2 of 4
2
Ten books Sam Harris recommends
Posted: 15 January 2007 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  95
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”][quote author=“PURE,POWERFUL,THINKER”]If you need books to convince yourself of gods non-existence, then you’re not really living, i use my eyes to see, and i use my ears to hear, and use my nose to smell, and all of my senses report the twisted wreakage, the painful screams, and the pungeant stench of a society on the edge of obilivian, proverbially drinking themselves to death with illogic.

Get a logic book, get a math book, learn to speak spainish, play magic, but you don’t need to read atheist books. Just observe the natural world.

Where did that pungent stench of a society on the edge of oblivion come from?  My guess would be the ‘60s.  How about you?

And while we are on the book subject, do any of you try reading books that actually make a strong, logical case for creation by design?  There are many of them out there, but I am sure I will get the generic, “lame,” or “intelligence and creation shouldn’t even collide in the same sentence” regurgitation. 

I have read Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker,”  and “The God Delusion” as well as Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” and “A Letter to a Christian Nation.”  So, my question is, do you allow yourselves to be open-minded enough to actually read a book on intelligent design? 

I say this so as to not sound hypocritical, having read these books on atheism.

The only actual book I have read promoting creationism is the KJV bible- and I’ve read it through twice.  It offered no proof of such, just stated it as a fact.  And I’ve heard hundreds of sermons based on the assumption of such, against just assertion rather than actual factual or sound logical argument.

I have read many reviews of books promoting creationism, quoting passages verbatim and showing how such books are devoid of intellectual content or proof of their assumptive faith.  I see no reason to suspect these books were quoted incorrectly.

If you have some actual scientific evidence that creationism is factual, then share it with us.  At this point, I am hazarding an educated guess that you have nothing - except the old tired naked assertions generally produced by the pious.  Please prove me wrong if you can.  LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1539
Joined  2006-12-04

Interestingly, Julia Sweeney (“Letting Go of God”) talks about reading a good many religious books, really hoping to find something that made sense and validated the God she so deeply wanted to believe in.  In the end, after much research, she let go.  I respect that.

 Signature 

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
          — Robert G. Ingersoll

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

Since you like reading, how many different versions of the Bible have you read? I would like to know which one is 100% accurate as you claimed a few days ago.

Of all the translations in the Bible, the King James is probably the closest to the “most accurate.”  Now, don’t put words in my mouth or misconstrue the truth here.  All versions of the Bible are the inerrant word of God.  (chuckle chuckle from the peanut gallery)

Lets get to the facts of where there are 15,000 places in the Bible that you would consider to have questionable translations from the original.

14,600 of those can be eliminated totally from the equations because of what we would call a “typo” these days, where one word might be repeated twice, or a mispelling occured. 

Of the 400 places left, 360 of those can be crossed out because they vary in the translation like this:  It might say, “Our Lord Jesus Christ” in one translation, or “Jesus Christ our Lord” in another.  There are other examples of this, but as you can see, they are clearly the same.

That leaves 40 places left in question.  That is 1 paragraph of words, that if you combine all together, does not have ONE SINGLE thing to do with the essential beliefs of a Christian.  There is no dogma in them that is mistaken, no 2 paths a theologian could take to make one correct and the other wrong. 

The most accurate book in all history copied from one generation to the next is Homer’s Illiad, in which we are something like 98.1% correct on the original version. 

The Bible is 99.999% correct, and the parts where theologians disagree has nothing to do with the central focus of, nor does it take away anything what we know as Christianity today, or in any era for that matter.

If you want to talk about evidence, there is simply too much to discuss.  If you can look in the mirror at yourself, and not see how you were created by God, then I can’t convince you of anything.  The body is unbelievably intricate in all of its moving parts, and chance of that coming from nothing takes far more faith than to believe that you were created. 

Science is a wonderful thing.  You know that I have a biology and a chemistry degree, and no I didn’t study at Liberty.  And all of it points right back to creation for me.  You can literally see the fingerprints of God on every living thing. 

If this earth was placed 1 single foot away from the sun, we would freeze and there would never be life.  If it were 1 foot closer, we would burn to death, and there would never be life.

Time and time and time again science falls short of explaining the true nature of the creation of the universe. 

Darwins tree of life has not held up by any standard, even though some of you might still believe it.  His original theory for the tree of life was supposed to be supported by fossil records that “gradually” showed the ancestoral descent of the species.  But what about the animals is his group that he didn’t include, now are put under the phylum category, that appeared so suddenly in history.  That does not support his theory.  He just “believed” amazingly enough that future fossil records would support his conclusions.  And thats when the buzzer goes off and the red X appears on the screen.  It never happened.  Instead we have what is now known as the Cambrian explosion, which completely negates his tree of life theory for the major species of animals. 

Haeckels Embryos—I don’t even need to go any further on this one do I?  This is an educational disgrace, but one that still exists in our textbooks as teachable material these days.  He actually fudged or faked his drawings, in which he was later even called out by his own colleagues as a fraud.  Embryonic development now is considered as the developemental hourglass, where the embryos look far different in the early stages, come to similarity in the middle stages, and lead to further developement and are far from similar in the final stages.  But hold on a minute…Darwin said that embroys were most similar in their early stages.  Yet another red X on the screen followed by a loud buzzing noise.

You are 0 for 2 now. 

The Miller Experiment—another failure.  Hey lets set up the exact optimal conditions in which we think the earth could have created amino acids, and then see if they need anything other than chemical reactions are needed to create life. 

Lets use methane, amonia, and water vapor as our main ingredients of the earth’s atmosphere that was conducive to evolution.  (I can see the third red X and the buzzer coming).  NO NO NO.  Now we are lead to believe that the environment was not at all rich in hydrogen, as stated above by Miller, and that it most likely consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.  And what can be created out of that mixture?  Its almost laughable that you come up with formaldahyde and embalming fluid when you run that experiment again.

And yet, we still have it in textbooks, when chemists in the 1960’s of all decades clearly refuted that. 

Thats 0 for 3. 

I could go on for days about the vast differences between human and ape genes, the now “extinct” so to speak Archaeopteryx missing link, another buzzer goes off. 

Science continues to offer us lame ways that the earth could have formed from nothing, with no purpose whatsoever for its existence, that we all just should buy into the “existence before essence” existentialism theory. 

You let your science actually become a “religion” so to speak, where you take everything that Darwin, Hume, Crick, etc etc say as the Gospel, when in fact the next generation normally refutes at least some of the major theories these scientists come up with. 

You can just as easily replace to word “religion” with the word “science” in Ralph Waldo Emersons quote that Dawkins uses:

“The religion(science) of one generation is the literary entertainment of the next.”

And yet, the Christian faith has NEVER changed.  Some blaspheme our faith by killing in the name of God, just like some scientists “fake” drawings of embryos.  Those are the wackos.  But just look at the world of Christianity and ask yourself: 

How in the world has this stood so strongly the test of time?  And why can I literally see the effects of one converted soul in their actions, words, love and language?  What faith teaches you to “turn the other cheek” or tells you that “struggling is the testing of your faith, and you should consider it all joy when you face various trials.”  Who takes joy in tribulation?  Who could of made that up? 

You could ask a 1st Century Christian what it meant to be saved, and they would tell you the blood of our Lord and his unselfish sacrifice saves us from our deserved fate of separation from God.  They would tell you how Jesus came to earth, as God, and man, to die for our sins. 

And what would a 21st century Christian tell you?  The exact same thing. 

And yet once again you can’t find me (2) scientists in ONE generation, much less over a 2000 year period that agrees on one piece of scientific theory wholly. 

And in all that, we are to love our enemies and pray for those that persecute us.  Who invents that? 

Anyway, much love for everyone here, all things considered.  I didn’t come here hoping to change your heart, only He can do that. 

I hope you do understand that our faith is challenged every single day.  Why do you think I am here? 

Much love,

NBTBOJ

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2007 06:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  95
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]

Since you like reading, how many different versions of the Bible have you read? I would like to know which one is 100% accurate as you claimed a few days ago.

Of all the translations in the Bible, the King James is probably the closest to the “most accurate.”  Now, don’t put words in my mouth or misconstrue the truth here.  All versions of the Bible are the inerrant word of God.  (chuckle chuckle from the peanut gallery)

Lets get to the facts of where there are 15,000 places in the Bible that you would consider to have questionable translations from the original.

14,600 of those can be eliminated totally from the equations because of what we would call a “typo” these days, where one word might be repeated twice, or a mispelling occured. 

Of the 400 places left, 360 of those can be crossed out because they vary in the translation like this:  It might say, “Our Lord Jesus Christ” in one translation, or “Jesus Christ our Lord” in another.  There are other examples of this, but as you can see, they are clearly the same.

That leaves 40 places left in question.  That is 1 paragraph of words, that if you combine all together, does not have ONE SINGLE thing to do with the essential beliefs of a Christian.  There is no dogma in them that is mistaken, no 2 paths a theologian could take to make one correct and the other wrong. 

The most accurate book in all history copied from one generation to the next is Homer’s Illiad, in which we are something like 98.1% correct on the original version. 

The Bible is 99.999% correct, and the parts where theologians disagree has nothing to do with the central focus of, nor does it take away anything what we know as Christianity today, or in any era for that matter.

If you want to talk about evidence, there is simply too much to discuss.  If you can look in the mirror at yourself, and not see how you were created by God, then I can’t convince you of anything.  The body is unbelievably intricate in all of its moving parts, and chance of that coming from nothing takes far more faith than to believe that you were created. 

Science is a wonderful thing.  You know that I have a biology and a chemistry degree, and no I didn’t study at Liberty.  And all of it points right back to creation for me.  You can literally see the fingerprints of God on every living thing. 

If this earth was placed 1 single foot away from the sun, we would freeze and there would never be life.  If it were 1 foot closer, we would burn to death, and there would never be life.

Time and time and time again science falls short of explaining the true nature of the creation of the universe. 

Darwins tree of life has not held up by any standard, even though some of you might still believe it.  His original theory for the tree of life was supposed to be supported by fossil records that “gradually” showed the ancestoral descent of the species.  But what about the animals is his group that he didn’t include, now are put under the phylum category, that appeared so suddenly in history.  That does not support his theory.  He just “believed” amazingly enough that future fossil records would support his conclusions.  And thats when the buzzer goes off and the red X appears on the screen.  It never happened.  Instead we have what is now known as the Cambrian explosion, which completely negates his tree of life theory for the major species of animals. 

Haeckels Embryos—I don’t even need to go any further on this one do I?  This is an educational disgrace, but one that still exists in our textbooks as teachable material these days.  He actually fudged or faked his drawings, in which he was later even called out by his own colleagues as a fraud.  Embryonic development now is considered as the developemental hourglass, where the embryos look far different in the early stages, come to similarity in the middle stages, and lead to further developement and are far from similar in the final stages.  But hold on a minute…Darwin said that embroys were most similar in their early stages.  Yet another red X on the screen followed by a loud buzzing noise.

You are 0 for 2 now. 

The Miller Experiment—another failure.  Hey lets set up the exact optimal conditions in which we think the earth could have created amino acids, and then see if they need anything other than chemical reactions are needed to create life. 

Lets use methane, amonia, and water vapor as our main ingredients of the earth’s atmosphere that was conducive to evolution.  (I can see the third red X and the buzzer coming).  NO NO NO.  Now we are lead to believe that the environment was not at all rich in hydrogen, as stated above by Miller, and that it most likely consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.  And what can be created out of that mixture?  Its almost laughable that you come up with formaldahyde and embalming fluid when you run that experiment again.

And yet, we still have it in textbooks, when chemists in the 1960’s of all decades clearly refuted that. 

Thats 0 for 3. 

I could go on for days about the vast differences between human and ape genes, the now “extinct” so to speak Archaeopteryx missing link, another buzzer goes off. 

Science continues to offer us lame ways that the earth could have formed from nothing, with no purpose whatsoever for its existence, that we all just should buy into the “existence before essence” existentialism theory. 

You let your science actually become a “religion” so to speak, where you take everything that Darwin, Hume, Crick, etc etc say as the Gospel, when in fact the next generation normally refutes at least some of the major theories these scientists come up with. 

You can just as easily replace to word “religion” with the word “science” in Ralph Waldo Emersons quote that Dawkins uses:

“The religion(science) of one generation is the literary entertainment of the next.”

And yet, the Christian faith has NEVER changed.  Some blaspheme our faith by killing in the name of God, just like some scientists “fake” drawings of embryos.  Those are the wackos.  But just look at the world of Christianity and ask yourself: 

How in the world has this stood so strongly the test of time?  And why can I literally see the effects of one converted soul in their actions, words, love and language?  What faith teaches you to “turn the other cheek” or tells you that “struggling is the testing of your faith, and you should consider it all joy when you face various trials.”  Who takes joy in tribulation?  Who could of made that up? 

You could ask a 1st Century Christian what it meant to be saved, and they would tell you the blood of our Lord and his unselfish sacrifice saves us from our deserved fate of separation from God.  They would tell you how Jesus came to earth, as God, and man, to die for our sins. 

And what would a 21st century Christian tell you?  The exact same thing. 

And yet once again you can’t find me (2) scientists in ONE generation, much less over a 2000 year period that agrees on one piece of scientific theory wholly. 

And in all that, we are to love our enemies and pray for those that persecute us.  Who invents that? 

Anyway, much love for everyone here, all things considered.  I didn’t come here hoping to change your heart, only He can do that. 

I hope you do understand that our faith is challenged every single day.  Why do you think I am here? 

Much love,

NBTBOJ

Oh, really?  Well, at the end of the day your god is STILL either an immaterial, invisible, non-detectable spook and is useless as an explanation of anything, and requires an explanation for itself, or 2. it is a figment of your rather vivid imagination.  And I don’t see how another long-winded post by you will offer any real evidence to the contrary (but I have a feeling we’ll be getting one anyway).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 02:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]The Bible is 99.999% correct, and the parts where theologians disagree has nothing to do with the central focus of, nor does it take away anything what we know as Christianity today, or in any era for that matter.

Now that you’ve accepted that there are some errors in the Bible, maybe we can dispense with the hyperbole for a while and discuss some other issues. Arguing over the exact percentage is pointless since you haven’t proven that the Bible in not fiction in the first place.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]If you want to talk about evidence, there is simply too much to discuss.  If you can look in the mirror at yourself, and not see how you were created by God, then I can’t convince you of anything.  The body is unbelievably intricate in all of its moving parts, and chance of that coming from nothing takes far more faith than to believe that you were created.

Did they ever teach you about Mandelbrot sets at Texas Tech? They are amazingly intricate and complex structures created from the simpelist of mathematical equations. I suggest you take a look at them before suggesting that it takes any faith to believe we evolved from simpler life forms.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]If this earth was placed 1 single foot away from the sun, we would freeze and there would never be life.  If it were 1 foot closer, we would burn to death, and there would never be life.

Again with the hyperbole. Since the Earth orbits the Sun in an eclipse, not a perfect circle, there is about a 5 million kilometer difference between perihelion and aphelion. The habitable zone of our Sun is quite large and the ‘sweet spot’ is actually about 12 million kilometers further out than where we are.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Darwins tree of life has not held up by any standard, even though some of you might still believe it. 

Haeckels Embryos—I don’t even need to go any further on this one do I?

The Miller Experiment—another failure.

I could go into detail debunking these claims you borrowed from Jonathan Wells but others have done a much more thorough job of it.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]And yet, the Christian faith has NEVER changed.

There you go with the hyperbole again. I’m sure there are some other theists on this forum who would disagree with you on this point.

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 02:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

The fact that Popes and people worshiped a god that they were sure was punishing them with plagues and famines tells us for sure that they worshiped a different god than most Christians claim today, wouldn’t you say? Different god, same name. How did that happen? People were afraid of that old god, but now they want a personal relationship with him. A case of Stockholm Syndrome maybe?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

I agree that others have done a much better job of debunking these things held so closely as fact by the scientific community.  How can you even teach such things that are considered “heretical” so to speak in the scientific community today.

I also know that Antony Flew rejected his atheism, which again you would call “sad.”  How can you find a person so brilliant at one point, speak apologetically, and then when he finds out there he does believe in God, completely reject his genius of before?

I tell you what, God has fooled a ton of people into believing in Him.  We only have a dating system(human that is, before you shoot me down) that completely revolves around the birth and resurrection of Christ. 

How about some other names of people that you would consider “sad” for rejecting their atheism.

Modern:  C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel, you should read all of their stuff.  After all, we read all your atheistic books. 

Lets get a little older:  Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Herschel, Maunder, Leonardo Da Vinci, Francis Bacon, Samuel Morse, William Perry.

Heck even the great Galileo ostensibly rejected his atheistic views. 

The problem with most modern atheists is that they believe in the highest(or lowest) form of close mindedness.  You will not listen, and no matter how many facts or things we say, you will shoot them down saying lame, blah blah blah. 

I wish all of you would know an atheist before he/she is converted, and then get to know them after they accept Christ.  There is such an extreme lifestyle change that you can’t deny it. 

Anyway, I am wasting lines here.  There is nothing I can say that will convert you, and its not up to me(more laughs from the peanut gallery). 

But we will not turn the Great Commission into the Great Omission.  So GO MATTHEW 28!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 06:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]
Lets get a little older:  Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Herschel, Maunder, Leonardo Da Vinci, Francis Bacon, Samuel Morse, William Perry.

How about Lord Rochester?  Better yet, how about Charles II.  His deathbed conversion was from Protestantism to Catholicism.

Funny how often that sort of thing happened when you could be killed for adhering to the wrong doctrine while life still mattered.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 07:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Nothingbut, you said:

“I also know that Antony Flew rejected his atheism, which again you would call “sad.” How can you find a person so brilliant at one point, speak apologetically, and then when he finds out there he does believe in God, completely reject his genius of before?”

He never did reject evolution. That makes him half crazy from both our standpoints, right?

No comment on my previous assertion?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 07:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

Do you have 48 minutes? 

 

Please listen to this, and go into it with an open mind ready to learn.  And get back with me on what you think.  You think he’s crazy?  Now that is a powerful message about this century and where we are headed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  95
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Do you have 48 minutes? 

 

Please listen to this, and go into it with an open mind ready to learn.  And get back with me on what you think.  You think he’s crazy?  Now that is a powerful message about this century and where we are headed.

Forty eight minutes is a long time to waste, so I decided to listen to this guy until he said something that I know to be crap.

About 3 minutes or so into his talk he said “evolution is a theory and will always be a theory.”  I knew at that point that, though the guy may be a giant among theologians, he is a total ignoramus when it comes to the subject of science.  I decided not to waste another 45 minutes listening to a fool yammering on about something he knows nothing about.

Sorry.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Anyway, I am wasting lines here.  There is nothing I can say that will convert you, and its not up to me(more laughs from the peanut gallery).

Hang around for a while longer and you may just convert someone after all. The last Christian fundie did .

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

[quote author=“JGL57”][quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Do you have 48 minutes? 

 

Please listen to this, and go into it with an open mind ready to learn.  And get back with me on what you think.  You think he’s crazy?  Now that is a powerful message about this century and where we are headed.

Forty eight minutes is a long time to waste, so I decided to listen to this guy until he said something that I know to be crap.

About 3 minutes or so into his talk he said “evolution is a theory and will always be a theory.”  I knew at that point that, though the guy may be a giant among theologians, he is a total ignoramus when it comes to the subject of science.  I decided not to waste another 45 minutes listening to a fool yammering on about something he knows nothing about.

Sorry.

I tell you what, its amazing what lengths you guys will go to in order to call something fact.  When did the theory of evolution become the “fact” of evolution.  And the talk wasn’t all about science, although I knew I would get a response like this.  Hey show me an agreement among all scientists that tells the “fact” of evolution. 

That is the kind of close-mindedness I am talking about.  I didn’t put down Dawkins book after he called God an “infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, jealous, blah blah blah bully.”  I came into the whole thing with an open mind, and that could have been taken very offensively.  Of course though, the first thing that “offends” you makes you go right back into your closed mind.  Oh well, your loss there.  Theology aside, he had some great things to say about the 20th century that you probably would have agreed with.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

[quote author=“camanintx”][quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Anyway, I am wasting lines here.  There is nothing I can say that will convert you, and its not up to me(more laughs from the peanut gallery).

Hang around for a while longer and you may just convert someone after all. The last Christian fundie did .

I haven’t the words to how truly sad that is.  I honestly almost threw up in my mouth when I read that post.  Oh well, still have love for you guys, even though we might disagree.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16

[quote author=“JGL57”][quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Do you have 48 minutes? 

 

Please listen to this, and go into it with an open mind ready to learn.  And get back with me on what you think.  You think he’s crazy?  Now that is a powerful message about this century and where we are headed.

Forty eight minutes is a long time to waste, so I decided to listen to this guy until he said something that I know to be crap.

About 3 minutes or so into his talk he said “evolution is a theory and will always be a theory.”  I knew at that point that, though the guy may be a giant among theologians, he is a total ignoramus when it comes to the subject of science.  I decided not to waste another 45 minutes listening to a fool yammering on about something he knows nothing about.

Sorry.

It gets even worse from there. He follows up with the statement that “Evolution demands a mutation that goes upward. We don’t see that. Mutations go downward.” I suppose then he doesn’t consider adult lactose tolerance to be an improvement.

NBTBOJ calls us closeminded for not listening to the entire sermon but as JGL57 points out, it would just be a waste of time. This entire sermon is just one mans opinion since he presents no sources or references to back up his statements. If his claims on this one subject are this far off the mark, why should we expect any of his other opinions to be any more substantial, whether we agree with them or not?

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2
 
‹‹ Kristof      DAWKINS HARRIS 08 ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed