I am weary of being called (but oh so politely and indirectly) “delusional” and “intellectually stunted” by atheists whose evidence of their intellectual superiority is that they completely rule out the possibility of anything beyond the material.
One thing that’s amazing is how atheists respond to questions they can’t answer by attacking us – and somehow believe they’ve won the argument. For instance, there’s the infamous video of someone asking evolutionist Richard Dawkins “what if you’re wrong?” Does he respond with a reasoned explanation of why he knows he’s not wrong? No, he attacks people of faith for believing in myths and fairy tales.
Well done, Dr. Dawkins! Touche! You really told us, didn’t you?!
Another amazing phenomenon is the proliferation of atheistic “just so” stories … and how the complicit media help turn them into “scientific fact.”
One example: atheists were asked to explain the presence of comets, which should have burned themselves out long ago in a universe billions of years old.
Their answer? The Kuiper Belt – a theoretical (tr: imaginary) “region of the solar system beyond the planets.”
“Discovered” in 1992 (“imagined” would be a better word, in truth), it was initially thought to be the source of comets. No more, however. According toWikipedia, “the region now called the Kuiper belt is not the point of origin of short-period comets, but that they instead derive from a linked population called the scattered disk. The scattered disc was created when Neptune migrated outward into the proto-Kuiper belt…”
I won’t bore you with the details, because they’re probably being revised at this very moment. But let’s skip to the end of this passage: “Because the scattered disc is dynamically active and the Kuiper belt relatively dynamically stable, the scattered disc is now seen as the most likely point of origin for periodic comets.”
“Seen as” and “most likely point.” If I were a gambler, I would bet that these phrases – two more examples of evolutionary escape clauses – will disappear from this listing within a year or two. You see, the Kuiper belt was presented as a theoretical explanation for comets just a decade or so ago; now it’s presented as fact. And when any alleged fact doesn’t quite pan out, the experts simply keep pushing it a little further out, just beyond the reach of demonstrable fact.
There are so many questions that atheists could be asked to help them see who's really believing in fairy tales. Alas, they'll usually answer with attacks on the questioner, or with some new imaginations, or occasionally by saying that this isn't their particular area of expertise. Just for starters:
We creationists point to Genesis for the answer to all such questions. What’s our proof? Just the universally available facts, which fit neatly into the Genesis account of creation and the Flood – without any need for twisting the facts or inventing "just so" stories. Isn’t it funny how Moses, writing about 3500 years ago, was able to give bullet-proof explanation for absolutely everything?
Today, there are scores of wonderful books presenting the facts that evolutionists cannot explain away with intellectual integrity. Check out my library for a sampling of those that opened my eyes; or take a look at the recommendations at goodreads.com; or get your hands on a copy of my memoir, Heaven Without Her, for a very personal account of the life-changing truth of the Bible.
One thing that’s amazing is how atheists respond to questions they can’t answer by attacking us – and somehow believe they’ve won the argument. For instance, there’s the infamous video of someone asking evolutionist Richard Dawkins “what if you’re wrong?” Does he respond with a reasoned explanation of why he knows he’s not wrong? No, he attacks people of faith for believing in myths and fairy tales.
Well done, Dr. Dawkins! Touche! You really told us, didn’t you?!
Another amazing phenomenon is the proliferation of atheistic “just so” stories … and how the complicit media help turn them into “scientific fact.”
One example: atheists were asked to explain the presence of comets, which should have burned themselves out long ago in a universe billions of years old.
Their answer? The Kuiper Belt – a theoretical (tr: imaginary) “region of the solar system beyond the planets.”
“Discovered” in 1992 (“imagined” would be a better word, in truth), it was initially thought to be the source of comets. No more, however. According toWikipedia, “the region now called the Kuiper belt is not the point of origin of short-period comets, but that they instead derive from a linked population called the scattered disk. The scattered disc was created when Neptune migrated outward into the proto-Kuiper belt…”
I won’t bore you with the details, because they’re probably being revised at this very moment. But let’s skip to the end of this passage: “Because the scattered disc is dynamically active and the Kuiper belt relatively dynamically stable, the scattered disc is now seen as the most likely point of origin for periodic comets.”
“Seen as” and “most likely point.” If I were a gambler, I would bet that these phrases – two more examples of evolutionary escape clauses – will disappear from this listing within a year or two. You see, the Kuiper belt was presented as a theoretical explanation for comets just a decade or so ago; now it’s presented as fact. And when any alleged fact doesn’t quite pan out, the experts simply keep pushing it a little further out, just beyond the reach of demonstrable fact.
There are so many questions that atheists could be asked to help them see who's really believing in fairy tales. Alas, they'll usually answer with attacks on the questioner, or with some new imaginations, or occasionally by saying that this isn't their particular area of expertise. Just for starters:
- How do you explain the origins of the theoretical Singularity? What’s your proof?
- What was the cause of the Singularity exploding into all matter, space and energy? What’s your proof?
- How do you explain the emergence of life from non-life? What’s your proof?
- How do you explain the lack of evidence for transitional fossils, as even the late great Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould admitted? What’s your proof?
- How do you explain the evolution of irreducibly complex organs such as the eye or immune system? What’s your proof?
We creationists point to Genesis for the answer to all such questions. What’s our proof? Just the universally available facts, which fit neatly into the Genesis account of creation and the Flood – without any need for twisting the facts or inventing "just so" stories. Isn’t it funny how Moses, writing about 3500 years ago, was able to give bullet-proof explanation for absolutely everything?
Today, there are scores of wonderful books presenting the facts that evolutionists cannot explain away with intellectual integrity. Check out my library for a sampling of those that opened my eyes; or take a look at the recommendations at goodreads.com; or get your hands on a copy of my memoir, Heaven Without Her, for a very personal account of the life-changing truth of the Bible.
RSS Feed