Posted on 12/04/2009 9:55:41 PM PST by Gordon Greene
Arguing with Idiots… Part Deaux (A full-frontal assault on the Temple of Darwin) (Link to PDF).
(I know I’ve done rants like this before, but you guys are worth it!)
Dear worshippers of Darwin and lovers of self,
My personal (condensed) declaration of faith:
I believe in the God of the Bible. I believe in the Bible. I believe what it says. I believe, unashamedly that God is the Creator of the Universe and that He created it just as described in the Genesis account. I believe the only way to receive salvation is to believe and receive Jesus Christ as your savior. I believe that if you do not accept Jesus as your savior then you will spend eternity in the lake of fire, created for Satan and his followers… separated forever from God.
My personal (condensed) declaration of allegiance to American values:
I believe that the founding Fathers had faith in and worshipped the God of the Bible. I believe the Founders trusted God and the laws of God to be a guide and to provide the framework for what would become the United States of America. I believe that the Founders incorporated those values into our founding documents including the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe that very same Godly, Biblical foundation is what has sustained us as a nation for over 200 years. I believe the same is why this nation has been blessed beyond any other nation in history. I believe forsaking those principles is what is plunging this country headlong into socialism. I believe if we, as a people do not turn back to God and to His truth, this great nation has seen its best days.
Now, my message to the evolutionists and atheists on freerepublic…
You continually disgrace and shame yourselves and this site by purposely attempting to offend those who believe in God and Creation and frankly, I'm amazed it has gone on this long. The honest debate over differences of opinion are welcome on this site (correct me if I’m wrong) but even more-so the promotion of the God-centered foundation of our country and government. Yet you make it a playground for your near-pornographic display of anti-Christian rhetoric. Do I and others respond in an other-than kind way from time to time? Absolutely! That's what people do when you offer a constant barrage of insults and deliver responses dripping with hollow, moral superiority. Like many, I tried at first to reason with you. I found that there is no reasoning with the true-believers in the Temple of Darwin (with rare exception, I must note). So I barb… it’s my way of dealing with it.
From time to time one of you may pretend to seek an honest argument or answer only to turn it into a battle of context, performing hopeless and pointless contortions of the English language. Your mental gymnastics are generally childlike and wholly unnecessary. All you would have to do is to say you don’t have the mental capacity to understand the argument and that would be that… but that is not your goal.
You have this sick wish to see those who literally interpret the Bible and faithful Christians into converts of the radical wing of the Temple of Darwin or, at the very least to make an example of their comments (unsuccessfully, as a general rule). Then you can take their replies to your Darwin’s Temple websites and display them in the midst of those ungodly freak shows.
Earlier, I was questioned as to whether it was fair of me to say that you lead children into hell. My question is, “Is it fair of you to do so?” In my estimation, that’s exactly what you’re doing when you shove your unfounded faith in dry bones down the throats of schoolchildren. You claim we have nothing on which to base our faith in God and Creation, yet I suggest to you there is no evidence of evolution in the way that you teach and believe it… no proof of inter-species evolution taking place and no evidence that life was formed in a way that disputes the Biblical account. There is much more circumstantial evidence in the Creation account in Genesis than what you place your faith in, yet that is not my primary argument this evening.
Here’s the beef: most of you troll posts with a religious bent for the express purpose of inserting chaos into the equation. In that, you are no better than the community organizers at ACORN. You attempt to confuse, divide, destroy and deride those who believe your religion to be false. Yet, your religion is more than false; it rises to the level of cult. Its followers are brainwashed by manufactured statistics as if Al Gore himself were beating on the pulpit, loudly testifying to the dangers of non-belief. And you not only believe the lies, you are some of its chief priests!
Like the climate mongers and the climatologists at CRU, your actions do have consequences. However, the disastrous effects of your insidious message are far more devastating than the physical and monetary cost of the climate hoax. Your target is the soul of man. Since the dawning of the Age of Darwinism, millions of men, women and children have fallen victim, maybe even you. And for those who claim to be Christian and evolutionists, I offer this from one of my recent responses…
“If you draw evolution out to its ultimate end it either:
A. Denies the existence of God.
B. Denies His relevance.
C. Boils the Word of God down to a collection of allegory.
Unlike a lot of folks that share my beliefs in God and Creation, I don’t believe that faith in evolution automatically excludes you from Christianity. People are in different stages of their walk and some find the truth more slowly than others but that doesn’t mean they aren’t saved. But if you follow the (il)logic of evolution very far, it discounts faith in the God of the Bible.”
That is to say most would have to conclude from studying Evolution that God does not exist. Being a priest and a disseminator of the gospel of Evolution is no different than being in a sinking ship and destroying the only life preserver because you believe if you can’t have it, no one else should.
If you were honest with yourselves you would admit there is no honest scientific evidence proving evolution. Most of you have heard the truth of the Bible and chosen to reject it. I personally believe (again… my personal belief) that you and those who promote the baseless theory of evolution will be judged by God for leading others to discount God as well.
Matthew 18:6 (New International Version)
6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Romans 1:22 (New International Version)
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Exodus 20:11 (New International Version)
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
John 1:3 (New International Version)
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (New International Version)
7If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Not mutually exclusive subsets, either.
“You’d never know it considering the majority of the evolutionist’s comments on this forum.”
Is that whining I hear?
“If you think name calling gets you anywhere in a logical debate,”
Thin-skinned, and can’t take the same that you dish out.
The reason you should not respond, is that you have nothing of value to add.
CW,
So, some friends invite you to the party? Bet they made you bring the beer. The geeky guys always get the beer detail (wait, that could be any of the two of you).
“As an atheist, I don’t have a dog in the “who’s a real Christian” hunt. I simply thought you were making a math error.”
Good post. Again, honesty is important and some don’t have the desire or capability. I may be wrong about some things but I’m capable of admitting when I am. I don’t agree with you in probably any way but I can certainly respect your desire to have honest debate.
God bless (occupational hazard).
GG
Wait--geeky guys--Geeky Guys--GG
Yep--delusional projection!
“there is a very real possibility that GGG and GG are one in the same. If that is the case the average IQ of mankind just went up three points.....LOL”
(Insert snide response and gratuitous insult here)
Well, it's certainly not going to be interpreted as tongue in cheek after having been told by real Catholics in real life to my face the same thing.
Sorry, not buying your excuse today. Or any other day for that matter.
Your fighting the exclusion of the bible, prayer and creationism from science class.
“And it doesn’t matter how the tweak and manipulate the definition of the word *species*.”
How do you define a species?
You: “The difference is that my position can be influenced by reason where yours, as you admit, cannot.”
Me: “Actually - it is an “Escape from Reason” (ref Francis Schaeffer’s book by that name) to assert that God is not there and the claims of the Bible are not true....REASON demands the verdict that only an intelligent designer could create the intricate complexities of all we find in the universe.”
You: “And what evidence do you have that the Creator is your God and not, for example, Zeus?”
Me: “The Bible which archaeological discoveries have continued to find to be accurate in its historical record along with the historical certainty of the life of the person Jesus (of Nazareth/Christ),,,,just for a start.”
You: “There’s no more evidence of the divinity of Christ in the archeological record than there is for the Greek gods in the archeological investigations into Homer’s Troy.”
{Why did you do a LEAP saying I had said anything about the Bible giving evidence of the divinity of Christ when I did not even mention that subject? I spoke of the historical recoard of the MAN, the historical figure, named Jesus (of Nazareth/Christ = those are his other identifying names)
Now you say:”I haven’t asked for proof for the divinity of Christ. I have asked for evidence all along.”
Me - AGAIN my only reference to Jesus did not attempt to prove his divinity.....here - again - is what I said:
“Jesus (of Nazareth/Christ) - the main subject of the entire New Testament (and of course foretold in the Old Tesatment) - was a human being who lived and died - just as the Bible reports he did as attested to by non-Biblical sources such as Josephus, the jewish Historian.”
My additional explanatory comments since you seem to miss the plain meaning of what I wrote is this:
The EVIDENCE from the historical record (Josephus is not a Biblical writer) is that Jesus lived and died just exactly when the Bible says he lived and died, in the location the Bible reports he lived and died.
The non-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ life matches up with the Biblical accounts of the life of Jesus.
I said nothing (at that time) about proving or even giving evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ.,,,but you keep ignoring that fact.
Do you agree that Jesus did live in Israel at the time the Bible says he lived in the place the Bible says he lived?
Start back there.
It takes REASON to agree with that fact.
My statement (“There isn’t enough evidence to support any of the theories at present. Science will happily and honestly admit to that”) was about the origin of life and is, AFAIK, an accurate appraisal of the state of science on the subject. It was not about evolution.
Science admits it is wrong all the time and you know it. If it didn’t then we would still be riding horses, throwing spears and dying young.
There is an overwhelming proponderance of evidence to support evolutionary theory and it is indeed verifable.
Apologies. There I was thinking that everytime you answered my questions about what evidence you had for the creator being God or the divinity of that you might actually be trying to provide some.
I think that there is a whole heap of evidence to suggest that some of the comments attibuted to Jospehus are later insertions, maybe 4th C AD. However, I do tend to agree that and individual named Jesus probably lived in Galilee at the beginning of the first century, worked as a holy man and was put to death by the Romans/Jewish authorities.
I thought you were ignoring me. Whats the matter, can't get enough?
You don't really expect an answer do you? I aske what her for a definition of transitional species days ago and I'm still waiting. (But she continues to demand that I and others do her research for her....LOL
I’m hopeful. Maybe she’s still working on it. After all, creation ‘science’ hasn’t done much work in this area... in fact, it doesn’t seem to have done much work in any area.
You must be reading FR in some alternate universe. I find that most (in fact I believe all) evolutionists in these threads readily concede that there is, at least as yet, no remotely complete and satisfactory theory of the origin of life.
“Science” rarely admits to being wrong about anything.
You must also be reading science journals and science news in an alternate universe. In this one scientists are constantly searching for new and better theories and, on the accumulation of sufficient evidence, abandon superseded ones not only readily, but downright gleefully.
What world do you live in where science, schools, documentaries, the government and scientists do not claim that evolution theory is 100% verifiable?
Huh? You brought up, and Natufian was responding to, the issue of the origin of life:
And if you can conjure up an elaborate story about the way life came about[...]
Natufian essentially agreed with you -- that there is presently no sufficient basis to accept any naturalistic origin of life theory. Instead of taking "yes" for an answer, you abruptly switch the subject, and pretend Natufian was responding to a different issue.
The textbooks are written around it and and legislation is drafted on the premise.
If the premise is that science textbooks should include scientific theories that are objectively a part of science, and exclude supposed theories that have objectively failed to demonstrate scientific merit, or have been falsified, or whose proponents have actively shielded them from serious scientific testing and review in the first place, then, yeah. Of course.
If you actually believe that creationism is true, and evolution false, then you shouldn't want it any different. Because then, on what you should expect to be the inevitable triumph of creation theory, evolution could be, would be (and, that circumstance genuinely applying, should be) DROPPED AND EXCLUDED from textbooks and curricula.
If creationism is instead included, prior to achieving priority or parity on merit in the marketplace of scientific ideas, and therefore on the basis of a kind of intellectual affirmative action, then, even if evolution were disproven, we'd have to keep including it in textbooks on the same affirmative action basis.
Interestingly, creationists almost universally -- but only wrt evolution -- do reject the consequential competition of ideas option, which holds that ideas can and do fail, and that failed ideas should be excluded from heuristic presentations, or at least not be dishonestly presented as viable competitors to successful ideas. Instead -- but only wrt evolution -- they support the equal time, affirmative action, victimology/self esteem/identity group approach, which holds that if a significant identity group (e.g. fundamentalists) holds a strong opinion about an academic topic (e.g. evolution) then it is an attack on them and an assault on their self-esteem to teach a contrary view, and so you should instead teach "both sides," pretending they are alternatives, even if only one of those "sides" has objective academic standing.
This is fascinating because creationists, generally being conservative, tend to hold EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE view wrt to every other subject. When it comes to history, social studies, political science, sex education, or even science curricular with respect to topics like abortion and environmentalism, creationists support consequential competition of ideas, and reject the wishy-washy relativism of equal time and balanced treatment.
This struck me as notable years ago, when I used to sometimes watch or read about conservative Texas textbook activists Mel and Norma Gabler's testimony. I would cheer them on when they complained about Marilyn Monroe getting more space in American History texts than George Washington, but then watch them turn around and demand equal time for "creation science" on exactly the same philosophical grounds that feminists had demanded more time for Marilyn.
This oddity has convinced me that, on some psychological level, creationists don't really believe in creation, or disbelieve in evolution, as much as they think they do. If it were otherwise they would behave very differently from the way they do. They would not be eagerly attempting to establish the precedent that it is only "fair" to include "both" creation and evolution. First this represents an intellectual relativism which they do not accept as a general principle; and second they would hold out for defeating evolution on scientific merit, so that it would justifiably be excluded.
It's clear to me -- even if they don't admit it to themselves -- that most creationists know deep down that evolution is in fact a strong theory, and creationism a weak one.
“Whats the matter, can’t get enough?”
That would imply that you make some appreciable difference in my life/attitude/psyche. You’re such a goob your hard to ignore.
You are certainly provide entertainment value. Albeit, I liken it to the gruesome scenes on Friday the 13th where one has to look away and peer back through their fingers. True ignorance is a frightening thing!
I like you for the train-wreck you are.
The God of Creation as it’s stated in the Bible be with you and may he warm your fat Catholic buns this cold winter. (that’s an old Irish blessing I learned from a guy raised by wild ferrets in the wilds of Nantucket).
Do I have to explain what ignore means or were you lying to me again when you promised to ignore me. Maybe you just can't help yourself.
I agree with talk show host Dennis Prager when he says he prefers clarity to agreement.
As for myself, I have a small confession to make. In some arguments I have actually...
(drum roll, please)
admitted to making a mistake.
I know, I know. On the internet yet.
I don’t agree with you in probably any way but I can certainly respect your desire to have honest debate.
We both might be surprised at how much we agree on some things, social issues aside. While I'm not a social conservative, I'm very conservative on matters of economics, defense, and foreign affairs. Note that I always put a Heinlein quote in my tagline. (Which reminds me, time to put in a new one)
God bless (occupational hazard).
I always take a heartfelt blessing in the spirit in which it is given. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.