Weighing the Evidence: An Atheist Abandons Atheism

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | January 10, 2005 | Charles Colson

[alienken]

You stoled my thunder.Did he see the light because of the question of his own mortallity or because age comes with wisdom? I think these two are the same thing.

[Aussie Dasher]

Great minds think alike!

[shubi]

ICR is more ridiculous than the Disc. Inst.

[wgeorge2001]

[C. S. Lewis used to be an atheist. He finally concluded, and documents his reasons, that it is the most logically unsupportable position to the point that he did not believe there was really any such thing as an atheist, no matter how much someone would claim to be one.]


19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...Ro:1-19-22

[Lurking Libertarian]

If you remember nothing else, never forget that Mutations never add information to the DNA code, as would be necessary for major evolutionary advancement. End of sentence. End of evolution.

You've never heard of gene duplication?

[Sola Veritas]

"ICR is more ridiculous than the Disc. Inst."

I certainly hope that you include me in that "ridiculous" category. I would be happy to be so honored (Matthew 5:11).

Oh, BTW, I forgive you, and may God Bless you with His wisdom and may you know the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[microgood]

Before you might have a chance at effectively critiqueing evolutionary biology, you'd have to know a decent amount about it, which you clearly do not.

I love it. This is your standard line when you are defeated. The other standard line you use is to throw a mass of irrelevant links at anyone that would dare question you. Why not either admit you have been defeated or try to counter his argument. The problem is you cannot so you revert to sophistry.

Come on, explain in clear terms how a single celled animal figured out how to grow a brain, legs, arms, hair, etc. To date only one evo on FR has ever even tried as far as I know. Its just back to old reliable: you are too stupid to understand.

[Sola Veritas]

"The discovery institute started this mess with "creation science" 25 years ago. Many of the same professional creationists are still at the old game, simply shifting their semantics to "ID" and abandoning the 6000 year old earth nonsense because they couldn't sell it anymore."

Narby, the Institute of Creation Research and the ID folks are two separate camps. ICR, with which I identify my basic beliefs, is a strictly special creationist group. The LeHigh Biochemist that is pusing ID is a theistic evolutionist. These two groups do not get along at all. They certainly aren't conspiring to get creationism in the schools. Theistic evolutionists don't have any more respect for creationists than you do.

The charge that ID is watered down creationism just isn't so. It is different folks, with different agendas.

The only thing the two groups have in common is that both believe in the necessity of some form of creative or guiding deity.

Denigrate both groups if you must, but stop falsely stating they are the same. That is a falsehood.

[narby]

The only thing the two groups have in common is that both believe in the necessity of some form of creative or guiding deity.

That's like saying the feminists and the enviros are two different groups. But the result is the same, those guys voted for Kerry and the IDers and creationists both have dieties to push.

[Sola Veritas]

"That's like saying the feminists and the enviros are two different groups. But the result is the same, those guys voted for Kerry and the IDers and creationists both have dieties to push."

C'mon. You know that isn't a good analogy. Besides, what my point was is that IDers are not "creationists in disguise" as you and others have implied or directly stated.

If you want to put down Iders, then do it based upon what they are actually proposing (which I'm not sure of myself), not on a straw man fallacy that equates them with special creationists like myself that hold to a literal view of Genesis from a Conservative Evangelical Christian perspective. In all kindness, I think you are better than that.

[narby]

The distiquishing mark of both IDers and creationists is that their goal seems to be the destruction of Evolution theory, not in advancing their own. That and the fact they are both basing their ideas on their belief in a diety, rather than on the examination of the evidence in a positive manner. Their actions are negative (tearing down Evolution) rather than positive (promoting their discoveries).

And neither groups seem inclined to defend their own beliefs, only to attack. I've have posted critiques on Genesis 1 and 2 on two crevo threads now, with not a single reply to defend.

[jwalsh07]

I don't have time for a point by point refutation or debate but here is something to chew on. You seem to be concerned that light comes before dark in Genesis. Are you also concerned that light comes before dark in the BBT?

Another thing to chew on is that the Torah defines the word "choshech" as both darkness and black energy. Now how did them guys know about dark matter all those moons ago? :-}

More chew:

Genesis predicted a beginning millenium ago. BBT caught up in the 20th Century. Amazing, eh?

[narby]

But the timing and sequences of the two creation stories in Genesis are still contradictory. And people can find interesting "coincidences" in Nostradamus predictions too, so whatever you can correlate in Genesis to modern understandings of science can be said of Nostradamus as well.

But as yet, no one has stepped forward to defend Genesis in two crevo threads.

I'm waiting.

In the mean time, the answer is there for all those who will open their eyes that God created Evolution, which solves all the contradictions of science vs. Genesis in one swell foop.

[jwalsh07]

I just stepped forward, you didn't like the comments so you brought up that old strawdog Nostradamus. I don't have time tonight but I'll look at the rest of your post and get back to you when I do.

I'm in the middle of changing a blower motor and plowing the hill. Busy night.

[spitlana]

a lot of people never study evolution ...Many creationists attempt to attack evolution based upon...

Evolution has been studied non-stop in the public school system and universities for nigh unto 50 plus years--where have you been? By comparison, there has been *no* study of creation, consequently little opportunity for "creationist to attack".

[Marie Antoinette]

For later reading

[sigarms]

"Atheism is a religion too. To say you know there is no God is logically the same as saying you know there is."

Essentially I agree, and have always thought this way myself.

[sigarms]

"First, he recognized that evolutionary theory has no reasonable explanation for “the first emergence of living from non-living matter”—that is, the origin of life. Second, even if a living cell or primitive animal had somehow assembled itself from non-living chemicals, he reasoned it would have no ability to reproduce."

On the issue of how life first sprung from non-life, the author's lack of imagination leads him into believing that this serves as evidence for intelligent design. For example, clay is an interesting substance. After having it's shape modified, it reforms to it's original shape. There are analogies to this on the macro-molecular scale.

On the second point, his argument smacks of reductionism. Let us stipulate that non-living chemicals cannot reproduce. Even so, how does this mean that cells can not reproduce, simply because it's constituent parts cannot?

[narby]

I just stepped forward, you didn't like the comments

You are a liar. This is what you said.

I don't have time for a point by point refutation or debate

Typical creationist. I point out serous flaws in Genesis, you avoid the debate, yet claim you didn't. Bringing up other subjects is not "stepping forward". It is avoiding the subject of the problems in Genesis.

[sigarms]

"Surely you know that evolution is OPPOSED to several natural laws. Going from order to disorder is the nature of things. Evolution has it backwards."

The energy from the Sun is what allows things to go from disorder to order. This is the fatal flaw in your statement.