News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Problems for atheistic evolutionists
Good arguments against evolution

Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have some huge problems to explain.

Problem No. 1
How did the universe come about?

There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But assuming the existence of an intricately working universe with some sort of life-forms already in it is not a minor assumption, and puts more faith in an unknown, counter-intuitive process than Christians put in God.

The problem is that if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

For more information on the origin of the universe, see Models of the origin of the universe, by Dr. John Rankin.

Problem No. 2
How could living creatures come from non-life?

No scientific law can account for non-living objects coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive.

Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.

But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!

Dr. Kenneth Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link,

“There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.”

For more information on abiogenesis (the theory that contends organisms originated from non-living material), see the CreationWiki article, Abiogenesis.

See also Origin of Life questions and answers, by Answers in Genesis.

Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.

But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were not present in the ancestral species?

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.

Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed.

See also Speciation Questions and Answers by Answers in Genesis.

Problem No. 4
Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?

Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.

But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape evolved into a human.

For more information on ape fossils making monkeys out of humans, see the article Humans are not descended from apes.
Alternative view

We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.


Source:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html

A good list, to be sure. I don't wish to distract attention from any of the points made, but this thread seems appropriate.

In contrast to these important points, which the atheistic evolutionists should care about, I present a problem they do care about.

Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist can be downloaded for free, and he makes confetti of the writings of their priesthood. This is overkill, and pretty funny. R-rated, though, or maybe PG-13 in the new, politically correct terminology.

A courageous, but futile attempt at rebuttal is also available. Read the book first, lest like the critic, you shan't know what's going on.

I suppose more could be written on the topic, but it might become harder and harder to find the funny stuff. Vox does use his knowledge of history, so the effort isn't as sporting as it might have been otherwise.

Good stuff. ctimothmIdiediteahomornapreding.

That's cosmology not evolution.
Abiogenesis not evolution.

Assuming you are saying that DNA is information, there are at several means for new genetic information to arise.
1. point defects in the DNA code in a reproductive cell....A to G etc
2. incorrect recombination in a reproductive cell...DNA strands "zipping up" out of alignment.
3. Gene duplication...with subsequent changes in one of the duplicates.

All have been observed by geneticists.

I cannot provide proof...just some evidence.
Look up Endogenous Retroviruses....how they are identified...how they become part of a species' DNA...and the similarities between the retroviruses in chimps, bonobos and humans.

How is that an out for the atheistic evolutionist?

Even if this retreating artificial distinction had merit, can the atheist reasonably posit life directly from utterly nothing? I should like very much to see it. I don't put it past 'em for a minute, but I like a good laugh.

What's artificial about distinguishing between evolution, cosmology and, say, botany? How is any of that contrived? If it falls under a certain cagetory it falls under a certain category. Regrettably, CTD does not get to decide on the definitions for various fields of science - the professionals in their appropriate fields do. Though this may be a moot point because I just learned in my previous post that CTD neither a) acknowledges the existing definitions for scientific words nor does he b) supply his own alternative definition for them.



Atheism is the disbelief in a god or pantheon of gods. It says nothing about the origin of life. You're trying to force categories together that don't fit. I am suddenly reminded of that old Sesame street song, "One of these things is not like the other".



Thanks for keeping my legs unshaven with yet another holier than thou attack at the poster rather than the topic.

I could better answer if I knew a little more about what sort of things you understand and what sort you do not understand.

Are you, Russell2, as has been said?
Are you Pantoufle?

Some have at times expressed curiosity about the motives of those who log in under another account and pretend to be another person. It might be a good thing if you could enlighten the membership.

As moderator, I don't want to appear thin-skinned. But I believe a strong case can be made against false accusations, and in spite of your presence here, I don't think Russ intends to overlook all offenses.

Is that your long-winded version of a "yes"? If so, I would object that it appears to deify the void.

One of the things I like about The Irrational Atheist is the amount of factual information included to back up the arguments. While there is a lot of flawed atheist logic to debunk, there is also plenty of evidence with which to build a counter-case.

This excerpt is, of course, part of the counter-argument against the bogus old assertion that "religion" leads to violence and war. Hype simply cannot stand up to fact.

Ah yes, the power of suggestion. Russ, you crafty old Jedi, you.

Yes, we have your compassionate, non-threatening, non-hostile posts with which to use as a model for how religion cannot possibly lead to violence. To get a clear example of this in action, one needs only to examine your posting style. CTD, who so clearly represents the antithesis if violent posting behavior.

[/sarcasm]

That aside, there is no refuting that religion has in many instances led to violence and war; though I'll agree that it is neither a) the only thing which leads to violence and war, nor is it b) safe to conclude that all religions lead to violence and war - only that some have and can. Moreover, such remarks should not overcloud the violent Balkaniztion within individual religions themselves. I speak, of course, of schisms and fanatics. It's not just one religion oppressing another, it can also be one religion oppressing its minutiae of trivial details upon its own devotees. Again, this is not to say religion is bad in and of itself -- I, myself, am religious, yet I still make these claims -- only that religion (chiefly organized religion) has the propensity towards violence and war (or more accurately put, the people using it as their motive). There are a great many things used for violence and war, that does not make them bad. If humans had a tendency to war over which tastes better, Granny Smith apples of MacIntosh, most people would agree it's absurd to say that apples lead to violence and war.

The bolded section is mine for reference.

This comment only works when you are discussing atheism COMBINED WITH evolution. Evolution in and of itself is indeed not concerned with the origin of life in the cosmological sense of the word. If you want to trash atheist-evolutionists you must target atheist-evolutionists and none other, not evolution. You cannot force two definitions together, say that that is how they always operate, and then trash your own self-made definition. See reductio ad absurdum, straw man argument and red herring.

Additionally, how do you measure the so-called faith in the unknown among "atheist evolutionists" as outweighing a Christian's faith in their god? Based on what, exactly, is this conclusion drawn? Faith is simply a belief or trust that something is true. For a Christian to have faith in his or her god is no more or less outstanding a statement than the faith I have in my gods, or that some child has faith a monster lives in the closet, or that an old woman has faith that walking under a ladder will bring her bad luck. Faith is faith, man - you can't put more or less faith in something, you either have it or you don't. See reductio ad absurdum, straw man argument and red herring.

Is there some way we could make the topic of this thread more clear, or is this simply your way of answering my questions? I cannot help but note that Pantoufle's reading ability was at a similar level.

I'd advise you to see them yourself, but I don't think you need any suggestions on how to practice your "art".

I'd say something that's harder to believe requires more faith. Likewise, I think one can have faith that something is untrue.

I probably should point out that in your first sentence, you do not compare faith to faith. You compare a statement about faith to faith, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

An uninteresting assertion. Your links don't say anything at all about this, so I interpret them to be provided in order to lure people into wasting time. Consider yourself formally warned, at the very least. I'll see what Russ makes of this.

The only link that applies to anything here is the red herring. Your entire post is nothing but a red herring, and this constitutes trolling.

Interesting... you must not be employing the screwy definition of 'refute' preferred by evolutionism. For they're fond of the watered-down version of the word which merely means "to dispute".

Even so, I think a direct cause/effect relationship would be very, very difficult to establish.

Oh, you were straddling the fence so well for a while... and you had to go and fall on the wrong side. I suggest you a.)read the book, or b.) do your own homework, or c.) redefine 'religion' to include atheism or materialism or something of the sort that actually does have a demonstrable tendency to lead to violence.

What do you think makes things bad, in that case?

Do you think there is merit in the atheist argument that religion is dangerous and needs to be eliminated? That is what was being discussed. That is what you've typed so many words around, but not about.

I should also point out, just to be fair, that you might consider explaining your links in your other post. My word isn't final. I can even be mistaken. Were those links provided for any actual purpose?

I also note that you don't seem very keen on answering questions. I shall be considering a policy of ignoring your posts due to this trend. (Except as duty requires, of course.)

Yeah, you do that.

It still won't make me retract what I've said. By all means, CTD, ban me if you want to flex your juvenile might (it's certainly noteworthy whenever you delete what's been said). The difference between what you think I am attempting to do and what I actually am is huge. I also don't have the tendency to quibble over minutiae of trivia or bicker about English language terminology - something which could easily be construed as an attempt to sidetrack one from the topic, the very thing you accuse me of. Don't worry though, I won't go to Russ and ask that he formally warn you - I'll just deal with it.

What do I care that you refuse to retract it?

You made a post complaining that atheistic evolutionism is being discussed in a thread entitled "Problems for Atheistic Evolutionists". The topic was even repeated in one of the quote boxes in your own post. Then, in the next paragraph, you betray that you do know the topic.Now you give this "I won't retract" spiel. That's impressive. The impression it makes is hard to mistake.

You include links that have nothing (from what I can see) to do with anything being discussed, except that one does explain red herrings. What are visitors to do when they venture into the thread and follow those links? Dismiss them, or perhaps waste their time reading those pages and trying to figure out what in the world any of that has to do with the discussion, right?

This form of rudeness targets every last person who reads the thread. You may be proud as punch, but that still leaves you with a problem: there's no way to say there's any benefit to allowing this trolling to continue. Do you believe in "survival of the fittest"? Do you believe in "selection"? Myself, I don't believe in 'natural selection', but I am convinced artificial selection works quite well.

Why should we put up with this? Name even one reason.

The part I bolded pretty much answers my questions.

I'm sorry you cannot see the correlation between a) someone redefining evolution and b) understanding some of the most rudimentary logical fallacies - though I realize you're quite likely to Google search alternative definitions to every word I'm using here and thereby try to say I'm not making sense by using definition number 2 rather than the number 1 or 3. Who exactly is wasting who's time again?

The debating tactics here typically involve shoving atheist views down the throats of evolutionists and saying, 'Look, evolution is wrong', when this isn't evolution in the first place. Interestingly, of all the evolutionist posters here thus far I can only think of one that argued in favor of atheism and even he was not a true blue, 100% bona fide atheist (more of a self-admitted agnostic, I'd say). This begs the question, who exactly are you arguing against. Something tells me I don't want to know the answer.

I humbly await your condescension and arrogance forthwith and hitherto, I shall absent myself anon and by and by retire in the interim. Adieu.

Since your reference claims that atheism was the cause of those examples of violence against humanity, does it actually show a causal link between the two?
I could just as easily point out that the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers in the US are Christians and claimed to be so before they committed their crimes. So what? I can't link their religion to their actions any more than your so-called researcher can link atheism with inhumane behavior.
Now if you want to use statistics, it is well known that the percentage of all atheists that commit crimes is lower than the percentage of all Christians that commit crimes. Can I say that atheism leads to more proper behavior? Absolutely not!! That statistic alone doesn't take into account a myriad of other possible influences on the behavior of the people in the study.

Basically, the claim, implied or otherwise, that atheism leads to the type of behavior described in those two passionately written paragraphs is bunk. Being adamant about it doesn't change it from the bunk that it is.

The problem with making this statement is you seem to expect everyone reading it to conveniently forget the both you and Russ have openly stated that belief in evolution is atheistic. Perhaps we are oversteping in our assumptions that these are declarations about evolution and not just about Atheistic evolutionists. If it is not an arguement against atheism alone then I feel justified in separating the fields of study in Russ' original post.

BTW: The tone of your response indicates that you feel Pantoufle was a less-than-intelligent poster and Pwcca resembles someone who is less than intelligent. Certainly you wouldn't be insulting another poster. I must be misreading this as you would surely maintain the high standards that you are expected to enforce as a moderator.

It could be considered trolling if you could provide evidence of intent through say...showing that Pwcca truly understands the meaning of all those fallacies. You kept using "circular logic" inappropriately in another thread and no one accused you of trolling. Ignorance, yes...trolling, no.

Hi, would you give details of this study please Linear? This does not correspond with the reality within my own country.

Consider the work of pastors and laypeople often volunteering to preach the word of God to prisoners and hopefully get them saved and change their lives and gain some meaning/hope. In fact, this is a ministry. So if what you say is true, why then for the call for such a ministry if more Christians committed crimes than atheists?

Secondly. If a person truly took onboard Christ, they would not be out there committing crimes and outdoing the atheists and any fall from grace is regretted and repented by such - if in fact they are sincere. So the word "Christian" can be thrown around by anybody, but may not mean they are sincere. There are many practical atheists around who toss around "yeah I'm a Christian" whilst they live completely contrary to Christ.

And we all know some pose as "redeemed" to fool others too. A well known trick. But let us not confuse sincere Christianity with the greater committing of crimes. This is dishonest.

What's in a name, unless the word is written in our hearts? So in other words, it's just people committing crimes because in one way or another, they are living outside of the word of God.

Again, please provide the studies that support your claims, since the teachings of Christ are completely contrary to crime and preach the opposite. There are the true Christians, who far from committing crimes, devote their life teaching the ways of Christ, hoping to turn such criminals away from sin and to the light of Christ.

If I became an atheist, according to this study you speak of, would I suddenly be less criminally inclined? Would an atheist who commits their life to Christ become suddenly criminally inclined? This is ludicrous. I, like anybody, have weaknesses and inclinations and often it is God that sets me straight, gives me strength and a moral compass and causes me to consider more deeply and seriously sin, the impact of it, and upon others - keeps me much more aware of the temporary and the eternal and how my behaviour affects others (my own sins). Without Him? Hmmmmm, I was spiritually blind.

Whatever studies these are - if in fact legitimate? Would still be bogus in respect of describing a sincere Christian walking with Christ. So again, they would continue to be meaningless - since Christians in name, walking in practical atheism do not count as a true depiction of Christianity and the teachings of Christ in no way endorse, support or encourage criminal behaviour, but instead give one many more means and reasons to turn from such.

Well, seeing as your questions have been answered and mine have not, I guess that makes us even.

We all know who was obsessed with redefining 'evolution'. That chapter in the forum's history doesn't have much apparent bearing on this thread. Surprise surprise.
That wouldn't even make sense. The evolutionists are the only ones who might shove atheism down people's throats, and they'd never say "Look, evolution is wrong."

Oh, there's a small chance they might say "Look, I can believe evolution even 'though I know it's wrong," but that's not quite the same thing, so it wouldn't count, now would it?

What a horrible thing to say about your comrade/self!
Well, seeing as I'm awaiting quite a few more answers, maybe we'll see who waits longer. That way we'll still be even.

You might take another look at the excerpt. The author explains how 'causal' it is.

I think he could've pursued a little more. The idea that cigarette smoking has been shown to "cause" cancer is statistical. I maintain this is abuse of the term 'cause', but... In any sense that religion can be said to 'cause' violence, war, etc. it can be said that atheism "causes" much more.

You could easily assert it. Some of the crime myths are debunked pretty thoroughly in the book, although I don't recall "convicted murderer" stats coming into play. And some of the statistics weren't U.S.

You're welcome to try, I suppose.
So it's okay for atheists to lie & say "religion is bad because (xyz)", but it's not okay for someone to show that these lies are lies and if one actually looks into (xyz) one finds the opposite to be the case?

I did mention that these are counter-arguments, did I not?

That myth is debunked.
So the atheist argument was a poor one from the get-go? Well, you have to understand that they don't have much quality in any of their arguments.
The crime figures, that's an individual sort of thing. The systematic slaughters are another story. That pattern is something everyone should look into and decide for themselves. It's a very serious and dangerous issue.

That's what's cool about Vox' book. He doesn't even use this powerful, legitimate argument; and it turns out atheism is still a loser.

The atheist, and even the heretic, will never acknowledge that a distinction exists between the Christian and the poser. As the book isn't written exclusively for Christians, the author avoids letting them off the hook by using arguments they can wave away.

Statistically, even lumping in all the most obviously phony "christians", atheism loses its own arguments when one does the research and obtains realistic stats, rather than those the "brights" want to spoon-feed the public. And it ain't close.

Needless to say, most of 'em really hate this book.

If we wanted folks to forget this alleged stuff, why would the thread have the title it has? (And I can't take credit for the title.)

I wasn't aware of your assumptions in that respect. Do you mean to say these things would be problematic for ID-type people as well?
I'm not Russ, but it would seem you can choose to support atheistic evolutionism or not support it. I had the impression you'd already made that choice, as a matter of fact.

Are you saying the various forms of evolutionism are immune to discussion? That one cannot discuss theistic evolutionism because one must either discuss theism or evolutionism but not both together? If so, I think you are mistaken.
I wrote of Pantoufle's reading capacity. Either you equate reading capacity with intelligence, or your own reading needs improvement. Oops! False dilemma. Could be both.
I wasn't aware of any 'intent clause' in the trolling laws.

Would his employment of them count?

I find your defense of Pwcca interesting. "Innocent by reason of utter incompetence", is that it?

Please explain your solution to feigned stupidity, in that case. Should people be permitted to get away with anything on the condition that they're willing to pretend to be stupid? If so, why? If not, how can there be any justice? They don't even have to fear being called 'stupid' too terribly much. There's no down side for miscreants.

But then what of the person who calls these people 'stupid', and then pretends to be too stupid, or just too incompetent, to know better? I don't think you've considered the implications of making stupidity into a "get out of jail free card". I can somewhat see how you'd desire this to become law, but I think you need to invest a little more time and reconsider.
I recall being accused of several things by those who have no trouble at all spotting the circular nature of circular reasoning unless it supports their most sacred religion.

I gave it a little more thought, this business of explaining the obvious. What this thread is about is really easy to grasp. Problems for atheistic evolutionists would include the problems of atheism, the problems of evolutionism, and any problems that might be incurred when blending the two. Now the latter would seem unlikely to crop up, since Darwinism was a careful reformulation geared to promote atheism, and based upon his atheist grand-daddy's speculations.

Another way to approach it: ask yourself if you were an atheist evolutionist, what categories of information and questions would be problems for your worldview.

Polite or not, I will laugh if anyone pretends not to understand now.

I suppose it might not hurt to formally implement a competence rule. Those who, for whatever reason, really, really, really, have difficulty understanding plain, ordinary English should have sense enough to refrain from responding. I don't know too many people who go to forums in languages they don't have a clue how to understand, and start raising cane just to disrupt the discussions. But maybe I don't get around enough; maybe this is what passes for good manners in 2008?

See the study here

Perhaps it is to get them to come back to Christ after they turned away. We could speculate all day about why those preachers are there. Maybe because they don't want to risk being a goat.

This is called the "True Scotsman defence." You say a Christian wouldn't do/believe something. I show you an example of a Christian doing/believing just that something. You then say "He wasn't a 'true' Christian". So, what is the criteria for a 'true' Christian? How do I tell him from someone who just says he is a "Christian".
"True" Christians would never massacre American Indians or forcibly make them study the Bible. Those people weren't true Christians.
True Christians would never burn someone at the stake.
True Christians would never torture someone to make them confess Christ.
True Christians would never arrest Joseph Smith and then leave him to the crowd to murder.

Yet, many of the people who did just those things thought they were true Christians. They prayed daily in many cases.

None of those people were true Christians by your definition. So true Christians never sin? Never give in to hate or angry words?

The point being there is no means of determining if someone is a "true" Christian.

You have a means of determining if the Word is written in my heart? Well, maybe you don't think it is. How about CTD's heart, or Russ' heart...or even SoSick's?

I can't produce a study that meets your criteria because it seems that your criteria requires that the moment a person commits a crime or gets divorced, they could not have been a Christian.

I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. The study just says that in countries with higher rates of religeous adherents, crime, divorce rates, and sexually transmitted disease rates were higher.

Agreed that this true of me also.



The studies dealt with statistics from surveys that asked how much each person went to church, believed in the literal Bible, and prayed. Didn't really ask if they were a Christian, per se. I guess people could lie about their belief in the Bible and their church/prayer time, but why would they when asked by a survey representative?

Certainly you can discuss the two but belief in one does not necessitate belief in the other. So it would be incorrect if you should speak as if it did.

I find it reassuring that you don't equate reading ability in a particular language with intelligence.

I thought that even the master of obfuscation would understand that trolling is an intentional act so evidence of intent is required to convict someone of such. Perhaps you do understand but are unable to remove yourself from your online persona long enough to admit it.

No, since you still don't seem to know the criteria for circular reasoning and you tried, erroneously, to accuse the theory of evolution of employing it.

Lack of knowledge isn't "utter incompetence". Why would you think so? Have you been accused of utter incompetence many times?

So you are in favor of ridding the world of the mentally challenged...Down's Syndrome sufferers and the like? I wouldn't have thought you to be so Machiavellian.

Ignorance is not stupidity but I guess your English comprehension is a little lacking. Since you consider a person with a lack of knowledge to be "stupid", maybe I should consider all those times you accused me of a lack of knowledge as intentional insults to my character.

Do you actually consider that statement a response to what I said? Try a reading comprehension course or something.

This demonstrates, to anyone familiar with Japan, that a peculiar definition of "religious" is employed. Shrines are everywhere in Japan, and they aren't neglected. I do not claim to understand Shintoism, but the Japanese have an impressive (and growing) number of gods. Merely printing the kanji name of one of the luck gods (there are dozens) on a piece of merchandise suffices to increase sales.

If one is willing to take the time to carefully (mis)define terms, and cherry-pick data, one can get statistics to say almost anything one desires. This description of Japan leads me to believe Gregory S. Paul has not taken sufficient care to be objective.

One who takes the word of Dawkins, Dennett, or Gould at face value in these matters is going to have a hard time avoiding the conclusions these propagandists wish one to accept. I suspect the author may not be up to the task. I'm afraid to look up the other names, lest I come to a firm conclusion.

I find it remarkable that one who is said to be "knowledgeable about scripture" should be so unaware of what is written about discernment.

So Bex has suggested such? Ha!

Perhaps. But the heretic isn't always difficult to identify.

Doesn't seem that way to me. How would it be in the interest of Christians to forget all the scriptures which teach us about these matters?

Why do people lie about the very same thing on other occasions? If you prefer, why did Judas Iscariot follow Jesus? Must we understand the hearts before we can acknowledge that we observe the deeds?

But there may be a better question. Why would any God-fearing follower of the Lord Jesus have Christians include heretics and unbelievers in their number? I can understand why Satan would have us do so. I can understand why the atheist and the heretic would. But it seems contrary to the interests of the church, the Christian, and the Lord Himself.

And just to keep the record straight, The Irrational Atheist does not bother with excluding heretics and pretenders. The results of research still don't favour atheism. To me, this implies that even pretending to be a Christian may serve as a check on immoral activities. That is, to the extent one can accept implications from statistical margins of the type involved.

You spend a lot of words on an "hypothetically incorrect" situation.

And yet with so many words you do not begin to demonstrate that a requirement exists to at all times speak in hypothetical terms. You need to do so in this case, because if discussion of the practical real world is permissible, your assertion fails.

Practically speaking, evolutionism is a prerequisite for atheism. Who's ever encountered an atheist who didn't believe in it? Ever?
Actions are almost universally considered to be evidence of intent. People don't usually do things the don't set out to do. The burden of proof falls to the one who claims the action is unintentional.

It is clearly you who were in error. How amusing this is. You'll back-n-forth on this like a small child, won't you? You can't get away with other false accusations, so you treasure the circumstance that allows you to pretend you don't know any better.

Here's the thread in question, so all can see just who "doesn't understand" circular reasoning, and under what circumstances the lack of understanding manifests.

I think an extensive enough lack of knowledge renders one utterly incompetent. Lacking a single fact can render one incorrect. Lacking capacity to read tends to result in lacking many facts. And given the means of communication we use here, I'd say one who can't read is utterly incompetent to participate.

Putting words in my mouth does not explain your solution.

...or does it?
For one who advocates speaking in hypothetical terms, you don't seem to recognize them when you encounter them.

One need not equate ignorance with stupidity either, as you falsely imply I have done. When's the last time you even considered generating replies to what I actually say? I get the impression that refusing to do so is considered virtuous in some circles.
Accurate history is always an appropriate response to antihistory. I suggest you'd do well to address such arguments to the readership at large rather than to me personally. I happen to know you know I know your game, so there really isn't much point.

In the case of the "study" supplied by LinearAq, one need not be doubt too much on the issue of legitimacy.
Legitimate sources don't bother with propagandizing on this scale. Indeed, this propaganda pretty much targets those who are predisposed to believe it, if you read carefully.

Who else would believe ID organizations are "lavishly funded"? I haven't checked, but I'd like to see how the total budgets of all of them put together stack up against the annual grants of the Carnagie Foundation alone in support of evolutionism. There are plenty of other sources funding evolutionism of course, even if one doesn't count government funding. What a joke!

Hmmm, re Linear's link. I'm not sure if giving any kind of study/statistic is so easily verifiable for it's accuracy regarding this...I'd be very surprised if it did, considering the bible says "By their fruits ye shall know them".

And do such "studies" really reflect (as I've said) overall truth and "Christianity" - or does it reflect a breakdown of society/family overall? Since if one takes a look at the circumstances of crime and what lies behind it, you will not usually see the Christian side of it at all. Quite the opposite and usually a long line of abuse - sexual/physical/emotional, drug/alcohol abuse, disregard for morality and other people, disregard for the law, indifference, not considering or caring about consequences, pride/greed etc etc (the list goes on). What is the connection here to Christianity?.....aside from the fact we're reminded by these things how much humanity needs God? Whether they like to think so or not.

Is the law abiding citizen exempt from guilt in regards to God's moral codes and original sin? That's quite another story, since immorality of certain kinds do not land people in jail, but ALL come short of the glory of God and require Christ's redeeming blood. There are plenty of people Linear who commit worse crimes than those sitting in jail on a huge scale and get away with it. The white collar criminals at the top and hurt the little people at the bottom.

I believe there are plenty of so-called studies/surveys done in such a way to try and show Christianity in a bad light. No surprise! You can go search for books with authors who will happily do the same for you!

Focussing on and presenting the negatives on Christianity in preference to exposing the overwhelming good is also somewhat suspect from a self-professed Christian Linear ..... I can't help but pick this up from your posting history on this forum and it seems to me, most unusual when one considers the undeniable exhaustive work done by Christians and Christian organisations across the globe for help of others.....Or have I missed a post of yours has acknowledged such? If so, apologies.

Who isn't aware of the persecution of Christians throughout time, which continues to this day in certain parts of the world? Yet you won't hear this mentioned Would you like to tell me what is done in the name of true Christianity these days that ask for the killing/burning of those who do not comply with it? Instead we see Christians persecuted, tortured and even killed for practising their faith in certain areas. Is it preferable to ignore this and instead focus only on past instances of religious fanatics who did contrary to the teachings of Christ? How about reflecting upon the worldwide Christian organisations that do so much for mankind - those most broken, needy/desperate, poor/sick etc etc... If you balanced your negative press occassionally with stressing the MANY good fruits of Christianity (put into action as Christ told), perhaps the suspicions regarding your own Christian status would not have arisen on here as much.

I wonder what would happen if the Christian organisations around the world decided to close ranks? would this cause others to start reflecting a bit more on how much these Christians hold so much together around the world, and how many poor souls rely totally on them?

Christians are well aware of the atrocities committed by those in the past proclaiming to be "Christian" but we are also not fooled at how UNCHRISTIAN they were, and contrary to Christ's teachings they were and how shameful they were (and are when anybody continues to do such). But we are also not convinced by those using this as an "example" regarding Christians either

Does any negative press/studies one brings up regarding the apparent increase in crime with "Christians" reflect on Christ and the word of God? No. Does it reflect on Christians giving their lives to work for others and God? No. Does it reflect on other Christians going about their ordinary lives and trying to do their best? No. Does it reflect on fallen mankind? Yes. Does it reflect upon weaknesses/sins of human beings? Yes. Does it reflect upon the outcome of original sin? Yes. Does it reflect upon those who twist scripture to suit their own wishes? Perhaps yes. Does it reflect upon people who either haven't truly converted or have fallen away from the right road? Maybe, depending on whether they were sincere in the first place. Does it reflect on the signs of the times? I'd say so, if we are to take the bible at its word! If not, then one might as well state that believing in Christ and taking His message onboard produces bad fruits in criminal activitiy, or at least worse than atheism. Yet we know by reality and the many Christian organisations, this could not be more mistaken!

Now, I don't think anybody would have to search too far and wide to find the atrocities committed in our human history by people who far from Christians, practised an anti-Christian, power hungry existence, in a position of power and committed terrible crimes against humanity as result.....in the meantime Linear, perhaps you ought to take some time out of your search for the negatives on Christianity and start taking a good look at how much Christians do for humanity around the world, which may remind you of how powerful Christ's example was and how it continues to this day. Partly why we convert to Christianity!Part of being a Christian and encouraging others is also by showing the GOOD fruits of Christianity and reasons why you became one. If one only enjoys giving the bad commentaries, one must begin to question such a person's sincerity in claiming themselves as a Christian....

Christ will indeed hold all of us accountable for our own participation (or non) in gaining souls for Him. By continually failing to mention and expose the overwhelming good, in preference for cherry picking the negative is contrary to any encouragement to others and speaks more about a person who is either in great inner conflict with his own self professed faith, or is somehow misleading/confusing others regarding it. Showing up bad Christians or those fallen/strayed from the faith - whilst ommitting and ignoring the many good, looks more like an attempt to lend support and sympathy for atheism or at least is a very good impression of it.

Tell me Linear, for what reason would anybody become a Christian if the fruits, history, statistics of Christianity/Christians are pretty rotten (or worse) in comparison with atheism?.....Since it is within God's word that tells us "By their fruits ye shall know them" - Are we then to consider that God was incorrect? To me, that isn't even an option - therefore I conclude that it's human beings that are flawed, including some of these studies/statistics. And one would need to know the background of the criminals concerned. I very much doubt you'll find for the most part, a foundation in Christianity and living accordingly. I've actually read plenty of criminal books (non fiction). Some of the worst crimes of humanity (many starting in petty crime) and many have been the rotten fruits of child abuse, child neglect, immorality, alcoholism, drug intake, mental illness etc, but sorry I've not seen where Christianity has been responsible or caused such awful outcomes. What is the connection to Christianity here? None whatsoever. Only the reminder again that all mankind need Christ. So is it therefore the result of Christianity? Or the results of the above? I don't think it takes an einstein to figure that out.

Indeed it does say that. So do you reach conclusions about your fellow Christians by comparing their actions with this fruit? BTW: Is such fruit listed in the Bible anywhere so that we can use it to assess others' actions?

I'm quite sure the study didn't look into individual crimes. Their conclusion based on the evidence they collected is that the more apparantly religious a society is, the higher the crime rate. You have rightly pointed out that the study is flawed in that the opinions by the authors try to place causality on the religion. There are many factors besides religion that are common among the nations that they have labeled religious. The acceptance of greed as a positive social trait in each of the societies could be the real cause of the high crime rate. In Japan, for instance, gain at the expense of others is highly frowned upon in their culture.

You seem to think that I agree with the study I presented, when I plainly stated that I don't. I was showing CTD a study that drew conclusions in the same way his study did, and also showing that it was just as incorrect. Do you think it's ok to present a study with very few, albeit notorious, examples and then draw conclusions about a belief system from that? Apparantly it is not ok for my example but it is ok for CTD's.

I find this irrelevant since I already said I disagreed with the conclusions drawn in the example I posted. In fact I said that those conclusions were erroneous not two sentences from where I mentioned the study in the first place. You want to judge my Christianity? Judge it based on the fruits you mentioned. Show me one place in the Bible that says I am not allowed to point out to my fellow Christians where they are not following Christ's example.

Sure you can judge them now in the light of history. For the most part, they thought they were doing the right thing and furthering the cause of Christ. It is the very thing that Christians are hesistent to do now that stopped those others from continuing their horrid work. Christians that knew they had to stand up to their brothers and shine the light of Christ on the suffering they were causing. Christians don't do that today. Many seem to revel in the excesses of the most fanatical.

I never said that it did reflect on those things. Remember, I said the study was flawed...in the same way that CTD's example, powerful men who were atheists and killed a lot of people, is flawed in it's claim that atheism was the cause of their actions.

Bring on the judgement, then. CTD is quick to speak ill of my claims to be a follower of Christ. Just remember that the fruit you claim I am not to be producing is the same fruit that your fellow posters on this forum should also avoid producing. So, point out from Bible passages which bad fruit I am producing and then compare the amount I put forth with that from other Christians writing on this forum. I am sure you can point out my flaws but can you see those flaws in the people you agree with?

Just because I don't parade the good things I know about Christianity and the works of Christians on this forum, you assume I am unaware of them. Far from it. I don't need to do that here.

No

You are arguing to get me to agree with you when I already do. You let CTD twist what I was doing into some sort of crusade of mine against religion, and then you agreed with him. Just look at his last 2 posts. He is trying to get me to defend a study that I have said I disagree with. I am not against Christianity or even Christians who make mistakes. You be the judge, but judge using the criteria set in the Bible, not the criteria set by men.

Oh, ((( Smiles )))

This is so strange and confusing to me..
You say your a Christian..
A Christian that believes in Darwinism Evolution..
And you don't have to do what the Bible instructs Christians to do which is share the good news Gospel..
You seem to do the opposite of that here..
You spread the evolution gospel instead..
Is that what your doing here??
What are you doing as that is so confusing to me.
It doesn't make sense.
Can you see how others could see it like that??
It does seem to be very contridicting.
It's late and I'm off to bed.
That just tires me out.

Stay Well Ya All
Lynn

Without the awareness of actions/fruits of those claiming to be Christian, how then would one ever discern another person.....if not by some form of observation? It is not enough to simply state "I'm a Christian" or "I love God", if we are contradicting this with actions that speak otherwise.

1 John 4:20

Quote

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot [1] love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

That is something many of us need to overcome. A stumbling block to our relationship with God is allowing emotions to dictate how we feel about another person, rather than loving them with a Christ-like love. Which is not always easy for us, but it is for Christ.

Here is more regarding the necessity for professed faith to be shown by our actions.



If we state we are Christian, but our actions are contrary, we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Since the truth of such a conviction should be displayed with some evidence. Which is where "fruits" come into it.



This does not mean we do not have human weakness and tendency to sin, emotion, anger etc. We do, we're human. This is where humility and repentence comes into it. However, LIVING/continuing to live outside of the word of God evidenced by ones actions are a clear sign that such a person is walking contrary to Christ, not with Christ and by such actions can lead/encourage others into the same. Certainly those that do such, whilst proclaiming to be Christians, do much to cause cynicism in others who look and see a person acting otherwise. Yet someone who walks close to Christ, is evidenced by their actions/fruits and they are the ones that often draw others closer to Christ, because they live the word and the word lives in them. The Holy Spirit dwells in truth and it is the Holy Spirit that attracts and converts.

And more on fruits in the bible:

John 15:1,17



Matthew 7:15-20



So we are told to be aware of others and the way to do so, is to look at the actions/fruits. This is what we were told from the bible, which helps us discern and sometimes even protect ourselves from corruption or hanging around those who might lead us astray or encourage us into sin. Temptation is not easy! We're tested daily in one way or another.



Yes I agree. You can also find many people who write themselves on a form as Christian, or say they are when asked - but in reality have little to do with God or Christianity. It's interesting and not uncommon. I assume it's kind of habitual perhaps. Perhaps they believe there might be a God, or maybe they do believe in Christ, but have little evidence of it in their own lives/actions, nor give God much mention at any other time (until emergencies). I think alot of people, particulary in the US are Christian, but you may find their lives are not always lived in a Christian manner. Even the bible refers to the luke warm! Of course there some atheists out there that are more Christian in action than some self-professed Christians around. Showing really that all human beings have within them the capacity for good from our Creator God. But ALL human beings have capacity also for evil. Nobody is exempt. The difference is the blood of Christ removes our guilt when we sincerely repent and part of that is sincerely striving to do better from that moment on.



I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you presented a study you clearly did not agree with and for that I apologise to you. Sometimes I miss things and it's part of my not always clear concentration. However, as a Christian, I am fully aware of mankind's need of Christ regardless of race/creed/position and without such, nobody can be saved.



I never said that nobody should point out to their fellow Christians where they were not following Christ's example. You have either misrepresented or mistook what I meant. You seem very quick to point out the faults in fellow Christians on here, yet strangely silent when it comes to ever pointing out the good, or coming to the defense of Christianity/Christ against some unfair/incorrect statements by the evolutionists on here.....yet then you become irritated when people question your Christianity. How else do you expect to be received?

Reminding others of faults is wise, but let us not forget this:

Matthew 7:1-12




It's not about parading, it's about balancing the negative with acknowledging the overwhelming good which would indicate a person who is certain in their faith and considers it, Christ and fellow Christians of value. That might indicate you believe you are on the right side..... Are you interested in encouraging and leading others to Christ? Part of doing so is supporting your Christian brothers and sisters in their work in upholding God's holy word.



They thought they were doing the right thing? Maybe, but could you give me an example of an instance in history you are referring to exactly? So perhaps we can elaborate a bit more. I think we need to understand all the circumstances in these things, rather than point to an action without giving context of the whole scenario and what other dangers there may have been here (consider souls). But yes, when we see our brothers/sisters doing that which is contrary to Christ's teachings, we must point that out to them.

However, we must also consider that there are those who know how to rouse the masses by using religion and twisting aspects to confuse/anger others for their own gain. That can happen in any religion/cause/organisation. There will always be fanatics and those with a taste of war/violence and many manipulate others to join them.

It is not really about judging in the light of history. The bible was there all along. That was the example that was set for all those who wished to be Christian. So it's not so much in light of history, when one had the light of the gospels all along! And did they act accordingly? No wonder Christ was in so much pain over the human race and still is! He must shake His head. Consider Judas and how many Judas's do we have within the faith? Do we really think that Satan isn't going to try and get involved? By heck he is! Anything to bring down Christians and cause further loss and pain to Christ. He loves nothing more than scandal in relation to any Christian. It then gives the atheists more excuse to scoff and confirm themselves in their position. Remember Satan considers God Himself as his only true enemy. Satan will work far more furiously on those who are trying to walk with Christ! Which I think is why all Christians must strive to support eachother in our walk towards eternity and strive for holiness. Holiness attracts souls to Christ.

For Satan, working on those in a position of shepherding others would be the number one target. If you bring down such a person, you have the hopes of bringing down a multitude. Which is why we are called to pray and stay faithful and keep the word of God near. Satan is very clever and will use whatever means to bring a Christian down and give Christianity a bad name and to keep the unbelievers unbelieving. He is sometimes referred to as the prince of this world.

2 Corinthians 4:4




I'v learned that arguing to get anybody to agree with me doesn't work! But I'll still answer and defend where/when I feel necessary. I was defending Christians/Christianity against negative commentary, not aware of the point you were trying to make. Regardless, it seems that little positives, if any are ever given regarding Christians/Christianity. I think my post was still relevant in that respect. When one continues to omit mentioning the good, when there are so many good Christians that deserve recognition and acknowledgement, some reminding maybe in order.

I wasn't aware you agreed with my comments by your earlier posts. In fact, your posting history, when mentioning Christians/Christianity has not indicated to me - any such positives regarding Christians... but I apologise if I'm mistaken.

I find that your position regarding Christianity seems to be a cause of confusion on here.

Twist? Would it be 'twisting' to review recent history?

While one acknowledges that indifferent parties exist on all sides of this issue, one can anticipate that any Christian who is not indifferent should welcome the news that atheist slanders have been convincingly slam-dunked, right? Those who care might even take a peek at such a book. How could it be anything other than good news to find that Christianity cannot be portrayed accurately as a force for evil?

Not what you were expecting? Well, maybe you're new here.

Instead of recognizing that the very statistical methods used by atheists to slander Christians will result, if properly investigated, in a conclusion unfavorable to them; Linear portrays this as some ad hoc attempt to smear atheism.

Overlooking the fact that this is the result of analyzing the facts behind atheist attacks on Christians, Linear counters that the atheist can produce bogus studies & smear Christians.

No joke! The whole point is that they have done so, and they must put a lot of effort into twisting history and rely heavily upon ignorance in those they wish to deceive.

When the facts are known, their own argument condemns their belief system.

Those who review will note that while Linear does claim individual motives cannot be determined by statistics, he never once denies that the statistical trend alleged by the atheists is true. Quite the contrary. Again and again he maintains it exists. He doesn't read the book, preferring to provide an example of the bogus propaganda which needed debunking in the first place. Those who read The Irrational Atheist will most likely laugh (or despair) when they contemplate such hopelessly flawed slanders.

More than once, Linear claims to have said "just the opposite" of what his study tries to say. But there are at least two arguments the enemies of God have derived from the statistics. One says that religion/Christianity can be proven to cause violence; one says that a statistical trend exists, and there are other factors involved. We only find opposition to the most extreme opinion in Linear's posts.
Perhaps "no true atheist" would let us off so easily?

Continuing, one finds"Conveniently" overlooking the fact that a standard is in place, and criteria have been long established for determining who is and who is not following the Lord. Seems a rather unexpected thing for such a follower to overlook; but neither can one can be expected to remember everything when one is locking horns with... how do we categorize Bex?

This passage is strange indeed. If I read this right (and I'm making every effort) Linear's fellow Christians were doing some sort of horrid work, and at some point, another group of his brothers stood up to them and put a stop to it.

Christians have become "hesistent" to do horrid things. What a relief! Might be better if Christians had rigidly established doctrines and beliefs that were contrary to butchery. Were I an atheist, I think I might be a little wary of Linear's brethren.

What's funny about this: by insisting the butchers are to be considered his true brethren, and that they sincerely acted in ways that were in keeping with their beliefs, Linear places himself squarely within a group some of the atheists have designated as even more dangerous: the 'facilitators'. Eliminating such is argued to be higher priority than even the "rabid fundy" and the jihadist.

But that's another story... And somehow, I don't think they'd be any too keen on eliminating LinearAq.