How To Convert Atheists And Fight Evolution
RICHARD Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens cannot be converted by conventional means:
Dr Dinho - a reader writes:
Help, my niece is being taught evolution!
Claudia C. writes with concern for her young niece being taught evolution in school. Jonathan Sampson responds with a few suggestions.
My ten-year-old niece came home and asked me about creation. She said they taught her in school that we came from monkeys.
…There are essentially two things that you can do from here. You can encourage the isolation of your niece, and get her out of that environment, or you can insulate her and prepare her for that environment. Isolation can be done through private Christian schooling, or even home schooling. Ministries like ours exist to help you insulate your children. Our desire is to get them ready to face this world and the things it will confront them with.
Indeed…
July 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Oh that Darwin, he was a naughty boy
July 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Why would people want to study a rational argument like evolution when instead they can have irrational dogma?
I can’t understand why there is even a decision people have to make.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
cats are known atheists?
burn cats in the name of God??????????
I have two moggies, junior and marcy and they are not going to be burned in the name of god. I tell thee.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
LOne
You have two moggies???
Living dangerousley aren’t you..
July 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Given the mess the C of E is in and 60 of their bishops threatening to become RC why are they ranting on about this?
But then I’m just an old pagan, what would I know….
Rock on Darwin
July 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Rock on Darwin! If you would but know it, Darwin would like to recant his antichrist dogma. He cries out from eternal torment, praying that no one will follow him there.
A little about your god Darwin from The Quest for Right:
“The investigation’s assessment of protracted gradation is far from being new. Darwin was fully cognizant that he could not prove the “theory of evolution” and could not explain its mechanism, especially in so-called well-defined species: the connotation erroneously suggests that there are less-defined or more primitive species when all evidence is to the contrary. The scientific council uses language as a ruse in lieu of documented facts in order to promote protracted gradation; hence, the phraseology is offensive. Again, stability, not variance, is the third law of procreation.
Darwin’s studies revealed a wide variety of life forms, but what caused these varieties? Again, natural selection was thought to be the answer. In theory, those species best adapted to the environment tend to reproduce more offspring and transmit hereditary improvements (in slight variations); those less able to adapt to the environment leave fewer offspring and eventually die out. After a succession of generations, there is a tendency for the species to adapt to a greater degree, thus, improving the lineage.
Regrettably, Darwin was unable to grasp the reality of certain rudimental processes which he had observed; for instance, the runt of a litter being abandoned by its parent or a sickly creature preyed upon by a fox or wolf. Although these familiar aspects of procreation are vital to the continuance of the species, the phenomena must not be confused as protracted gradation in the process. Darwin, misguided by his obsession, incorrectly deemed the ritual to be natural selection, when, in truth, he was observing an inherent process of procreation which may be correctly called the guardian of the wild. The familiar process is responsible for weeding out weak and sickly members of the species (i.e., those less likely to survive), not to improve the species but rather as a measure to insure the health and strength of the species as a whole. Make no mistake; new species are not derived by the guardian of the wild.
Darwin, incognizant of the manifest workings of procreation, attacked the “benevolence” of God, disdaining the guardian of the wild as the “clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of (Mother) nature.” It revolted his understanding to suppose that God’s “benevolence was unbounded” in such instances (benevolence—”an inclination to perform kindhearted, charitable acts”). Although it may seem a curiosity, those men and women who hate God will always attack His benevolence by asking the questions: If God is so benevolent, why are there wars? Why is slavery so cruel? Why is there so much injustice in the world? And so on. Be it known that one or more transgressions of the holy commandments are the culprits in such instances, not God. A more definitive answer will be forthcoming in Volume 7 of The Quest for Right.
The remarkable, yet troublesome, aspect of the foregoing is that Darwin spent a lifetime observing procreation but failed to realize the truth except in the simplest of matters. Then again, the failure is not too disconcerting in light of the fact that he was working in the scientific void of the 1800’s. As is the case, errors abound; hence, any work by Darwin is unacceptable reading. Let the reader beware.” — Volume 4 , The Quest for Right
Mods and Admin
Shouldn’t want to block all of your post, but am not paying £20 for your book, so don’t plug it!
July 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
4
Noseycow Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
LOne
You have two moggies???
Living dangerousley aren’t you..
Always Nosey. Always.
These moggies love me to death. They wait patiently for me at the door to get home from work so I can feed them. They don’t batter an eyelid at the fact i’m a bird!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
To trust in science alone for mankind’s salvation is called the “cult of science” you can search for it in “Google blog” or click here Cult of Science
“That’s what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that’s not science. It’s the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that’s a problem.”