of his best friends were African...
No need. Try and actually read the books. Taking those quotes from creationist charlatanry does not count.
Do you deny Darwin believed he and his fellow whites were more evolved then blacks of his day?
Of course he did not believe his fellow whites were more evolved than the blacks of his day. Read carefully and see for yourself. Steven J gave you lots of examples.
Perhaps you need to read his other books. He doesn't just say blacks are less evolved; he also doesn't think much of the evolution of women, finding men to be superior.
I read them, and nowhere will you find anything like that. Nothing about some peoples being more or less evolved than others.
“[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.... [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.... [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman”
Another quote-mine from a creationist web site? (and with some "creative" additions that are not in the text) Darwin could not have thought women were "less evolved", since males and females evolve together. And Darwin knew this quite well. Also, if you read the complete passage, he was talking about each gender having different predispositions, and he talks about the characteristics, as far as his studies allowed him to understand, that women on average seemed to have and males to lack, and vice versa. So, you might as well take a different part:
"It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man"
And then say that Darwin thought females were more evolved than males.
Look Charlie, you had lots of calm and decent answers from Steven J, while I was just tired of your pretense to be caustic and sarcastic and just insulted you and pointed to you the method by which you could find the answers yourself. You see your errors, and rather than revise what your problem could be (such as taking misleadingly-cut quotes, out of its historical, cultural, and plain textual context).
I know, don't tell me, everyone thought that in his day......but I thought he was a thinker....
He was. That a thinker can be wrong does not mean the person is not a thinker. I have been wrong many times, yet I make a living out of thinking.
Darwin's work is free online. Take a look by yourself. And please, change your darn style and verify before you post. What you are doing is embarrassing to you and to Christianity.
G.E.
Sorry, just a quick point to all the people who think that Darwin was racist: He was raised in a profoundly anti-slavery familly - Josiah Wedgewood (his grandpappy) famously left a huge chunk of his fortune to campaigns for the abolition of slavery. Darwin was one of the few men of the time who believed that black Africans were of the same species as white Europeans. For him, they were a different race of humans, equally deserving of respect. For everybody else, they were regarded as a different species altogether.
CharlieDarwin,
How would you respond to this?
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."
Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln–Douglas debate at
Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
CharlieDarwin replied to Photosynthesis:
Perhaps you need to read [Darwin's] other books. He doesn't just say blacks are less evolved; he also doesn't think much of the evolution of women, finding men to be superior.
“[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.... [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.... [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman”
I know, don't tell me, everyone thought that in his day......but I thought he was a thinker....
Out of idle curiousity, what in the above passage implies that men are superior to women? Do you suppose that everyone who is smarter than you (no very tiny fraction of the population, I would surmise) is your superior? Do you suppose that everyone less intelligent than you (there must be some such people, somewhere) is thereby your inferior, perhaps even rightfully your chattel?
Note that, given the requirements of sexual reproduction, women must be, on average, exactly as fit as men, so Darwin could not have thought them less fit.
Darwin noted that men and women alike vary in intelligence, some being smarter and others being, well, Ray Comfort fans in waiting. He noted that nearly all the great artists, philosophers, scientists, composers, etc. in history were men, and concluded therefore that while not all men were smarter than all women, men had a higher average intelligence.
Lewis Terman, some decades later, was to come to a different conclusion: men varied more among themselves than women did, with the same average intelligence but with more men than women at both the very high end and the very low end of the IQ scale. Darwin missed that possibility, as well as the possibility that women were often prevented from fully expressing their intellectual and artistic prowess. Nobody can think of everything, and no thinker gets everything right. Most great scientists have a handful of great ideas in a lifetime, and for the rest of their ideas, share common views and opinions of their class or nation.
Charlie the racist troll-boy has proven one thing today. He is most definitely a troll and quite likely a racist. The lovely quote he copied from another who mined it so poorly they inadvertently lopped off a few letters in their "creative" zeal.
This is also a quick lesson into the vapid laziness of your average bull goose loony creationist and how they share information. If you Google that hacked up paragraph in it's entirety you'll come up with 7 hits with the exact same "quote." All from creationist apologetic sites. If you take out the brackets and Google it, you'll get the real quote and see what Darwin really wrote.
The creationist realizes that he/she will need to take the scissors to the text in order to make Darwin look like he advocated racism and misogyny and in their haste to mine the choice bits they lop off a few "T"s. Then the copy paste idiots who only get their information from creationist sites do the rest.
Tell me Troll-Boy. What site did you lift that from? I'm betting it was apologetics press. Of course it's curious that another one of the four sites was the Church of Aukland. Interesting...
But that's as maybe... The point is. You are a lazy douche bag of a troll who hasn't bothered to read anything, but needs to make people think he does.
You are such a punk. I'm just wondering what your purpose is in all of this, other than trolling. Are you really in such desperate need of attention? Try again. And next time, try thinking a bit before you go off like the love child of Terry B and Mark Laine
CharlieDarwin replied to Photosynthesis:
I think I made my point. People defending Darwin and claiming Africans in his time weren't really people.
One might suppose that someone as adamantly opposed to slavery as Darwin was thought that Africans were people. Of course, even the slaveowners generally thought that Africans were people ... just people who were better off as chattels of other people.
Note that the defense is Darwin thought the same as all people at that time...BUT HE DIDN"T, he thought like the caucasians of the time. It was certainly not the thought of the Africans of his day.
The defense is that Darwin did not rethink every assumption of his culture from first principles and first-hand observations, but accepted many of the beliefs of his time and place (not that his was the only culture on Earth or that everyone shared its assumptions).
Next you'll be claiming some of his best friends were African...
Only one (and I'm not sure he was technically African by birth, though he certainly was by ancestry): John Edmonston, the former slave who taught Darwin taxidermy.
Do you deny Darwin believed he and his fellow whites were more evolved then blacks of his day?
I don't believe Darwin ever states an opinion on the issue. He had no reason to believe that, though. Here's the problem: "most evolved" means merely "most changed" from the last common ancestor of the two groups being compared. It doesn't mean "smarter," "stronger," "superior," or even "better adapted" (a population in a stable environment may stop evolving because it's already well-adapted to that environment; another population in a different, rapidly-changing environment may have partly adapted to the changes, becoming "more evolved" but less perfectly adapted -- relative to their respective environments -- than the population in the stable environment). Note that one population may be more evolved in one respect, while another is more evolved in a different respect; which is "more evolved" overall is a tricky and probably pointless judgment.
Mark P writes:
More importantly however, Darwin's personal politics don't matter. His explanation for the diversity of life on earth has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny. Nothing about Darwin the man is important compared to that.
Martin Heidegger is in the News today... seems that somefolks want to move all his works on philosophy from the Philosophy section of libraries to the section on Nazism. He was political too and it matters to some folks.
Darwin stand for 150 years? Darwin has been propped up for 150 years. God needs no propping up, and the Bible will be a best seller until the end of time.
Shadpantle writes:
I will purchase a steak dinner for two if after watching all videos in both series you still hold true to your convictions that there is no evidence for Evolution and you can successfully negate the information presented there-in.
I have yet to purchase anyone a steak dinner.
Consider yourself challenged.
The first thing this man does is to say a that one can't understand evolutionary theory without becoming a trained scientist! That smacks of gnosticism: Special knowledge is necessary, special training. Who will train us in this special knowledge? Evolutionists! Atheists!
I got everything I know about life from God. Everything I have been taught by man i compare to God's word under the influence of His Spirit. I'm not ashamed to admit I need to do this because if I don't I will believe soemthing other than the Truth.
I counter challenge you to read the Bible for 12 days for just 15 minutes.
Dave aka lambsev: "Darwin stand for 150 years? Darwin has been propped up for 150 years."
Yes, by empirical evidence.
"God needs no propping up, and the Bible will be a best seller until the end of time."
God needs no propping up? Then how come there are so many people in the world who feel the need to defend the very notion that He exists?
And what does the Bible being a best-seller have to do with anything? Does being popular make it right? The Beatles' albums sell strongly 40+ years after release, does that make them Gods?
Chris B says:
""I need to tell you something, Chuck, that may shock you.
Brace yourself...
Darwin is dead."""
Ohh, did you deny him three times?
Darwin may be dead, but his religion lives on in the faith of his followers.
Chris B said:
"The Beatles' albums sell strongly 40+ years after release, does that make them Gods?"
Yeah! Duh! they are the best kind of God because we can reasonably demonstrate that they exist(ed). Better yet they actually did stuff.
Then of course the miracle of John turning parsley into ganja and rising from the dead after three days to save our souls. He did do those things I have just as much evidence that he did as the Christians have for saying these things about Jesus. Besides the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.
CharlieDarwin: "Darwin may be dead, but his religion lives on in the faith of his followers."
Does this sort of thing really make you feel better about yourself? How sad.
God needs no propping up? Then how come there are so many people in the world who feel the need to defend the very notion that He exists?
Because they are commissioned to make disciples (students by their Boss.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28
Dave aka lambsev: "Because they are commissioned to make disciples (students by their Boss."
Sp, in other words...God needs propping up.
Post a Comment