I just received a poem from Rapture Alert about Darwin’s alleged recantation of evolution and conversion to Christianity…
For those of you who haven’t heard of Rapture Alert, it’s a website dedicated to the anticipation of the rapture. One of the website’s fans or administrators just sent in a poem in response an earlier post on a Florida school board which had voted to oppose the teaching of evolution as fact. Take a look.
Detailing Darwin
My muse is clothed is sackcloth
Like sunglasses in a dark place
The Paleozoic need
Sleeping with a light in your face
Memoirs detailing Darwin
Madame Tussauds waxing cold
Hunting phantasmagoria
Persons of that serpent of old
Like some post Freudian slip
Darwin’s recantation at death
He said as he held his Bible
“That my theories were just a guess!”
His book, “My Life and Letters”
“My ideas were uninformed”
And I quote him verbatim
“Not one species has evolved!”
“And to my astonishment
The ideas took like wild fire
Made into a religion”
Of which the atheists admire!
The ‘fairy tale’ graveyard lift
The mortal theory held dear
Pray tell, will you answer then
When will our replacements get here??
Nothing real can be threatened
Just as nothing unreal exists
Science can’t prove evolution
Yet the uninformed still persist!
God created man from ‘dust’
To rule over fish in the ‘sea’
Darwin died citing Creation
And he begged God’s message be preached!
There are few stronger implicit admissions of the incredible weakness of one’s position than those present in this poem.
First, the reliance on untruths.
Here is the response to the assertion of the deathbed recantation and conversion as presented on TalkOrigins, a major repository of responses to common arguments made by religious apologists:
- The story of Darwin’s recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin’s death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin’s daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin’s illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).
- The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.
(Click here for full posting with references)
Secondly, there is the token misrepresentation of science and the evidence for evolution. Strictly speaking, science cannot prove anything. However, the evidence for the historicity evolution (i.e., the change in population gene pools over generations) is so strong that it has long been a well-established scientific fact. Yes, fact. Evolution is both theoretical and factual. Historically, it is factual. The theoretical aspect of evolution refers to research on how evolution happened. Click here for a more thorough but brief review of this often misunderstood issue.
Thirdly, the poem calls evolution a religion in and of itself. As I have stated on numerous occasions before, I find it very amusing when religionists critical of atheism and evolution try to criticize atheism or evolution as being a religion. It’s like they have an implicit understanding of how full of anti-intellectual dogmatic crap they are.
Also interesting is how, in a single writing, the author refers to the evidentially-enriched science of evolution as a fairy tale while endorsing the evidentially-vacuous hearsay that a supposed God created man out of dust.
Comments
72 Responses to “I just received a poem from Rapture Alert about Darwin’s alleged recantation of evolution and conversion to Christianity…”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...-
[…] free to comment on this post below, or go here to see the discussion—including my rebuttal to this post and others. Posted in Evolution, […]
The Frame Problem 
Dear Sir,
Can you please then, tell me, when will our replacements get here??
Just the facts, please!
In Christ,
Tragedian Bete Noire (A writer of tragedies)
A huge fan of the BIBLE and:
http://www.rapturalert.com
What are you talking about? Subsequent steps of evolution?
Readers,
Please read:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59928
Below is an excerpt from the article which uses SCIENCE to disprove athiests!!! Buy the book! Be informed!
Wrote Brent Rasmussen on the blog Unscrewing the Inscrutable:
“I am not going to go into a point by point review of the various arguments that Day addressed in ‘The Irrational Atheist.’ Suffice it to say that by the end of the chapters dealing with the individual [atheist] authors, I was happy that it was over. It was a thorough, detailed, dispassionate (with a little snarky levity thrown into the footnotes for flavor), and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print ? on their own terms, without using the Bible (in the first part of the book, that is), or any other sacred text to do it with. Amazing. And depressing. It is not my place to defend their books. I truly hope that they do find time to defend and clarify their books, specifically to the counter-arguments and claims made by Vox Day in TIA, though, because they really need to. Trust me, it wasn’t pretty.”
I’m not speaking of Intermetallics, Chemical, Biochemical, Systematic, Numerical Analysis, Computer Science, or Benchmarks for layout synthesis pertaining to evolution. My question, simply and plainly asked, was, when do OUR human replacements get here?
In Christ,
Tragedian
What are you talking about? Human replacements?
Thank you for showing readers where your point is disproved with the writers own soliloquy in where the author states that Darwin “merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations” found at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp
The dictionary and even science would define “speculation” and “theory” to be one and the same.
Always in Christ,
Tragedian
Please read http://www.rapturealert.com
Time is of the essence. I pray for all the uninformed…..truly….because I love
Ah, I also love politics; answering an unanswerable question with a question! It’s so utterly transparent my dear Watson.
To all readers and to Ron Brown,
Please read more science disproving evolution!
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/11spec01.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-11a.htm
In Christs Holy NAME,
Tragedian
TRagedian Bete Noire:
Perhaps you never learned that you can’t just put words in random order and have them mean something worth saying.
Either explain your arguments or go away. It looks like you are appealing to some strange authority to suggest something is wrong with evolution and natural selection. At best it’s a logical fallacy, more likely you are seriously unbalanced.
Tragedian: I’ll check out your links briefly.
Regarding replacements, well that’s pretty simple. The humans who are alive today are going to die at some point. Many of today’s humans will have offspring during their temporary existence. Current generations will be replaced by subsequent generations. Over many many many generations there may be changes in the gene pool as a function of environmental challeges which favour some of us more than others, as a function of the mutual isolation of different groups, and so on.
There is NOT one scintilla of evidence anywhere that one species has ever evolved into another. But don’t take scientific proof as my word; take Darwin’s. Charles Darwin admitted this himself in his memoir My Life and Letters, “Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”
This isn’t about your earlier refutation pertaining to the links of the supposed but erroneous declaration of Darwin’s daughter, rather it’s about Darwin’s own book!
Believing you need not be accountable to God doesn’t mean you won’t be. I’m not speaking of some “strange authority”! I’m speaking for THEE authority!
Post Script: What exactly does “logical fallacy” mean? Its rhetoric just sounds so imbalanced. Please answer when our replacements get here first, if you can. Your illogical threats do not intimidate me, rather they provoke me into Gods loving combat:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31 KJV)
Christ: “is the end of the law” is our peace, not our warfare.
Praying for you in Christ,
Tragedian
Hell? Yes! By Robert Jeffress
In spite of a mountain of scientific evidence against it, evolution’s proponents are in the unenviable position of defending its absurd claims. Why? The alternative is to acknowledge the role of an outside Creator, and such an admission is unthinkable to the evolutionists. They are all atheists.
More than 100 years has passed since Darwin or his followers have resulted in any “smoking gun”. The more scientist search, the more they are frustrated and evidence refutes rather than reinforces Darwin’s theory.
You must understand the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution before you can even begin to discern Darwin’s proposal. Microevolution is minor variations within species which is observable and verifiable. Macroevolution is major variations between species which is neither observable nor verifiable. Major, minor, verifiable or NOT.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary even defines evolution as a theory. Verbatim, it states, “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”
In other words, all life can be traced back to a one- celled being (protozoan) from which every other life form has developed. Thus, chimpanzees, birds, reptiles, zebras and human beings all originated from these unicellar creatures and are the result of slight variations (mutations) that occurred over billions of years.
The second major tenet of evolution is that it requires major changes between species. The evolutionist is skilled at baiting people to accept evolution by pointing to minor changes that occur over time within a species. For example, does the fact that human beings are larger today than were a hundred years ago because of better nutrition prove the hypothesis? We’re not in Kansas anymore. One thing that impressed Darwin was the variation in beak size among finches…during drought, the larger birds survived better and thus the average beak size increased slightly. Evolution in action? Not exactly. When the rains came back, beak sized returned to normal. All that researchers discovered was a cyclical variation that allowed survival under changed conditions.
Using these minor variations within species, the evolutionists theorizes that if such variations were compounded over millions of years they would produce major variations such as reptiles evolving into birds and apes into human beings.
BUT, there is a HUGE difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Lets say were looking at a 1963 advertisement for a new Mercedes automobile for 3 thousand dollars. Have there been any changes between that model of car and a current Mercedes model? Obviously, the passing of 50 years has lead to vast improvements in the efficiency and comfort of that model of automobile. The car has “evolved” over time.
However, such “evolution” did not happen by accident. No matter how long you left that Mercedes in your garage, it would not develop a more efficient engine or a better shock system without the aid of an intelligent engineer. And even with the intervention of an engineer, the end result is still an automobile. That is microevolution.
However, if you left that automobile in the garage for 10 million years, is there any chance it would ever evolve into a fully functioning 747 jetliner? Even with the intervention of an intelligent engineer, such a transformation would be impossible because there is a vast difference between a car and an airplane. Such a change would be macroevolution.
While the evidence for microevolution is plentiful, the evidence for macroevolution is non-existent. If, as evolutionist claim, these minor changes add up to major changes, then why have there been no new major animal groups since the Cambrian explosion 50 million years ago?
I ask you,, why would atheistic scientist cling to with such tenacity a theory of evolution that has so little collaborating evidence? The third and final tenet is that it is a religious philosophy that claims that Creation is the result of random chance rather than a divine designer.
Freud, Darwin, Philosophy but most importantly The Bible (inclusive of heretical theories) all require further investigation than given or perceived at first blush.
What theistic evolution still fails to grasp is that evolution makes no allowance for a Creator-God (giving birth to Darwinism 303).
While evolutionists claims that her theory says nothing about the existence of God, it actually has a great deal to say about the role of God in the development of life. Evolution postulates that chance, not God is responsible for the beginning of life. Furthermore, changes in life forms are the result of random mutations, not Divine design. Heresy!!! Blasphemy!!! False Prophets!
The philosophical pillar that undergirds evolution is naturalism, the belief that the universe is a closed system that cannot be influenced by anything or anyone (such as God). The naturalist believes that nature is all that there is. The POINT here is crucial to understand not just in naturalism but in Gnosticism, Darwinism and every other “False Prophet and Anti-Christ’s”, all which remain not proven.
The naturalist seeks to exclude the possibility of a Divine creator (in our classrooms even) by labeling her belief in naturalism as a “science” and belief in a Divine Creator as “religious faith.” According to the naturalist, science is objective and verifiable while religious faith is subjective and unverifiable. (The ones who cannot define micro and macro evolution fall prey)! Therefore, the science of naturalism should be taught to everyone in the public schools, while religious faith in a Divine Creator should be relegated to the church or synagogue for the unenlightened who chose to embrace such a myth. Myth?
Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. This word is derived from the Greek word “apologia,” which means “to defend.” After all, if the Bible is not true or if it is filled with errors, Christianity would only be a “blind faith”—something people believe without any evidence to support it.
However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself and thee main source of that proof is the Bible itself!
Everything, and I mean everything in it is true and has come to pass! Not ONCE has it been wrong! That my dear IS PROOF, Scientific and otherwise!!
See, now that you used real sentences, it’s easy to spot the complete nonsense in your post.
It matters not what Darwin ultimately believed. Science doesn’t look the the authority of the creator of an idea, simply how well the idea describes the evidence that can be collected.
It’s not surprising that Darwin didn’t see one species evolve into another, it took a long time looking to see it actually happen in the lab. That’s not to say that it wasn’t apparent in the fossil record, and now especially so with DNA evidence. But then, Darwin didn’t have the advantage of knowing about these things. He did help predict them though.
Whether Darwin believed it on his deathbed or not, his theory continues to make predictions and chalk up more and more evidence. The point is, he doesn’t exist any more, but the theory continues to work. See how that is the opposite of your silly god theory; no god, no evidence, and no reason to believe.
The evidence is in if you care to read about real science and not the delusional rantings you are used to. New species have evolved from old ones. It meets your criteria and Darwin’s.
Ron,
Thanks for checking out my links briefly! Yea!!!
Remember, Hell has not exit nor brevity!!
Amen!
Glory be to God!
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27. Yes we will die ONCE, without change…
Thisbusylover!
http://www.rapturealert.com/bewareoflions.html
http://www.rapturealert.com/deathisonlythebeginning.html
http://www.rapturealert.com/theprize.asp
http://www.rapturealert.com/eternalrewards.asp
Rewards in heaven!!!
Your propensity for spouting nonsense is astonishing, and for those who are convinced by volumes of nonsense, you must appear quite clever. Still, you provide nothing in the way of evidence and you appear to be a spammer.
Darwin’s supposed dying declaration is of no greater interest than the spam you spew so prodigiously. Evolution is a fact, shown clearly in the fossil record and more convincingly through DNA evidence. Darwin did not have these things to consider, yet his observations and theories helped predict them. Even after his death, his ideas have value. This is in contrast to your supposed god, whose fictional nature makes all your ranting a waste of time.
Sadly, Darwin did die before he could see just how true evolution and natural selection are. Hmm. I guess the bible missed that one.
Evolution 1, God 0
WordPress seems to be eating comments, apologies if this shows up more than once.
Your propensity for spouting nonsense is astonishing, and for those who are convinced by volumes of nonsense, you must appear quite clever. Still, you provide nothing in the way of evidence and you appear to be a spammer.
Darwin’s supposed dying declaration is of no greater interest than the spam you spew so prodigiously. Evolution is a fact, shown clearly in the fossil record and more convincingly through DNA evidence. Darwin did not have these things to consider, yet his observations and theories helped predict them. Even after his death, his ideas have value. This is in contrast to your supposed god, whose fictional nature makes all your ranting a waste of time.
Sadly, Darwin did die before he could see just how true evolution and natural selection are. Hmm. I guess the bible missed that one.
Evolution 1, God 0
WordPress is eating comments, sorry if this has been posted already
Your propensity for spouting nonsense is astonishing, and for those who are convinced by volumes of nonsense, you must appear quite clever. Still, you provide nothing in the way of evidence and you appear to be a spammer.
Darwin’s supposed dying declaration is of no greater interest than the spam you spew so prodigiously. Evolution is a fact, shown clearly in the fossil record and more convincingly through DNA evidence. Darwin did not have these things to consider, yet his observations and theories helped predict them. Even after his death, his ideas have value. This is in contrast to your supposed god, whose fictional nature makes all your ranting a waste of time.
Sadly, Darwin did die before he could see just how true evolution and natural selection are. Hmm. I guess the bible missed that one.
Evolution 1, God 0
February 18, 2008 at 8:53 pm
http://www.rapturealert.com/bewareoflions.html
http://www.rapturealert.com/deathisonlythebeginning.html
http://www.rapturealert.com/theprize.asp
(STILL AWAITING MODERATION FOT SOME REASON!)
TRag:
I read the Brent Rasmussen review. I am going to look into this more. However, I would appreciate it if you could lay out Vox Day’s arguments for me here. Just summarize the arguments against atheism. In return, I’ll give a stance against theism and Christianity.
“There is NOT one scintilla of evidence anywhere that one species has ever evolved into another. But don’t take scientific proof as my word; take Darwin’s. Charles Darwin admitted this himself in his memoir My Life and Letters, “Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”” [No evidence? What about the fossil record, genetic continuity among species, comparative anatomy and embryology, and the consistency of these types of findings with each other? Next, science is not a religion with messiahs. Regardless of what Darwin may have ever said, that does not change the evidence from fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy and embryology]
“In spite of a mountain of scientific evidence against it, evolution’s proponents are in the unenviable position of defending its absurd claims. Why? The alternative is to acknowledge the role of an outside Creator, and such an admission is unthinkable to the evolutionists. They are all atheists.”
[What mountains of scientific evidence against evolution? What absurd claims? What is absurd about the simple and straight forward idea that organisms that have traits that are relatively advantageous for reproduction will reproduce more than their peers and leave more offspring for subsequent generations? We know that there are intraspecies variation, that genetic mutations can produce new variation that is usually not helpful but sometimes is, and we know that variation results in some organisms being better prepared to have more offspring than others. What is absurd about this? Where the real absurdity lies is in believing that a particular God from a 2000 year old book which has been contradicted by science numerous times over and for which a cogent argument has yet to be made (indeed, I have yet to hear a theistic argument that does not rely on arguments from ignorance, authority, moral/political convenience (e.g., we need morality), lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology, personal experience (which can be made by people of all faiths, as well as by secular meditators and users of some drugs), cherry-picked scripture, the misguided assumption that this universe is special, and probably one or two other types of fallacious arguments that I am forgetting right now).
Next, *and this is important*, it is absolutely not true that if evolution were proven to be completely false we would have to believe in a Creator. If evolution is wrong, the fallback is completely directionless agnosticism. If all of science is proven wrong tomorrow, it’s not like evidence for the Bible or any other religion goes up. We would simply be more ignorant than we thought we were. I really don’t know why you think that the falling of evolution would be evidence for Christianity. There could be any number of other natural explanations. There could also be an infinite array of supernatural explanations that have nothing to do with the Bible.
And lastly, evolutionists are not all atheists. Have you ever heard of the Catholic Church? Umm, it kind of endorses evolution. Ever heard of Francis Collins, they evolutionist and evangelical Christian? Did you know that roughly half of Americans endorse evolution (a pathetically low number, by the way) while atheists and agnostics constitute only about 15% of the American population. Now, don’t get me wrong, I personally do not think that evolution/science and religion are compatible. I think religions are most likely fairy tales. But to say that all evolutionists are atheists is beyond ignorant]
“More than 100 years has passed since Darwin or his followers have resulted in any “smoking gun”. The more scientist search, the more they are frustrated and evidence refutes rather than reinforces Darwin’s theory. ” [You were home-schooled, weren’t you? What evidence refutes evolution by natural selection? Over this period the evidence from the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology, and cognition have presented mountains of evidence consistent with evolution; you do realize that evolution is the scientific bedrock of all of the life and biomedical sciences, don’t you?]
Your Webster’s dictionary is not completely accurate. You can go look around online at major scientific organization websites. My description of evolution as theory and fact is completely consistent with what is held by the majority of scientists based on the evidence.
Next, there has been evidence for macroevolution. Have you heard of Tiktaalik? It was discovered a few years ago. It is basically the Darwin fish—a fish with feet.
“BUT, there is a HUGE difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Lets say were looking at a 1963 advertisement for a new Mercedes automobile for 3 thousand dollars. Have there been any changes between that model of car and a current Mercedes model? Obviously, the passing of 50 years has lead to vast improvements in the efficiency and comfort of that model of automobile. The car has “evolved” over time.
However, such “evolution” did not happen by accident. No matter how long you left that Mercedes in your garage, it would not develop a more efficient engine or a better shock system without the aid of an intelligent engineer. And even with the intervention of an engineer, the end result is still an automobile. That is microevolution.
However, if you left that automobile in the garage for 10 million years, is there any chance it would ever evolve into a fully functioning 747 jetliner? Even with the intervention of an intelligent engineer, such a transformation would be impossible because there is a vast difference between a car and an airplane. Such a change would be macroevolution.”
[This is an inappropriate analogy. A car sitting in the garage is not a replicating organism in an environment of scarce resources. It’s just a car sitting in the garage. Of course it’s not going to evolve. However, if this car was a biological organism that produced offspring by mating and passing along its genetics, and if it lived in an environment in which sexual and physical resources were competed for, the population of 1963 Benz’s could evolve. Those which had traits that were slightly better than others (e.g., 1% better shock absorption) would be at a competitive advantage and would tend to reproduce more and over time would be likely to come to dominate the population. Some Benz’s would have accidental mutations. As an animal comparison, mutations may involve a lack of skin pigment, hairlessness, or something else that results in a large qualitative difference. Usually the mutation will not be helpful, but once in a while it will be of use and it could spread through the population as a function of the benefit it produces over the wild type (i.e., the standard). Or perhaps a small change could open the door to a new path for natural selection. Perhaps a small change in bone density could lead to an increased weight-bearing ability which could open the door for the selection of strength, which could affect how the organism relates to its environment (e.g., with predators), opening up new evolutionary pathways. Every change in a biological organism and the environment can affect the path of natural selection.]
“While the evidence for microevolution is plentiful, the evidence for macroevolution is non-existent. If, as evolutionist claim, these minor changes add up to major changes, then why have there been no new major animal groups since the Cambrian explosion 50 million years ago?”
[I do not possess the relevant knowledge to address this question.]
“I ask you,, why would atheistic scientist cling to with such tenacity a theory of evolution that has so little collaborating evidence? The third and final tenet is that it is a religious philosophy that claims that Creation is the result of random chance rather than a divine designer.”
[Again, why do you assert that there is “so little” evidence? What about the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology and cognition, and the strong consistency among these different approaches? And where is the evidence for alternatives to evolution? Where is the evidence for a God, or the Christian God in particular? Evolutionary biology has provided a framework which has led to unprecedented advances in the life sciences. It has also been the source of accurate predictions regarding the fossil record (e.g., Tiktaalik, the fish with feet, was predicted well before its discovery). Contrary to what you have said, evolution absolutely has stood up to rigorous testing and the evidence for it has only grown.]
“Heresy!!! Blasphemy!!! False Prophets!” [Umm, okay…]
“However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself and thee main source of that proof is the Bible itself!
Everything, and I mean everything in it is true and has come to pass! Not ONCE has it been wrong! That my dear IS PROOF, Scientific and otherwise!!”
[Alright, this is just really really weak. Feel free to expand on this.]
Love and Light
One more thing: Why is it that the only people who are staunchly against evolution theists? And not just theists, but extremely devout ones? If there really is strong evidence against evolution, then why is there not even a small subset of atheist scientists who are arguing against evolution? If there really is a case against evolution, then people should be able to appreciate it irrespective of theism. And why are there no agnostics speaking in outrage against evolution? And why are strongly religious scientists like Francis Collins standing against the anti-evolution movement? And why are so many religious organizations, up to and including the Catholic Church, endorsing evolution? Why are the only people who oppose evolution religious fundamentalists? If evolution is as weak as you claim it is, then it should be receiving strong opposition from atheists, agnostics, and religious moderates, too.
“God is dead”
–Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is DEAD”
–God
The links I sent earlier are by SCIENTISTS and the book before mentioned silences the most noteworthy atheists!
There is more opposition against your beliefs than mine.
Come…receive the light!
You may label me as you please, but I prefer the title of CHRISTIAN.
As to why:
“Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”..
Gnosticism was a religious philosophical dualism that professed salvation through secret knowledge.
In the bible, it’s by grace and belief! There is nothing secret about the bible or its author.
Do you want others to post to assist you in your failure to disprove GODS WORD???????????????????????
I LOVE JESUS!
What makes you think I’m a she??
I’ll reply tomorrow to the rest…adios!!
Need I point out that you have not responded to a single one of my criticisms directed at you, where as I have responded to all of yours excluding the Cambrian shield one as I don’t know about that. Need I point out that you have completely ignored the evidence from the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology and cognition, and the mutual consistency of these different approaches to the testing of evolutionary biology? And need I point out that you have not offered a single piece of evidence favouring Christianity?
I think you’re a she because “Noire” is the feminine form of “black” in French.
You claim that Vox Day’s book silences atheist scientists. Well then review his points here and silence me. If you’ve read the book and you have been willing to make so spend so much time writing posts here already, there is no reason why you cannot summarize Day’s arguments here.
Here is all the proof that Darwin was right that you need. One species becomes another. Separate gene pools are well on their way.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030923065326.htm
I think you just have a full blown loony on your hands.
Evolution is neither observable nor repeatable. Life will never be able to be created from non-life and the start of life has never and will never be observed outside of the womb. Cloning requires living cells. The religion of evolution fails both tests of science.
I’m not anti-science at all! It proves the above and science proves the Bile! Therefore I love science more than you do!
“Day’s book takes on atheist authors Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Michel Onfray using reason, history and science, not theology”.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59928
The below answers the premise of the book from the article itself. You asked that I summarize it for you. I ask that you read it and post your refutations, as no one has been able to so far.
“My advice is to read this book? and then do your damnedest to find something in it that you can argue against,” Rasmussen advises his fellow atheists. “Something beyond ‘that’s stupid!’? (which is what always seems to be the first-blush response) from an atheist to a theist? I couldn’t do it. Maybe you’ll have better luck than I did. I hope you do?
Here’s yet another argument by a scientist in support of evolution stating Darwin to be wrong. You say I don’t answer your questions but I have redundantly! Are you reading them? There are thousands upon thousands of such sights!
http://iwhome.com/spiritualquest/tracts/dp-index.htm
Here’s another that explains Lucy, fossils, vestigal organs (fish-like), the nucleus and atoms in a cartoon format that even children can understand:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
I’m really astounded that the only replies are that I’m a nut job or I don’t answer your questions. If you reread each post, you’ll see where I have and backed it up scientifically with proof. Then reread your own posts and see how they are filled with questions and insults. No one ever tears someone down from a position of strength!
Finally, the below sights shows just how science proves the Bible…
http://dejnarde.ms11.net/archa.htm
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
You can make the choice to read them or not, believe them or not, insult them or not, educate yourself further or not. Again, I must reiterate that no one tears someone down out of a position of strength. The difference between me and you is that I’m trying to build you up with love, not tear you down with hate and insults, which are your only responses!
Matthew 10:14 states, “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet”. I’ll leave you to figure out just what that means.
Love and Light,
Tragedian
I’ve always wondered, if humans were designed by god, why do we have appendixes? I mean, evolution can explain why we have a vestigial organ which serves no function but to occasionally become inflamed, causing sickness and potentially death. Why a creator would include such a ‘feature’ is a question I’d like to hear answered.
Although it is no argument for god, apparently the appendix might actually do something.
‘Evolution is neither observable nor repeatable. Life will never be able to be created from non-life and the start of life has never and will never be observed outside of the womb. Cloning requires living cells. The religion of evolution fails both tests of science.”
[Evolution has been simulated on artificial life programs, microev demonstrated in lab and virology, transitional fossils predicted and found, and then again, there’s the fossil record, genetic continuity, comparative embryology, anatomy and cognition—does all of this mean nothing to you? Evolution occurred over millions, why should it be observable by people with life spans of under 100 years? And I don’t recall observing God create anything. And I love how you call evolution a religion—it’s like you know how bullshit religion is, and so you try to drag nonreligion down with you and your religion.I must’ve missed the issue of Scientific American where they covered the proving of the Bible. And so must the grand majority of the scientific community. Question: if evolution is bunk, then why are only devout religious scientists coming out against it? If it’s bunk, there should be atheists, agnostics and religious moderates standing against it, too. Why is religious literalism needed?]
Vox Day. You have introduced him, you list his points—unless you don’t even know them, and are just taking the word of a Christian news website and one atheist blogger. If we’re going to play your game of just dropping names but not arguments, how’s this: Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian) accepts evolution and thinks ID is bullshit. Looks like I win, because Collins is both an evan Christian and a scientist, your atheist was just an atheist. Since name-dropping is your game, I win. I win in generally, actually, because there are way more theists (scientists and citizens) who accept evolution than there are atheists that deny it.
If you’re going to bring up Day, list his points. If his points seem good, I’ll get the book.]
You say that you are responding to my queries, but your responses are quite unsatisfying. Again, why are the only people you are finding to support your claims extremely devout religionists? Where are the atheists, agnostics, and religious moderates doubting evolution? Why does one have to have predecided on a creator before they begin being dubious evolution? If evolution is bunk, it’s bunk, and one shouldn’t require religious commitment to see this.
When Nietzsche said “God is dead” he was referring to the death of God as a moral athority. And God cant say anything because ‘he’ doesn’t exist.
TRagedian Bete Noire when you speak of no secrets with the bible, what do you make of the parts that were removed during the canonization? And why isn’t the Gospel of Judas included? And how come King James was able to change the bible to his suiting? And what do you make of all the different translations that happened to be ‘different’?
Sandy,
If God does not exist, then why spend your energy defending that thought? How can you be mad at a person who you THINK does not exist? If He didn’t exist, none of you would defend a non entity and that He didn’t. Who are you trying to convince, yourselves, or me, or more importantly, Him???
If we all knew every secret of the Bible, we would be God! The reason for satans fall is he had way too much pride to consider an intellegent designer. What do they say about pride going before the fall?
The reason the so called Gospel of Judas was not included is that it was written much later, as was Gnosticism. The criteria to make it into the Bible (NT) was to have actually witnessed Jesus along with the Apostles. The Gospel of Judas is Gnostic and was written hundreds of years later;
hence the rejection of it.
Do you know that 1/3 of the BIBLE is prophecy? This is foretelling! And that we are at the end of the book? Connect the dots to the news occurring everyday in the Middle east and elsewhere and you will find it to be 100% accurate, not just a theory!
Damascus (Syria) is soon to become a ruinous heap. All the nations are in allignment except for Turkey, which is positioning itself as well, just as the bible foretold thousands of years ago.
It’s closer to midnight than you think!
Post Script:
God ALSO hates religion! What he requires is a personal relationship with HIM, not any man made laws!
Judgement is coming…
Sandy,
Can you define for me amoral and immoral?
Appreciate your thoughts,
Ron,
Buy the book.
Buy the Bible too. Can I mail you one?
TRagedian:
“If God does not exist, then why spend your energy defending that thought? How can you be mad at a person who you THINK does not exist? If He didn’t exist, none of you would defend a non entity and that He didn’t. Who are you trying to convince, yourselves, or me, or more importantly, Him???”
[TR, if evolution is not real, then why spend your time defending that thought? How can you be mad at a theory that you do not think is real?…. No one here is mad at God. We don’t think God exists. How could we be mad? We are annoyed, though, that people like you are dumbing down society, prioritizing faith over reason, and religion over people.]
…
“Do you know that 1/3 of the BIBLE is prophecy? This is foretelling! And that we are at the end of the book? Connect the dots to the news occurring everyday in the Middle east and elsewhere and you will find it to be 100% accurate, not just a theory! ”
[No, I did not know that the Bible is 1/3 prophecy. In fact, I’ve been told by one well-read ex-Christian that the Bible was never meant as a provider of prophecy, so much as a guide saying what would happen if something else happened. While I trust this person as he’s very possibly the most well-read, intelligent, balanced, and dispassionate reasoner reasoner that I have ever met, he is my only source on this matter. Next, a reader of this blog is an ex-Christian who is well-versed in Christianity and relevant history. If you would like to lay out some evidence for accurate prophecy, I’d be happy to write him and ask him to read your review and analyze it.]
TR:
I have a Bible.
Second, unless you provide points from Day, I am not going to consider it as evidence here. You have peaked my interest in it and I will do more online research on it, but I will not dignify it at all in this discussion right now.
Readers,
Please understand, I know a few atheists who are good and charitable people, although hateful and spiteful in suggestion. (Not mine but the Bibles). I also know supposed Christians who think they are good, but are no more than self-righteous hypocrites, nd not likely candidtaes for Heaven.
The point? Expand your mind! No more, and no less!
Weapons of Discredit
Blood and war—Satan twisted even
Religion into weapons of discredit
Human history’s mayhem—Gaining economics
Temporary borders—Lasting demerit
Crusader, Nazi, Suicide bomber
Vindicate hates spiritual enmity
Fighting to live and living to die
Every apostate aligns the enemy
Each person one image—Identical natures
Ice—Water—Steam; Ember—Spark—Flame!
Both an entrance and an exit—The stone removed
Number the swine—The pearls by name
Ron,
It’s certainly your eternal choice! Dont blame me that you didn’t!
The Skeptic and the Critic
Heed the aesthetic and the mental
Not all flee from wrath to come
We disguise it sentimental
When the soul’s progress waits for some
Humble the handmaidens of prayer
We hear the call and make the choice
Stumble not on the pride of snare
Which silences His voice
He chose instrument and agent
As servile and bale loyalty
Those who scoff and are complacent
Will disrobe before Royalty
Heresy for the heretic
The Good Book accused of stigma
Both the skeptic and the critic
Second deaths in anathema
The Unlearning
It’s not in understanding fleeting
knowledge we perceive;
It is in the “unlearning” that
true wisdom is achieved!
The Bloodletting
Perception is deception if not heaven sent
Knowledge is not true wisdom if it comes from self
Mortal can’t envision what’s yet to be seen
Or discern the provisions of the in-between
Forget all what was assumed and learn what He taught
All things work for good; the bloodletting and the clot.
The Shallow Deep
The care lines
The grief lines
The deep ravines
The hollows of hunger
The wrinkles concealed
The snare lines
The relief lines
The shallow deep
The bellows of fullness
The blemish revealed
Ron,
Whats his name?
Do you not trust your own opinion?
It’s YOU I want to reach!
I hate “dispassionate”
The Bible is PASSION beyond belief!
Hate equals love you know, as far as the passion involved.
Indiffernce is Loves oppossite; as it does not care.
You care, because you are here, being passionate!
Therefore, you are reachable!
Heyloveablemonster,
Remeber thy maggots at thy death….
Thisbusylover!
Monster?
I do speak in complete sentences.
Thanks for your thoughts!
TRag:
Good to see you’ve dispensed with the idea that you actually have an argument to make about evolution, or anything else for that matter.
The Bible is bedtime stories for people who are afraid to be alone in the world or take responsibility for their own lives. It’s full of regurgitated garbage, rewritten to suit whatever despot needed a reason to oppress the unfortunate people of the day.
I know I just used this somewhere else, but it fits so well.
A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. ~Nietzsche
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/accuracy.htm
Ron,
Here’s but one answer!
Yes, female. But thats all you are right about!
CONNECT THE DOTS TO THE NEWS, EVERYDAY ON YOUR PERSONAL TV!
I DO LOVE…THEREFORE I AM HERE…
Dispassionate is good in reasoning. It contributes to honesty and removes bias.
His name is John Vervaeke. He’s a university prof who was raised in a very devout Christian family, has studied western and eastern philosophy for decades, says he has read the Bible 7 times, has read many Christian writers, he teaches meditation and tai chi, and is a cognitive scientist. So, he’s well versed in western and eastern philosophy, science, the Judeo-Christian faiths and scholarship, and eastern mindfulness practices.
MONSTER,
I’VE DISPENSED WITH NOTHING OF THE SORT!
MADE YOU THINK, DIDN’T I ??
GOT MILK? OR ANYTHING ELSE THAN HATE?
Ron,
I liked your answer. I quicky googled his name and the first thing that came up was this link:
http://www.insanecats.com/cgi-bin/single.py?month=oct02&msg=28.
“Catspaw’s Guide to the Inevitably Insane”
Anyway, I have not read it or your sight but will if you promise to communicate open mindedly as you have been.
Going into the hospital tomorow so must go for now; but will look you up soon! I have faith in YOU Ron!
I do beleive in prayers! Pray for me, Ron?
“prioritizing faith over reason, and religion over people”
Ve ja doo! My reason is love of people.
TR BN:
Despite our disagreements, I genuinely appreciate your kind words. You seem like a pretty warm person. I appreciate that.
I don’t pray for people. It would feel weird and contrived for me to do it, and would not be a genuine prayer. I can wish you very well, though.
Best,
Ron
PS: On John Vervaeke. John doesn’t have any connection to that site. He has a small online presence at U of Toronto Cognitive Science, but he really isn’t active online at all.
God hates religion…he LOVES people!
That’s HIS MESSAGE!!
Wishing me well and meaning it is EXACTLY a genuine prayer!
Thank you…for it really IS that simple and honest!
Amorality is the quality of existence that moral right and wrong (or good and evil) are incompatible. ‘Amorality’ or ‘amoralism’ may also refer to believing that the concepts of moral right and wrong do not have meaning, or lacking a belief in the absolute existence of any moral laws.
immoral – not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior
seem pretty similar to me, nob sure what this has to do with what i said though.
HA ha – I just read the posts by Bete Noir on here purporting to show evidence against evolution. What a joke, what a pile of irrational claptrap. Its incredible that Creationsists and IDiot Bible bashers who patently know next to nothing about evolutionary theory have the gall to go online and spout rubbish like this.
Their “evidence” consists of quoting either other equally irrational creationists and IDiots or going to their fall back position and quoting the Bible and telling you they feel sorry for you. HA HA HA HA.
Thats like a schizophrenic telling me he is concerned for my mental health…..
What their argument boils down to is;
It cant be like that!
Why!
Because God tells us it happened like it says in Genesis!
And why should I believe what is written in Genesis?
Because its Gods word.
And why should I believe its Gods word and disbelieve the evidence?
Because it says so in the Bible…
And why should i believe the Bible is true?
er because its Gods word …..
Wash rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
What a load of codswallop.
There are some which trick their customers into thinking that they are selling replicas; when in fact they are marketing fake handbags.