DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 708--------------------------------------------------
Huge study highlights stupendous design in human DNA
By: AGelbert Date: January 20, 2014, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Hot Dog! I have been claiming since 1986 that
there is no "junk" DNA. I HAVE MAINTAINED THAT THE ORIGINAL
DESIGN INCLUDED adaptive DNA coding to respond to environmental
pressures WITHOUT "evolving" into another species; i.e. SAME
species, new genes turned on and some turned off. Now it seems
science is proving I was right! [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Dazzling DNA
Huge study highlights stupendous design in human DNA
by Don Batten
This is an exciting time to be a creationist! Following pilot
studies published in 2007,1 the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA
Elements) project has now published some 30 papers of phase two,
revealing that most of our DNA is functional and effectively
killing the evolutionary idea that nearly all our DNA is ‘junk’.
The research involved over 440 scientists in 32 institutes
performing over 1,600 experiments.2 They found that over 80% of
the human DNA does something, although the details of what it
does mostly remain to be determined. Less than 2% of the DNA
codes for proteins; the rest turns out to be like a huge control
panel, with millions of switches that turn protein-producing
genes on or off. [img width=80
height=90]
HTML http://robservations.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/happy-cat1.jpg[/img]And<br
/>different cells have different switch settings, because they
need different parts of the DNA to be active.
Discover magazine’s website reported:3
“And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk
either, ;Daccording to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis
Coordinator and self-described ‘cat-herder-in-chief’. He
explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and
the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome
might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every
cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom
proportion. ‘It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100
percent,’ says Birney. ‘We don’t really have any large chunks of
redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.’”
Evolution needs ‘junk DNA’
Many evolutionists don’t like the findings. ;D
Even with the most favourable assumptions, evolutionists could
not account for more than a tiny amount of the human DNA :o, so
they have long claimed that 97% or more of it is useless
leftovers of evolution—‘junk’. In contrast, based on the premise
that we were created by a super-intelligent Creator—‘fearfully
and wonderfully made’—creationists have long questioned the idea
that we have mainly useless DNA. In 1994, founder of Creation
magazine Carl Wieland wrote,
“Creationists have long suspected that this ‘junk DNA’ will turn
out to have a function.”4
Many evolutionists don’t like the findings. One blogged on
Scientific American’s website that he doubted the death of junk
DNA and complained about the “public damage” done by ENCODE
publicity.5
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif
Damage to what? ;) Surely not science? Atheism? Giving three
reasons why evolution requires lots of junk DNA, he concluded
that the finding of 80% (+) functional must be
wrong/misreported. But junk DNA is dead and this blog only shows
that evolution should die with it.
“Far from finished”
Scientists have a huge job ahead to work out what specifically
all this active DNA does. Much will undoubtedly be very
important, other parts less so. It presents an enormous task.
Geneticist Rick Myers remarked, “We are far from finished. You
might argue that this could go on forever.”6
Related Articles
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
Astonishing DNA complexity update
Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’
The slow, painful death of junk DNA
Further Reading
What about ‘Vestigial’ (‘junk’) DNA that evolutionists claim is
a useless leftover of evolution?
References and notes
1.See, Williams, A., Astonishing DNA complexity update, July
2007; creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update. Return to
text.
2.See overview papers in Nature 489, 6 September 2012. Return to
text.
3.Yong, E., ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome, in the
‘Not Exactly Rocket Science’ blog;
blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/09/05/encode-th
e-rough-guide-to-the-human-genome/
Return to text.
4.Wieland, C., Junk moves up in the world, Journal of Creation
8(2):125, 1994. Return to text.
5.Jogalekar, A., Three reasons why junk DNA makes evolutionary
sense;
blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2012/09/13
/three-reasons-to-like-junk-dna,
13 September, 2012. Return to text.
6.Nature 489, p.48. Return to text.
HTML http://creation.com/dazzling-dna
#Post#: 731--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 27, 2014, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent hard boiled, detailed scientific evidence ONLY article
on the anomalies in Homology that refute the Theory of
Evolution:
HTML http://creation.com/homology-made-simple
#Post#: 754--------------------------------------------------
C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts
By: AGelbert Date: February 6, 2014, 7:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][font=times new roman]C.S. Lewis on materialistic
thoughts
‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental
collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet
was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an
accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere
accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms.
And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and
astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their
thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental
by-products, why should we believe them to be true?
I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able
to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s
like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash
when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of
how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount
Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
[/font][/quote]
#Post#: 974--------------------------------------------------
Atheistic DELUSIONS commonly assumed as truth by those ignorant
of History
By: AGelbert Date: April 26, 2014, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its
Fashionable
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
Enemies”
Agelbert Note: Memes taken apart here (and at the link) are
quite common on liberal forums attacking Christianity and VERY
MUCH part of RE's mistaken view of history at the DD >:( I
always new RE's childish tantrums about religion and
Christianity being total failures was BS. This book sets the
record straight; not that people like RE will listen, however.
:(
Book Review
Anthony Kenny on ‘Atheist Delusions’
Posted on May 13, 2010
This review originally appeared in The TLS, whose website is
www.the-tls.co.uk, and is reposted with permission.
In the ongoing suit of Secularism vs God, David Bentley Hart is
the most able counsel for the defence in recent years. Though
confident in the strength of his case, he does not hesitate to
abuse the plaintiff’s attorneys, and he does so in grand style.
Richard Dawkins is guilty of “rhetorical recklessness”.
Christopher Hitchens’s text “careens drunkenly across the pages”
of a book “that raises the wild non sequitur almost to the level
of a dialectical method”. Daniel Dennett’s theses are “sustained
by classifications that are entirely arbitrary and fortified by
arguments that any attentive reader should notice are wholly
circular”.
Hart (in his book “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution
and Its Fashionable Enemies”) has the gifts of a good advocate.
He writes with clarity and force, and he drives his points home
again and again. He exposes his opponents’ errors of fact or
logic with ruthless precision. He is generous in making
concessions on his own side, provided they leave intact his
overarching claims. Above all, he has ensured that his brief is
modest and manageable.
Thus, no attempt is made to plead in defence of religion as
such. “Religion in the abstract”, Hart says, “does not actually
exist, and almost no one (apart from politicians) would profess
any allegiance to it”. This is a sound and fundamental point.
The creeds of the major religions are mutually contradictory, so
that the one thing we know for certain about religion is that if
any religion is true then most religions are false. Hart’s
client is not religion in general—it is traditional
Christianity. It is this, he claims, that has been misunderstood
and slandered by its cultured despisers.
Again, Hart concentrates on issues of history rather than
philosophy. True, he claims that Dawkins’s philosophical
arguments are ones that “a college freshman midway through his
first logic course could dismantle in a trice”. However, the
claim that Dawkins is philosophically illiterate is based on an
ontology that would be rejected by many a seasoned professor of
philosophy. Hart’s own strengths lie elsewhere, so he is wise to
concentrate on narrative and invective.
The aim of the first half of the book is to demolish “the
mythology of a secularist age”. Secularists invite us to believe
the following story. (RE's MISTAKEN View of History Pushed
NONSTOP at the DD) In the medieval ages of faith, culture
stagnated, science languished, wars of religion were routinely
waged, witches were burned by inquisitors, and Western humanity
was enslaved to superstition. The literary remains of antiquity
had been consigned to the flames, and the achievements of Greek
science lay forgotten until Islam restored them to the West. The
age of faith was succeeded by an age of reason and
enlightenment, which gave us the riches of scientific
achievement and political liberty, and a new and revolutionary
sense of human dignity. The modern separation of Church and
State has put an end to the blood-steeped intolerance of
religion. Western humanity has at last left its nonage and
attained to its majority in science, politics and ethics.
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif“This<br
/>is”, Hart says, “a simple and enchanting tale ... its sole
defect is that it happens to be false in every identifiable
detail.”
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
Six
chapters demolish detailed elements of this secularist myth.
Chapter Four refutes the allegations that the ancient library of
Alexandria was destroyed by Christians and that the pagan
philosopher Hypatia was murdered out of hatred for women and
learning. Chapter Five shows that far from burning Classical
texts, Christian monastic librarians preserved them from decay.
Chapter Six argues that Greek science had become sterile long
before the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The only
innovative physicist of late antiquity, we are told, was the
Christian John Philoponus. During the four and a half centuries
of its scientific pre-eminence, Islam made “no more progress
than a moderately clever undergraduate today could assimilate in
less than a single academic year”. Paying tribute to the Oxford
calculators of the fourteenth century, Hart illustrates the
continuity between medieval and Renaissance science. Pope Urban
VIII’s condemnation of Galileo, he claims, was not an index of
inherent ecclesiastical hostility to science, but a clash of
arrogant personalities.
The seventh and eighth chapters defend Christianity from the
charges of intolerance and cruelty. The persecution of witches,
Hart points out, was an early modern rather than a medieval
phenomenon, and the inquisitors of the time did their best to
suppress witchhunts.
To see long excerpts from “Atheist Delusions,” click here. (at
link)
The rise of modern science and the obsession with sorcery “were
two closely allied manifestations of the development of a new
post-Christian sense of human mastery over the world”. In
exculpation of the use of torture and the burning of heretics,
it can be said that the Church was merely following a fashion
which was originated by the State.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
During the so-called Dark Ages, the only penalty for misbelief
was excommunication, whereas in the heyday of the Holy Roman
Empire heresy became a capital crime. “Violence”, Hart says,
“increased in proportion to the degree of sovereignty claimed by
the state, and whenever the medieval church surrendered moral
authority to secular power, injustice and cruelty flourished.”
Addressing the responsibility of the Church for warfare, Hart
briskly gets the Crusades out of the way. Admitting that they
were “holy wars”—the only ones in Christian history, he
maintains—he dismisses them as “the last gaudy flourish of
Western barbarian culture, embellished by the winsome ceremonies
of chivalry”.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif<br
/>The European wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a
re
treated at greater length. Here, we learn, “no prince of the
time waged war against another simply on account of his faith”.
In its bloodiest days the Thirty Years War was not a war of
religion, but a struggle between two Catholic houses, the
Bourbons and the Habsburgs. Hart is at his most convincing when
he argues that for the sheer scale of its violence, the modern
period trumps any of the ages of Christian faith. “The Thirty
Years War, with its appalling toll of civilian casualties, was a
scandal to the consciences of the nations of Europe; but midway
through the twentieth century ... even liberal democracies did
not scruple to bomb open cities from the air, or to use
incendiary or nuclear devices to incinerate tens of thousands of
civilians.”
In the second part of the book, Hart seeks to replace the
secularist myth with a positive account of what he calls “the
Christian revolution”—“perhaps the only true revolution in the
history of the West”. Many of the values prized by modern
secularists are inheritances from the early days of
Christianity.
[move]Pre-Christian cults involved human sacrifice,
self-castration and self-mutilation.[img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
<br
/>PreChristian society despised the poor and weak and tolerated
infanticide; it enjoyed gladiatorial combat, and it was built on
slavery. [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
[/move]
Only Christianity fostered the concept of a dignity intrinsic to
every human soul. Only the Church built hospitals and
almshouses, and taught that charity was the highest virtue.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
More at link:
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/anthony_kenny_on_atheist_delusions_20100514
Agelbert NOTE:THIS IS WHERE HE TEARS TO BITS THE ATHEIST'S
RELIGION! (Many worshippers at the DD, by the way, with RE as
the high priest).
"There is also, however, a negative side to my argument. It is
what I suppose I should call my rejection of modernity — or,
rather, my rejection of the ideology of "the modern" and my
rejection, especially, of the myth of "the Enlightenment." By
modernity, I should explain, I certainly do not mean modern
medicine or air travel or space exploration or any of the
genuinely useful or estimable aspects of life today; I do not
even mean modern philosophical method or social ideology or
political thought. Rather, I mean the modern age's grand
narrative of itself: its story of the triumph of critical reason
over "irrational" faith, of the progress of social morality
toward greater justice and freedom, of the "tolerance" of the
secular state, and of the unquestioned ethical primacy of either
individualism or collectivism (as the case may be). Indeed, I
want in part to argue that what many of us are still in the
habit of calling the "Age of Reason" was in many significant
ways the beginning of the eclipse of reason's authority as a
cultural value; that the modern age is notable in large measure
for the triumph of inflexible and unthinking dogmatism in every
sphere of human endeavor (including the sciences) and for a
flight from rationality to any number of soothing
fundamentalisms, religious and secular; that the Enlightenment
ideology of modernity as such does not even deserve any
particular credit for the advance of modern science; that the
modern secular state's capacity for barbarism exceeds any of the
evils for which Christendom might justly be indicted, not solely
by virtue of the superior technology at its disposal, but by its
very nature; that among the chief accomplishments of modern
culture have been a massive retreat to superstition and the
gestation of especially pitiless forms of nihilism; and that,
by comparison to the Christian revolution it succeeded,
modernity is little more than an aftereffect, or even a
counterrevolution — a reactionary flight back toward a
comfortable, but dehumanizing, mental and moral servitude to
elemental nature."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
>:(
Agelbert NOTE: YEP; Modernity claims that IF YOU CAN'T MEASURE
IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST so you are a fool to believe in God or
Christianity or tie yourself in "neurotic" knots by attempting
to live a moral life. After all, Freud "proved" that freeing
yourself from moral behavior and any moral restrainst is good
for your mental health, right?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE&feature=player_embedded
HTML http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0471.htm
#Post#: 986--------------------------------------------------
What about bad things done by the Church?
By: AGelbert Date: April 28, 2014, 6:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What about bad things :P done by the Church? >:(
by Jonathan Sarfati
Professing Christians who committed atrocities were acting
inconsistently with the teachings of Christianity. Conversely,
evolutionists who committed atrocities were acting consistently
with evolution.
This article mainly addresses point 2. In the past, we have
frequently supported this point by showing that Christianity has
been the most powerful force for good in history.1
This includes motivating charity, education, abolition of
slavery,2 and science.3 The evidence is so strong that even some
high-profile atheists have conceded that biblical Christianity
drove the Salvation Army’s charity and one even proclaimed, “As
an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.” 4
Similarly, T.H. Huxley (1825–1895), the famous agnostic known as
‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, advocated teaching the Bible to children for
its great morality, and insisted on this for his own children.5
The vital difference
About the only response that anti-Christians can give is that
the history of the church has not always been good. The most
important issue in reply is this:[font=times new roman]
Atrocities in the name of Christ are inconsistent with real
Christianity, which is revealed in the Bible; atrocities in the
name of atheism are consistent with it.[/font]
Note that we are NOT claiming that all atheists are always
‘evil’ or can never do good things, but that atheism provides no
basis for judging right from wrong.
Evolutionist Jaron Lanier showed the problem, saying, “There’s a
large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with
accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a
moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in
nature.”
In reply, the leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins
affirmed, “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face
up to the truth.”6
So here we have a leading atheist admitting that evolution
provides no basis for morality. Instead, he and his fellow
atheists have needed to borrow from Christian concepts of
sanctity of life and charity. Similarly, the Jewish libertarian
columnist Jeff Jacoby gave a lucid summary of the argument:
“Can people be decent and moral without believing in a God who
commands us to be good? Sure. There have always been kind and
ethical nonbelievers. But how many of them reason their way to
kindness and ethics, and how many simply reflect the moral
expectations of the society in which they were raised?
“In our culture, even the most passionate atheist cannot help
having been influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview that
shaped Western civilization. …
“For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference
between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is
wrong if there is no Creator who decrees ‘Thou shalt not
murder.’ It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone.
One might reason instead—as Lenin and Stalin and Mao
reasoned—that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings
by the millions if doing so advances the Marxist cause. Or one
might reason from observing nature that the way of the world is
for the strong to devour the weak—or that natural selection
favors the survival of the fittest by any means necessary,
including the killing of the less fit.
“It may seem obvious to us today that human life is precious and
that the weakest among us deserve special protection. Would we
think so absent a moral tradition stretching back to Sinai? It
seemed obvious in classical antiquity that sickly babies should
be killed. …
“Reason is not enough. Only if there is a God who forbids murder
is murder definitively evil.”7
Therefore, the corrective for faulty application of Christianity
is not atheism but correct (biblical) application of
Christianity.
Given the reasoning above, it should be no surprise that the
atrocities committed in the name of Christ are not only an
aberration, but pale compared to the monstrous atrocities
committed by atheists for atheistic reasons. Some specific
well-known cases in each category will now be addressed.
Christian atrocities?
Inquisition
The Inquisition is certainly a black spot; biblical
Christianity, from a human standpoint, tells people to come
freely to Christ, not be forced to profess Christ because of
threats. But the Inquisition also must be put into perspective,
both compared with the numbers and the culture of the time.
Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834): historians such as Henry Kamen
estimate between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for
heresy,8 out of Spain’s 6–10 million total population. So at
most 0.05% of Spain’s population was killed. While this is
nevertheless deplorable, it means that the Inquisition’s rate of
executing people was lower than that of the state of Texas
today, while atheist Stalin often killed that many before
breakfast (so to speak). Furthermore, Inquisition trials were
often fairer and more lenient than their secular
counterparts—indeed, some criminals uttered heresies precisely
so they would be transferred to the Inquisition courts.
Salem witch trials
This was a travesty of paranoia and mass hysteria in colonial
Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. However, they
killed fewer than 25 people, far short of the “perhaps hundreds
of thousands, perhaps millions” that the late antitheist Carl
Sagan (1934–1996) claimed. Further, they were stopped when
Christians protested at the travesty of justice in the unfair
trials and how they violated all biblical standards of
evidence.9 Even a trial proponent, the Puritan minister Increase
Mather (1639–1723), opposed the ‘spectral evidence’, i.e. from
dreams and visions, instead of the biblically required plurality
of eyewitnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2
Corinthians 13:1). He also made the statement that has now
become a vital part of Western justice, “It were better that Ten
Suspected Witches should escape, than that One Innocent Person
should be Condemned.”10
Crusades
While many people attack Christianity for the Crusades, an
increasing number of historians regard them as a belated
response to four centuries of Islamic aggression that had
conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.11
The Muslims quickly conquered the Iberian Peninsula (now Spain
and Portugal) well before the Crusades. They would have almost
certainly conquered Europe were it not for the King of the
Franks, Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne. In the
Battle of Tours (ad 732), Martel’s infantry army stood firm
against Muslim cavalry, and repulsed their repeated charges
while inflicting enormous casualties. The Muslim leader Abd-er
Rahman was killed. Afterwards, the remains of the shattered army
retreated back across the Pyrenées, and never returned.
Also, just think about the historic centers of Christianity,
such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and the rest of North
Africa—they are now Muslim lands, converted at the point of the
sword. And after the crusades, the Muslim Turks conquered the
ancient land of Asia Minor, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul,
the site of many of his missionary journeys and home of the
Seven Churches of the book of Revelation. Furthermore, when they
conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, some 800 years
after its founding, they turned Hagia Sophia (‘Holy Wisdom’),
the world’s biggest Christian church at the time, and the center
of Eastern Orthodoxy, into a mosque.
In this, they were following the example of Muhammad himself.
Evangelist Lowell Lundstrom (1939–2012) observed, “During
Muhammad’s ten years in Medina, he planned 65 military campaigns
and raids, and he personally led 27 of them.”12 In Sura 66:9,
the Koran affirms, “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers
and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Hell will be their
home, a hapless journey’s end.” Historian Sir Steven Runciman
notes, “Unlike Christianity, which preached a peace that it
never achieved, Islam unashamedly came with the sword.”13
Even Richard Dawkins recently admitted:
“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up
buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am
not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the
penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the
decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a
bulwark against something worse.”14
So, in a similar note to the main teaching of this article,
while atrocities committed in the name of Christ, such as during
the Crusades, were inconsistent with the teachings of Christ
(such as “Do not murder”), the atrocities committed by Muslims
are consistent with Muhammad’s teachings and actions.15
Religious wars?
It’s important to note that religion had nothing to do with the
vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu–Tutsi war in Rwanda, Falklands
War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in South
America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War,
Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars,
Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars,
Peloponnesian War, Assyrian wars …
Christian terrorists?
When Islamic or atheistic atrocities are announced, the secular
media almost invariably resort to moral equivalence with claimed
Christian terrorists. Let’s address a few of them.
Regarding the IRA (Irish Republican Army), Rev. Dr Mark Durie, a
fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, points out
the truth:
“The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists,
illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA’s ideology
was predominantly Marxist and atheistic. IRA terrorists found no
inspiration in the teachings of Christ.”16
Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber who killed 168 people
and wounded over 680, has often been called a “Christian
terrorist”. But he was an agnostic to the end. In fact, his
final pre-execution public statement was William Ernest Henley’s
strongly humanist poem Invictus (1875). This starts, “I thank
whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul,” and finishes,
“I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”17
Such defiant rejection of his Creator is hardly the mark of any
Christian, good or otherwise.
Also, the news media were quick to label the Norwegian
mass-murderer Anders Breivik as a Christian. But Breivik
specifically denied that he was a religious Christian, caring
nothing for God and Christ:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God
then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me
do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a
cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us
Christian.”18
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
He could not be more wrong.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Hypocrites in the Church
[move]Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue. [/move]
Jesus reserved some of his strongest criticism for the hypocrisy
of the Pharisees. But He in no way condemned the righteousness
that they stood for in public. Matthew 23:1–3 records:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes
and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe
whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach,
but do not practice.”
Thus the charge of hypocrisy was not an attack on the morality
they preached but on their failure to live up to it. He actually
told His followers to be even more righteous than the Pharisees
(Matthew 5:20).
We are upset by hypocrisy precisely because we recognize that
something intrinsically good has been debased and let down by
the hypocrite’s failure to meet the very standard he proclaimed.
Hence the saying, “Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to
virtue.”
This atheist criticism amounts to preferring that we both say
and do the wrong thing rather than say the right thing but do
the wrong thing.19
Atheistic atrocities
Atrocities committed in Christ’s name pale in comparison to the
record-breaking tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes
just last century. This was thoroughly documented by Rudolph
Rummel (b. 1932), Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the
University of Hawaii, who coined the term democide, meaning
‘murder of a people by their government’:20 77 million in
Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21
million non-battle killings by the Nazis (including 6 million
Jews, ⅓ of all Jews in Europe), 2 million murdered in the
Khmer Rouge killing fields. This is many times more deaths than
all ‘religious’ wars put together in all centuries of human
history, and this is just for the 20th century!
We have previously documented the evolutionary basis for the
Holocaust.21 This included eugenics, which was so Darwinian that
non-creationist Denis Sewell documented:
Atrocities committed in Christ’s name pale to the
record-breaking tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes
just last century: 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in
the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the
Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.
“[In the] years leading up to the First World War, The eugenics
movement looked like a Darwin family business. … Darwin’s son
Leonard replaced his cousin Galton as chairman of the national
Eugenics Society in 1911. In the same year an offshoot of the
society was formed in Cambridge. Among its leading members were
three more of Charles Darwin’s sons, Horace, Francis and
George.”22
Summary
Professing Christians who committed atrocities were acting
inconsistently with the teachings of Christianity. Conversely,
evolutionists who committed atrocities were acting consistently
with evolution.
The term ‘atrocity’ has meaning only under a Judeo-Christian
worldview; it has no meaning in an evolutionary philosophy.
Agelbert NOTE: Yep! the only "morality" for an atheist is
CALORIC INTAKE EFFICENCY = MORALITY, STARVATION = IMMORARLITY.
As stated in the book "the Brothers Karamazov,". "If God does
not exist, then ALL THINGS ARE PERMITTED".
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
The
horrors of atheistic atrocities in the 20th century alone dwarf
all the ‘Christian’ atrocities in all centuries combined.
#Post#: 1573--------------------------------------------------
Darwinian explanations of why we are the way we are:
By: AGelbert Date: July 21, 2014, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In regard to Darwinian explanations of why we are the way we
are: ;D
[quote]“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too
supple:
Natural selection makes humans self-centered and
aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.
Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread
their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful
protectors and providers.
When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less
use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”[/quote]
Philip Skell (1918–2010), a leading chemist.
[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
#Post#: 1607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: July 26, 2014, 11:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
G.K. Chesterton had the Nazis down on the Darwinian ethic on
both counts:
[quote]
"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it
cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and
competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for
being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a
healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a
reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for
being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to
imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in
neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger
reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his
claws."[/quote]
The Darwinian core, and fundamentally anti-Christian character,
of Nazism
A review of Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview by Jerry
Bergman
Joshua Press, Ontario, 2012
HTML http://creation.com/bergman-nazism-darwinian-review
#Post#: 1613--------------------------------------------------
If IT feels good, do it!!!!?
By: AGelbert Date: July 28, 2014, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin said, [quote]I think it's silly to ignore the connection
between these core selfless values and Christian belief. It not
only advocates these values, but provides the regenerative
framework for incorporating them into all areas of our lives.
When I look around the world today, I see no similar framework
in any other ideology or movement, religious or secular. Some
focus solely on spiritual experience, some on personal
discipline, some on political activism, some on the environment,
some on the economy, some on human rights, etc., etc., but, as
far as I can tell, only Biblical Christianity encompasses all of
these and more. [/quote]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
Well said. RE is fond of pointing to the "insufficiency" of the
actions of Jesus on the environmental, human caloric intake and
justice against bad guys score. Yet RE (and me too for a large
part of my life :() are willing victims of vicious propaganda
that he refuses to take action on because of his addiction to
smoking.
You cannot have it both ways, RE. Your criticism of Christianity
is based on its perversion by human frailty and evil, not on the
tenets of Christianity itself. ;)
Look at this picture WORTH A LOT MORE THAN A THOUSAND "WORDS"
(i.e. millions of cancers, severe pollution, biosphere
degradation and billions of dollars in DIRTY "profits" from
suckers like you and I - Darwin, Freud and Bernays GIFTED
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>that to us, NOT CHRISTIANITY!).
[IMG width=840
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280714152422.png[/img]
Mr. JRM: Smoking and the rampant use of fossil fuels was/is an
ENJOYABLE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE, was it not, Mr. JRM (who believes
anyone alleging that experience isn't the be all, end all of
life is talking "tripe" LOL!)? [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
ANYONE that thinks EXPERIENCE trumps all is a perfect sucker
target for ME FIRST Madison Avenue manipulation that starts with
pleasure and ends with poison and tyranny. The doctrine of
self-denial is not a sadistic exercise in stupidity, it is the
only proper way for human society to practice sustainability and
harmony with other human beings and the biosphere. Raising human
EXPERIENCE TO NUMERO UNO is really SUCKER BAIT pseudo spiritual
TRIPE!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
If IT feels good, do it!!!!?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
Nope.
#Post#: 1719--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: August 20, 2014, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange, Remove, Ruin—in other words,
no evolution!
The genetic changes observed in living things today could not
have turned bacteria into basset hounds—ever
HTML http://creation.com/3-rs-of-evolution
#Post#: 1855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: September 9, 2014, 10:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65BaW6-9ov0&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090914233747.png[/img]
The Modus Operandi of Evolutionary Prevaricators in the Service
of Darwinian Religion.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page