Who Are We?

Modern secularists love to see present day humans as the pinnacle of evolution. In reality, human nature has change not one iota since Adam and Eve.

“We tend to have this idea of Neanderthals as these stereotypical cavemen that must have been different from us because they're not around today,” Riel-Salvatore said. “And what we’re seeing, in fact, is that the more we look at the record of Neanderthals ... the more their lifestyle appears to have been similar to those of modern humans at more or less the same time.”

“The big difference between them and us is shrinking by the day — literally, at this point,” Riel-Salvatore said. “And so instead of seeing them as this extinct offshoot on the human family tree, we should think of them more as extinct cousins, fairly close relatives.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/neanderthal-caves-organized-as-pleasant-places-to-live-1.2483451

Regardless of either option, monkey or man, Darwinists plead with us to believe that we are nothing more than a mass of chemical exchanges and firing neurons even as they, the atheists, display a whole range of personal thoughts, emotions and pseudo arguments when their beliefs in this area are challenged.

These people look at the human abilities of self-reflection, art, medicine, the enjoyment of music and say it comes from an illusory direction of will. In fact, they say that self-will or freewill choice are also an illusion. Even though the development of our vocabulary is enormous, our grammar complex and our conversations deep and meaningful, it all comes, say materialists, without purpose or meaning. These atheists look at the human ability to codify language, our unbounded creativity, selflessness, love, the exercising of our rational faculties, our ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses and call it the simple, random and unguided firing of neurons. 

Our strong spirit of enquiry, our research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics while noteworthy for some, is nothing of lasting consequence to an atheist, for all will, according to atheists comes to an absurd and meaningless end. Yearn for meaning in life? It too is of no lasting import. It’s the same illusion that causes us to devote so much of our time to philosophy, theology and ethics. Or so the materialist world-view claims. Atheists say that our religious sentiments and practices and our intense and endless quest for meaning can be traced to some random mutation eons ago. 

The concept of atheism forces us to say that it’s only the illusion of the “I” that questions not only our origin but also our destiny. It’s only the illusion of the “I” that has a refined aesthetic sense that admires beauty and longs to be surrounded with it. When we cultivate a garden, put flowers in a vase, or hang up a painting, it’s the illusion of the “I” that is expressing a love of beauty and a strong creative impulse. Our poetry, painting, dance, drama and music, our weekly craft groups where baskets are woven, wool is spun, shawls are knit, and photo albums are covered, all this, says the ardent materialist, is carried out for no particular reason save to follow the command of chemical exchanges.

Reason, language, enquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour, to such intangible but fundamental qualities, atheists like Bertrand Russel can only respond, and in the total absence of proofs or evidence, yet driven by a desperate desire to be free from all accountability to one’s Creator, they hope that you will agree: 

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction . . . that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” 

The atheist’s philosophical and powerful emotional reaction to the fact of a universe with a beginning and to the impossibility of life arising unaided from non life shows that we are far, far more than a mass of chemical exchanges, more than mere thinking machines. Bottom line, we're a lot less simian than atheists would like us to believe.

From "Trolling for Atheists" Rod Holmgren

“The problem with those who don't believe in evolution is that they don't have any imagination.”

Gail Kennedy, PhD, 

Associate Professor of Anthropology, UCLA

When Oh When Will The Evidence Appear?

“Faith is the great cope out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and to evaluate evidence.”

Richard Dawkins

“Live Science” says of Darwinian evolution, it can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.”

And yet there is not one iota of observable evidence of one “kind” of animal changing or evolving into another “kind” of animal. There is lots of evidence for adaptation within a kind (micro evolution) but zero evidence of evolution of one kind of species developing into a new kind, as described in “Live Science.”

It is only the atheist presupposition, the unsupported and anti scientific presupposition that takes adaptation (micro evolution) and forces upon us a conclusion of macro evolution.

The scientific method is based upon observation, testing and verification. It allows us to draw conclusions that don't have to accepted by faith. Evolution simply cannot be observed, tested or verified.

“We see nothing of these slow changes in progress.”

Charles Darwin.

In other words we have to accept the conclusion of evolution by faith. Much like believing that matter has always existed even though science and Big Bang cosmology says otherwise.

Of course atheists say, they must say, they have no choice BUT to say that there are “missing links out there. We just haven't found them yet.” Much as they say that they believe that an explanation that this is a material universe only will some day be found. Till then they believe it on blind faith. It's exactly like those atheist leaders who will grudgingly admit that it's impossible to make even one grain of sand out of nothing (let alone a whole universe). Yet they then say, unless you have “millions and billions of years. Then somehow the obviously impossible becomes possible.

When you can think of any observable, testable, verifiable (science) evidence for Darwinian evolution, i.e. a change of one kind into another kind, then you can believe in evolution based on something other than blind faith.

Why Would Natural Selection Do That?

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Individuals with certain variants of the trait survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants.

Not all river dolphins are blind; in fact, Amazon dolphins (Inia geoffrensis) have quite good eyesight. However, most others have reduced vision. Most of their habitats are murky waters, where eyes are of little use. Good sonar is perfectly adequate. Why, then, do Ganges and Indus dolphins (Platanista gangetica and P minor) have eyes at all? For their eyes lack a lens, leaving these species unable to resolve images: the most they can do is perceive the presence or absence of light (of which there's rather little where they live anyway)... for which skull apertures, eyeballs, muscles, retinas and the rest, the same design as normally-sighted dolphins have, seems a bit excessive.

© Oolon Colluphid 2003, 2009

Why would evolution produce such a thing

Why would those who have such a poor design not die off and

Why wouldn't those with a better design be selected instead?

Isn't that the whole point of natural selection?

And while you're at it, you may also wish to ask yourself, "Why are fraudulent and misleading "evidences" for evolution present in our children's textbooks?"

For example, “Why are the Miller / Urey experiments purporting to produce amino acids from the components of early earth’s atmosphere still in school science books and why are well known scientists still referring to these failed experiments as proof for naturalistic evolution? You know, that inanimate and inorganic chemicals and gases evolve?"

Why Along with the Miller / Urey fiasco, do we still find in our children's textbooks:
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Darwin's finches are used as evidence for evolution. Even though we know that the beaks of these finches change naturally (adaptations) with the amount of rainfall. Yet this is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;.

. Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since 1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.
. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.

If there is so much new evidence for macro evolution why is fraudulent evidence, lies really, still being used?

There is only one reason that atheist driven science is still leaning on fraud and deception to build up evolution, and that is because there is nothing more substantial to use. When confronted with the LACK of evidence, these “scientists” say, “Well, we know the theory is true even if the evidence doesn’t support it. In only one hundred years you can’t expect us to throw out what’s false and include all this great new compelling evidence.”

Right, let’s give students our worst evidence, false evidence, deception and outright lies. We have much better evidence but we’re not going to let anyone know what it is.

“Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution" through biology textbooks (Wells 2000: xii).

Intellectually Embarrassing

Richard Dawkins says that evolution, or natural selection as it is often called allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I guess before that, you could still be an atheist, but you had to accept that you were kind of intellectually stunned. After all, atheism existed since long, long before there was anything that today's atheists consider to be evidence for their belief-system.

Regardless, natural selection allows nothing resembling intellectual fulfilment. Atheism has always been and always will be an anti-intellectual, anti-science, irrational and brutishly illogical means of denying the obvious – a supernatural Creator of the universe exists, and this Creator exists necessarily (Necessarily: It can't NOT exist).

For if natural selection is true, it is true only because the universe was designed (with a Creator's intent and purpose) in a way that allows natural selection generally and life itself specifically to exist. The theory of evolution does absolutely nothing to do away with the existence of Creator God. Because of that, the world-view called atheism remains as incoherent and irrational as it always was, even before this pseudo evidence for the non existence of a Creator was invented.

The facts of adaptation and natural selection have always been before us. Atheism has just given them a new and incongruous, non sequitur (natural selection exists therefore God does not) type of interpretation.

So we can ask ourselves. Which is more intellectually embarrassing:

. To believe that everything material came from nothing material by nothing?

OR

. To believe that matter and energy have always existed?

Why Would Natural Selection Do That?

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Individuals with certain variants of the trait survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants.

Some flowers have non-functional stamens (male parts) in female flowers. Some flowers have non-functional pistils (female parts) in male flowers.

Most flowers have both sexes of reproductive organs (stamens and pistils).

These others however have only one or the other. Having both where only one set works is a waste of materials.

© Oolon Colluphid 2003, 2009

Why would evolution produce something so wasteful or of essentially no use

Why would those who have such a poor design not die off and

Why wouldn't those with a better design be selected instead?

Isn't that the whole point of natural selection?

=====

You may wish to ask yourself, "Why are fraudulent and misleading "evidences" for evolution present in our children's textbooks?"  

For example, “Why are the Miller / Urey experiments purporting to produce amino acids from the components of early earth’s atmosphere still in school science books and why are well known scientists still referring to these failed experiments as proof for naturalistic evolution? You know, that inanimate and inorganic chemicals and gases evolve?"

Why Along with the Miller / Urey fiasco, do we still find in our children's textbooks:
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Darwin's finches are used as evidence for evolution. Even though we know that the beaks of these finches change naturally (adaptations) with the amount of rainfall. Yet this is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;.

. Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since 1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.
. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.

If there is so much new evidence for macro evolution why is fraudulent evidence, lies really, still being used?There is only one reason that atheist driven science is still leaning on fraud and deception to build up evolution, and that is because there is nothing more substantial to use. When confronted with the LACK of evidence, these “scientists” say, “Well, we know the theory is true even if the evidence doesn’t support it. In one hundred years you can’t expect us to throw out what’s false and include all this great new compelling evidence.”

Right, let’s give students our worst evidence, false evidence, deception and outright lies. We have much better evidence but we’re not going to let anyone know what it is.

“Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution" through biology textbooks (Wells 2000: xii).

Why Would Natural Selection Do That?

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Individuals with certain variants of the trait survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants.

In the African locust (Locusta migratoria), the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are on the thorax. Nerve signals from the brain have to travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the insect to where they are needed.

© Oolon Colluphid 2003, 2009

Why would evolution produce something like that

Why would those who have such a poor design not die off and

Why wouldn't those with a better design be selected instead?

Why Would Natural Selection Do That?

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Individuals with certain variants of the trait survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants.

There are hundreds of species of animal which, living in total darkness in deep caves, have no need for eyes. They range from fish (eg the Mexican blind cave tetra Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus) to insects (eg the Hawaiian cave planthopper Oliarus polyphemus), spiders (eg the Tooth Cave Spider Neoleptoneta myopica), salamanders (eg Typhlomolge rathbuni) and crayfish (eg the Dougherty Plain cave crayfish Cambarus cryptodytes).

Yet, these creatures do in fact have eyes. The eyes are often tiny, lacking crucial parts, so they would not function even if there were light to see. But they are clearly eyes, set in skull apertures, on stalks etc as normal, nevertheless. Eyes that don't work in creatures that don't even need eyes?

© Oolon Colluphid 2003, 2009

Why would evolution produce such a thing

Why would those who have such a poor design not die off and

Why wouldn't those with a better design be selected instead? 

Evolution Points To God

On CNN last night, Don Lemmon asked some preacher what evidence there was for God's existence, and the Pastor said, "There isn't any."


Wow! What a scientifically ignorant statement. Of course, you don't have to be a Pastor to say stupid things. Leaders of atheism are also able to travel that road.

Richard Dawkins says that evolution, or natural selection as it is often called allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Natural selection allows nothing of the sort. Atheism has always been and always will be an anti-intellectual, anti-science, irrational and brutishly illogical means of denying the obvious – a supernatural Creator of the universe exists, and this Creator exists necessarily.

(Necessarily: It can't NOT exist)

For if natural selection is true, it is true only because the universe was designed (with a Creator's intent and purpose) in a way that allows natural selection generally and life itself specifically to exist. The theory of evolution does absolutely nothing to do away with the existence of Creator God.

Because of that, the world-view called atheism remains as incoherent and irrational as it always was, even before this pseudo evidence for the non existence of a Creator was invented.

The facts of adaptation and natural selection have always been before us. Atheism has just given them a new and incongruous, non sequitur (natural selection exists therefore God does not) type of interpretation.

Richard Dawkins and those who share his views also share a VERY low intellectual fulfilment threshold. 

Atheists and Micro vs. Macro

I’ve written often about Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies. You know. The twelve or so stories that have been advanced and discarded as to how the universe came to be - specifically without a Creator.

That’s the whole point, you know.

Atheists must have a universe without a definitive space / time boundary (the material infinite) or else, well, or else it proves there had to be a non material Creator. And yes, each and every one of the Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies have been discarded precisely because they all break down to a point where they show that a definitive space / time boundary does in fact exist. They simply cannot get away from that reality. Nevertheless, atheists committed to Mythology cling to any one of these stories as true.

AOUM’s are an extension of Oakham’s Razor which says in part that it makes sense to choose the least complicated solution to a problem. Fine. No problem with that. The other part of Oakham however is that as soon as you find a natural explanation that might be usable, you can dispense with the whole Creator God idea.

So each Origin of the Universe Mythology has been hailed as “The One” that sets us completely free of God, only to be set on the shelf when proven unworkable. This leaves atheists to wait for a new natural saviour. Not to worry. There’s no shortage of them. In fact atheists have gone so far as to throw out Oakham and simply declare, “There IS a natural explanation for how the universe came into being. We just don’t know what it is.” Some have even accepted, “If you use imaginary time and imaginary numbers and imaginary space, you don’t need a beginning for the universe.” Thank you Stephen Hawking for that brilliant observation.

Atheists say things like this because if you need a beginning ex nihilo of a natural universe, then you also need a non natural Beginner. That is not allowed in atheism. It causes atheists to twist science something awful. They say things like, “Some things don’t need a cause to begin to exist,” and “Out of nothing doesn’t mean literally nothing.” In the same manner that atheists don't understand the difference between something and nothing, they don't understand the gap between life and non life, nor the difference between adaptation within a species from the huge leap from one species into another species.

Adaptation within a species has been declared, by atheists as proof of macro evolution from one species into another. Evidence for adaptation has taken us to the point that, “We don’t have a natural answer - yet - but we KNOW that we will have an answer some day.” Even though all we should have are transitional stages of animals running around and even though all we should see are transitional fossils, several hundred years is not enough time to find them. And as per Mr. Oakham, we now have atheists saying, “Because evolution is the only natural answer we'll accept, we declare, that’s what happened.”

I wouldn’t worry about this too much. Positing an alternative to God is the life’s work and goal of the atheist. And that’s ok. We all need something to do. Speaking of which. I’ve blown out the lawn sprinklers which means that I’m free until spring. Although I might have to clean off my Dresser sometime in December. And maybe roll coins in January. There’s no way I’m going to force both of those jobs into one month.

Gotta go to the lake - it's 33 degrees and not a cloud in the sky. Enjoy!

This We Believe

I gave a quote from Jonathan Wells a week or so ago. Hugo didn’t like this one bit. It goes against what he desperately wants to believe. You can see his comments @
http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2011/05/philosophy-of-evolution.html

If you haven’t read that post, it would be helpful for you to do so now.


Hugo hated the quote from that post so much he pointed me to what he calls a “refutation” of Wells’ book. In this refutation we find the following comments:

“. . . no textbook presents the "icons" as a list of our "best evidence" for evolution,”

Right, let’s give students our worst evidence, false evidence, deception and outright lies. We have much better evidence but we’re not going to let anyone know what it is.
=====

“The Miller-Urey experiment isn't considered "evidence for evolution;" it is considered part of our experimental research about the origin of life and is discussed in chapters and sections on the "history of life."”

Funny how the refutation doesn’t mention that the experiment in question had nothing to do with early earth atmosphere. In fact these atheists chose the chemicals they did because those chemicals were the ones known to produce the results desired. Let’s not tell the student THAT!

This “refutation” contains another lie because if one can believe current atheist scientists, then the “evolution” of inanimate and inorganic gases (snerk) most certainly does have to do with evolution.
=====

“Darwin's finches are used as examples of an evolutionary process (natural selection), not as evidence for evolution.”

“And the prize for attempted obfuscation goes to - may I have the envelope please!” Hey, they’re only kids, they won’t notice our deception.
=====

“Archaeopteryx is frequently presented in discussions of the origin of birds, not as evidence for evolution itself.”

Mm, hmm because going from one species into birds wouldn’t be evidence of evolution.
=====


Then we’re told why we can’t expect to understand why falsehood, deception, outright lies and substandard evidence is shown to our children. It’s because we aren’t educated enough - you know, like those who teach evolution. Take a listen.

“To understand the depth of any scientific field fully requires many years of study.”

So they dumb it down for lessor mortals.
=====

“It is the goal of elementary and secondary education to give students a basic understanding of the "world as we know it," which includes teaching students the paradigms of a number of fields of science. In order to do this, teaching examples must be found. It is this need to find simple, easy-to-explain, dynamic, and visual examples to introduce a complex topic to students that has led to the common use of a few examples — the "icons."

Ya, “teaching examples must be found.” So we’ll just make something up.

Along with the Miller / Urey fiasco,
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since 1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.

. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.

It doesn't matter if what we are telling your children is a lie, a deliberate deception. We're atheists. They should just trust us.
=====

“Yet, with our knowledge of the natural world expanding at near-exponential rates, the volume of new information facing a textbook writer is daunting.”

What he’s telling you is that “In one hundred years you can’t expect us to throw out what’s false and include all this great new compelling evidence.”
=====

“it should not be surprising that introductory textbooks are frequently simplified and may be somewhat out-of-date.”

It’s beyond words.
=====

“In Icons of Evolution, Wells says: "Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution" through biology textbooks (Wells 2000: xii). This is a serious charge; to support it demands the highest level of scholarship on the part of the author.”

We’ve come full circle. We’re back to, you can’t expect to understand that fraud isn’t fraud unless you have exactly the same level of education that I have.

The Philosophy of Evolution

Jonathan Wells was asked, “Why are the fraudulent and misleading Miller / Urey experiments purporting to produce amino acids from the components of early earth’s atmosphere still in school science books and why are well known scientists still referring to these failed experiments as proof for naturalistic evolution?”

He responded, “It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that this is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The attitude is that life had to have developed [naturally] because [if you deny the existence of God] there’s no explanation other than materialism. And if you try to invoke another explanation - then the evolutionists claim you’re not a scientist.”

It should be noted that along with the Miller / Urey fiasco,
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since 1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.

. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.

If there is so much new evidence for macro evolution why is fraudulent evidence, lies really, still being used?

There is only one reason that science is still leaning on fraud and deception to build up evolution and that is because there is nothing more substantial to use. When confronted with the LACK of evidence, these “scientists” say, “Well, we know the theory is true even if the evidence doesn’t support it.”

“It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that this is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The attitude is that life had to have developed [naturally] because [if you deny the existence of God] there’s no other materialistic explanation.”
Jonathan Wells

“Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually compared with the evidence. If it does not fit the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned - other wise it is not science, but myth.”
Biologist, Jonathan Wells

To embrace naturalism, one has to believe the following:
. Nothing produces everything
. Non-living, inanimate, inorganic gases evolve to produce life
. Randomness and death produces fine-tuning
. Chaos and death produces information
. Unconsciousness and death produces consciousness
. Non-reason and death produces reason

The evidence in support of these suppositions amounts to exactly zero.
Yet, the people who believe this say they believe only things for which there is evidence!

If, what atheists propose is true, then universe began with dead matter and out of that came something that thinks, feels, believes and comprehends; all that from materials that do not possess those qualities?

Materialists do not have nor will they ever have an explanation for how this happened because it is impossible; it did not happen. Nevertheless, materialists are forced to ignore this fact and press on with their absurd belief system.

They must believe this because they refuse to follow the evidence.
They must believe this because they have left themselves no other option.

Who Do You Think You Are?

The answer to that depends entirely upon whether you believe we are a soul inhabiting a body or simply, as Francis Crick once described, “No more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

. If what he says is true, then consciousness doesn’t really exist. The “I” that you contemplate throughout the day does not exist.

. If what he says is true, then there really isn’t anything resembling free will. The choices that you think you make are simply reactions to stimuli.

. If what he says is true, it’s an illusion to think that you are aware or are able to pay attention to what’s going on inside of you.

The renowned “Father of modern neurosurgery,” Wilder Penfield, has performed thousands of operations on patients with epilepsy. With electrical stimulus he could cause patients to move their arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk or swallow. Patients would respond to these actions by the doctor with comments like, “I didn’t do that. You did that.” The patient thinks of himself as having an existence separate from his body. An existence that involves the ability to choose and decide.

To examine this phenomenon further, Penfield would electrically stimulate the proper motor cortex of conscious patients to make one of their hands move. He would then tell them to decide to use the other hand to keep the stimulated hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and hold it still. Thus, one hand under the control of the electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s “mind / soul / essence / conscious self” fought against each other. Penfield, himself a staunch materialist was forced to say that we have not only a physical brain but also a nonphysical reality that is able to interact with the material brain. To expect the highest brain mechanism to carry out what the mind / soul / essence / conscious self commands is absurd for a materialist.

“What a thrill it is, then,” Penfield felt compelled to say, “to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the “human spirit.”

I use the same premise on a frequent basis in counselling as I explain to those requiring significant changes in their lives that, “OUR (meaning our soul / mind / essence / conscious self) brain believes what WE (meaning our soul / mind / essence / conscious self) tell it. If WE want the chemical balance in OUR brains to change then WE must change what WE tell our brains.” There is no location in our physical brain where a chemical exchange, or the firing of neurons will cause a client to believe or to decide one way or the other. That is because believing / deciding / choosing etc. originates in the conscious self (the part that atheists say doesn’t exist), not the physical material organ we call the brain.

Reviewing copious amounts of confirming evidence for a dualistic mind / soul / body, anthropologist Marilyn Schlitz says, “I would take the position of a radical empiricist, in that I am driven by data, not theory. And the data I see tells me that there are ways in which people’s experience refutes the materialist position that the mind is the brain and nothing more. There are solid, concrete data that suggest that our consciousness, our mind, may surpass the boundaries of the brain.”

In a moment of self-honesty an atheist wrote - “Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this. The point is that there is no scientific answer.”
Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse

God and Evolution

Much is made in secular circles about how one life-form morphs into new life-forms. Not new types of one life-form but a brand new species! Gradually, step, by step, by step.

This is not the way with Creator God. With our Creator, something new is brought into existence quickly and abruptly. For example, when He changes a human being from someone who ignores, or despises God to someone who worships and adores Creator God, the change is from darkness to light at the flick of a switch. We are in fact a brand new creation, and it has nothing to do with our own efforts. As atheists are famous for saying, and as everyone has believed prior to conversion, "I couldn't become a Christian even if I wanted to."

“The Messiah has made things right between us so that we're now together on this, both non-Jewish outsiders and Jewish insiders. He tore down the wall we used to keep each other at a distance. He repealed the law code that had become so clogged with fine print and footnotes that it hindered more than it helped. Then he started over. Instead of continuing with two groups of people separated by centuries of animosity and suspicion, He created a new kind of human being, a fresh start for everybody. The mystery is that people who have never heard of God and those who have heard of him all their lives stand on the same ground before God. They get the same offer, same help, same promises in Christ Jesus. The Message is accessible and welcoming to everyone, across the board. ” Ephesians 2:14,15;3:5,6

When God changes a human being from sketchy to glorious, a new type of human arises; a type where there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, no special race, no special status - all are equal under the Lordship of Jesus Christ our Saviour. There are no transitional stages.

We’re either in Christ, or we are not in Christ.
Either old or new.
Lost or Saved.

And here’s the best part.
The choice is yours.
Complete freedom.
Freedom to die or freedom to live.

The 1.6% Solution

1.6% of the North American population says, If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common.

This is simply not the case. While it’s true that organisms MIGHT have one or more traits in common, on the theory of evolution there is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages. In the absence of specification for a mechanism of descent, there is no way to tie the traits of the descendants to those of the common ancestor.

While “common traits” which we see in nature does fit with the theory of a common Creator, common traits are not necessary for the theory of universal common ancestry.

“The belief that evolution predicts biologic universals is one of evolution’s major illusions.” (ReMine, 92.)

On evolution, after life’s origin, nothing prevents life from branching and leading separate lineages that are entirely lacking the known biologic universals. If evolution is true, then distant ancestors and descendants can be totally different. While evolution can accommodate biological universals it never did predict them.

It is only because we see common traits that 1.6% of the population insist that common traits would be predicted by the theory of common ancestry.

Even though these people say that without observation and verification nothing can be believed, and even though common ancestry is not a predictor for the common traits that we see, these people will believe with a deep and fervent faith in common ancestry to their dying day.

That’s just that way these people are. It’s how they think.

Farrah Fawcett is NOT Dead!

I had mentioned a couple posts ago that I had gone over a picture of members of the audience at the Oscar Awards with a magnifying glass and Farrah Fawett was not in attendance. Why then, I reasoned, should she be kicking up a stink about not winning any kind of award. That is when a couple guys (I think they’re atheists) tried to tell me that Fawcett is dead. THAT is a dirty lie. And here’s how I know.

This morning. THIS VERY MORNING I heard Farrah Fawcett on the radio. So there! She was singing her hit song. I can’t remember what it’s called but the key line goes, “You’re so vain. I’ll bet you think this song is about you.” I’m convinced that it’s about her husband Robert O’Neil but that’s another issue. The point is, she can’t very well be dead if she’s singing on the radio, now can she.

That’s what you get from people who believe in evolution.