Darwin's God: Locusts Incredibly Change from Passive and Peacefu...

Darwin's God: Locusts Incredibly Change from Passive and Peacefu...: Locusts are the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the insect world. They are picky eaters and lead a solitary lifestyle until overcrowding occurs a...

Darwin's God: A Flower Adapted to Losing its Pollinator Almost I...

Darwin's God: A Flower Adapted to Losing its Pollinator Almost I...: What happens when a plant loses its pollinator? Plants are known to make the transition and in a controlled experiment using the monkey plan...

Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just...

Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just...: Which came first the chicken or the egg? In evolution’s case, the question is between DNA or proteins. The DNA stores the data to make the p...

Darwin's God: Don’t Miss Venus and Jupiter Tonight

Darwin's God: Don’t Miss Venus and Jupiter Tonight: Tonight and tomorrow night Venus and Jupiter come within three degrees of each other from our perspective here on Earth. Look to the west an...

Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Making This New Bad Argument For...

Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Making This New Bad Argument For...: The fact that evolution is unlikely doesn’t bother evolutionists. One way they justify this is with the fallacious argument that tossing a c...

Darwin's God: Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest

Darwin's God: Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest: Didier Raoult, whom even the evolutionists admit is “the most productive and influential microbiologist in France,” explains that Charles Da...

Darwin's God: Evolution Breakthrough: Enzymes Evolved “Very Earl...

Darwin's God: Evolution Breakthrough: Enzymes Evolved “Very Earl...:

After a massive study of the evolution of enzymes —which as usual was really nothing more than a comparison of enzymes, with precisely zero ...

Darwin's God: Evolution’s Brute Spontaneity

Darwin's God: Evolution’s Brute Spontaneity: As Michael Ruse and others have pointed out the language evolutionists use can be telling, but what is not discussed is that the language ev...

Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: No engineer would design that...

Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: No engineer would design that...: Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that notions of creationism and intelligent design ignore a fundamental and important pr...

Darwin's God: Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action

Darwin's God: Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action: An international team of evolutionists reported this week that mice evolved into 33,000 pound elephants in 24 million generations. They a...

Kyle Butt vs Dan Barker 'Debate' - The Existence of God

New playlist "Kyle Butt vs Dan Barker 'Debate' - The Existence of God " This was interesting, a lot of the usual arguments but novel parts in each.

Kent Hovind vs Shermer Evolution Debate

The typical evidence for evolution is given in this video and properly shut down. This guy claims to be a sceptic but his evidence is so weak

Article assessing an historians study of Jesus

 The following quote is an exert from the article underlined and linked below. It deals with Gerd Ludermann's work on the historicity of Jesus. Gerd is an atheist New Testament historian. I have not read all of it but skipped through.

Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis

The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Paul and Luke (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24.34), the appearance to the Twelve by Paul, Luke, and John (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24:36–43; Jn. 20.19–20), the appearance to the women disciples by Matthew and John (Mt. 28.9–10; Jn. 20.11–17), and appearances to the disciples in Galilee by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mk. 16.7; Mt. 28. 16–17; Jn. 21). Taken sequentially, the appearances follow the pattern of Jerusalem–Galilee–Jerusalem, matching the festival pilgrimages of the disciples as they returned to Galilee following the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread and traveled again to Jerusalem two months later for Pentecost.  

Lüdemann himself concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”39 Thus, we are in basic agreement that following Jesus’s crucifixion various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Christ alive from the dead. The real bone of contention will be how these experiences are best to be explained.

It deals a lot with evidence from the bible. Please remember that the bible is a historical book as well as a book of religious guidelines. Ludermann studies it in his field along with others. I consider it to not exactly be Gods literal word but his revelation to us. Our way of being familiar with him through reading about what has happened, what will happen and how to live right.

"Evidence" "Proof" "Reputable source"

These are words I hear often from atheists and evolutionists. Unfortunately bias plays a massive part in how they see things like this. A reputable source is anyone who sees it their way. Atheists rarely accept scholars who are in favor of the religious view yet gladly accept claims by persons who are of the same world view even when they provide little to no actual support for their claims. The number of persons who have bought into the Christ-Myth Hypothesis is interesting especially since the "scholars" in support of that view are shaky at best. The book I mentioned before (The Pagan Christ) was written by such a scholar.

I understand we are all biased and we usually go for information that supports our point, but what do they have to lose in checking out the other side? Why fight so hard on even simple things?

When I deal with these things I don't automatically call the atheist source a phony. I look at what they say and why they say it. Usually, its very weak.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, its my experience with several atheists. There is also this assumption that atheists know more about religion than  religious people do. Making that assumption I guess works defensively.

Pagan influence on Christianity?

I just realized the name of the book I once heard about that talked about the bible being a collection of Pagan Myths. If you try hard enough you can find information that obviously refutes this and will enlighten you on how the author came about his conclusions. The title of the book is "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur and published by Thomas Allen Publishers in 2004. Below is an extract from this site which looks at the problems with this book.

Harpur does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions, nor does he appeal to any of the standard reference books, such as the magisterial three volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001) or any primary sources. Rather, he is entirely dependent on the work of Kuhn, who he describes as "the most erudite, most eloquent, and most convincing . . . of any modern writer on religion I have encountered in a lifetime dedicated to such matters." 

There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC; so Harpur's reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half. Elsewhere, Harpur refers to "Jesus in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE"; and he quotes Kuhn as claiming that "the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age." In fact, the earliest extant writing that we have dates from about 3200 BCE.

The book compares Jesus to many Pagan Mythological figures. one of whom was "Horus." Below is a short list stating which comparisons are false. There are more but you can go to this link to view them

• Isis was Horus mother and wasn't a virgin. 
• He didn't cast out demons or any miracles like what Jesus did. He didn't walk on water
• He wasn't crucified (that wasn't around till a few centuries before Jesus)
• He wasn't resurrected
• Jesus isn't believed to be born in December. This one was actually pagan because they had no clue when he was born

You can check out all the frequent comparisons here. The list is a long one and each is refuted as far as  I can tell.

Some also state that Christianity isn't even the oldest religion. "Christianity" is obviously only 2000 years old. Worship of the Christian God however is older than any of those mentioned. Christianity is a new word, but it goes back beyond Jesus.

Comments are welcome. Feel free to read this article on tecktonics.org

The Privileged Planet, Earth's Origin, Accident or Design

A Scientific Documentary on the Planet Earth, The Origin and Specific Placement. For centuries scientists and philosophers have marveled at an eerie coincidence. Mathematics, a creation of human reason, can predict the nature of the universe, a fact physicist Eugene Wigner referred to as the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences.' In the last three decades astronomers and cosmologists have noticed another, seemingly unrelated, mystery. Contrary to all expectations, the laws of physics seem precisely 'fine-tuned' for the existence of complex life. Could these two wonders actually be isolated pieces of a wider pattern? Both are prerequisites for science, yet what about the process of scientific discovery itself? What are its necessary conditions? Why is it even possible? Read any book on the history of science, and you'll learn about magnificent tales of human ingenuity, persistence, and dumb luck. But that's only part of the story, and not even the most important part. Our location is much more critical to science than it is to real estate. For some reason our Earthly location is extraordinarily well suited to allow us to peer into the heavens and discover its secrets. Elsewhere, you might learn that Earth and its local environment provide a delicate, and probably exceedingly rare, cradle for complex life. But there's another, even more startling, fact, described in The Privileged Planet: those same rare conditions that produce a habitable planet-that allow for the existence of complex observers like ourselves-also provide the best overall place for observing. What does this mean? At the least, it turns our view of the universe inside out. The universe is not 'pointless' -Steven Weinberg), Earth merely 'a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark,' -Carl Sagan, and human existence 'just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents' -Steven Weinberg. On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for discovery.

Darwin's Dilemma - Evolution or Intelligent Design?

This is a 1hr long documentary. I have not watched it so I don't quite know which side of the debate it is on.



Seems sensible though so I will share.

Potentially brilliant idiots

I am so pissed right now. This is about religion, well maybe not religion. This is about evolution. I was watching the video below and got fed up.

Dont watch that garbage. They say a lot of things that a lot of people would buy into. I really have very low faith in humans at this point; Its so obvious and easy to see the problems in the things they say. I don't even know how to start on this

Evolution is essential to science - people pull this crap so often its not funny. They say if you don't buy into evolution, you are against science. GARBAGE. Evolution is barely science. The theory is "supported" by "evidence" that that really just says "things change". Natural selection - animals adapt to their environments therefore they came from a single celled organism millions of years ago? what? Logical? No.

In that video the big deal was about a school board trying to get teachers to not teach evolution as fact - which it isn't. Simply to state that there are gaps in the theory and that there is an alternative to the theory in the form of "Intelligent Design". I was saddened, even though I should have expected it, when the persons in that video talked about their opposition to that. You would think, in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, you wouldn't have a situation where children are being indoctrinated. That is exactly what happens when you teach children that some moronic secular theory about origins is a fact. There are massive problems in the theory. MASSIVE.

That brings me to this point. Why are scientists so happy with it? This is where my "potentially brilliant idiots" comes from. I think they are thoroughly hopeless fools. None of them can adequately defend evolution against rigorous challenge yet they believe in it so adamantly and even become angry when someone believes otherwise. Any person with half a brain can recognise when something is designed but these guys have found themselves perfect deceptions. "God of the gaps" is a popular option. I always wonder at what point it stops being "God of the gaps". When you realize how impossible your alternative is yet still elect to omit the thought of something greater than man, it just shows me you are not worth your title of scientist. They are in no way unbiased. Greater scientists than any of these turds have graced our world and still held their belief in a well designed world. As a matter of fact, that belief is what drove them to try to understand the world.

This brings me to yet another point these guys made. That intelligent design would somehow preclude all scientific progress. I think they use this as some justification for fighting it so hard - "it would be the end of science". They forget that science is about understanding the world, not creating a make-believe story of its past. If all the effort that is put into evolution now is stopped and the assumption is there that it was all designed, would we not be able to move on? Would we not be able to move even further knowing that our world makes sense and there is more to be discovered? Intelligent design doesn't destroy the world so why would it destroy the will to understand it more? Does me knowing that someone made a car prevent me from learning how the car works?

The video mentions transitional fossils as evidence for evolution. A sensible person would see such a thing and think it was just another animal, complete and well made just like every other unique animal we have on this planet. Take a platypus for example. Imagine a platypi go extinct in our lifetime, then some idiot a thousand years later sees it and calls it a transitional fossil. IT WENT EXTINCT so how exactly could it be anything but a unique creature in its own right that didn't evolve into something? They don't see it as such though, these people find a single strange looking fossil and immediately construct yet another elaborate story on it from little to no information this theory is made.

I have noticed a new thing that seems to prevail amongst those who believe in evolution. The idea that we have no free will. I had seen a scientist mention it in the "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" video I posted a while ago. The guy said that with evolution there is no free will. we are slaves to our genes, our mind makes decisions before we do. This all seems a perfect setup for even worse genocides than we saw in the recent past. When humans are nothing but apes of little significance if they aren't amongst the superior ones, and who have no independent thought because there is no free will, we will see how truly wicked man can be.  Those who think atheism will lead to a utopia are naive of the nature of man. We aren't naturally good.

I really think its a beautifully contructed deception. The key to all of it is "After millions of years" a.k.a Time Did It™  . Once they say that they have no reason to explain in detail HOW it could have happened. They don't talk about the huge complexity involved, adding of new dna information etc. After millions of years, anything is possibly. Anyone not paying attention or with a disposition would buy it easily. There is also the hate for religion that makes it so much easier. The idea of a creator immediately results in the fear of God. Since God is a no-no (seemingly even amongst religious people) they basically have won.

On to religious individuals who believe in evolution. You are weak and clueless of it all. The desire to bend your beliefs to suit every single halfassed piece of "scientific" theory will result in atheism eventually. I don't care what religion you are, once they get you to start doubting the power of God they have a way in. First its "God used evolution" then "God created the first cell and evolution took over" then its "God wasn't even necessary" and ...checkmate.

My opinion is that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools to children, and I don't really care if religion/creationism is either. If they are going to teach evolution though, it should not be fact. As far as I am concerned, its someone's world-view, someone's opinion, someone's interpretation. It is not a fact but more of a naturalistic fairytale. At the very least be open about that. Tell the kids it is not a fact but someone's interpretation of facts and that it could be different. It's well known that many college students lose their faith once they learn about evolution. teaching it to kids just makes that goal much easier. I won't forget when I saw those videos of Richard Dawkins basically preaching evolution to children. This man did some simple experiment to show that something can happen in different degrees. He added chemicals together than boiled up from lesser intensity up to greater intensity then SOMEHOW expected that to be adequate explanation for how the bombardier beetle became the way it is. The huge details involved in what that creature can do are just washed away by Time Did It™ and some really basic "explanation". Below is a video about the beetle and after that is one supposedly explaining how the beetle "evolved" to be like that.

This following video shows just how dumb people get when it comes to evolution.

The following is a comment i had to make on that video. Tell me If I am wrong.

This video is so stupid. The frequent use of the word evolve to explain this is a perfect example of how much this theory fails. You aren't talking about how at all, you are just telling us what the beetle has and then telling us the parts came gradually; not HOW the mutations that would result in this beetle happened from whatever its ancestor was. All you are saying is that it happened. i could describe the evolution of a car for your exactly like this. Its so sad how many people buy this garbage

below is the foolishness Dawkins thought explained the beetle

I don't think I have covered everything I wanted to and I didn't intend to explain exactly why evolution is garbage.

Just letting it out.

/rant

Trailer: Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed

This is the trailer for a documentary on Evolution/Creation in the educational system. Talks about the hostility towards Intelligent Design in education circles. I hope this enlightens anyone who watches it on the fact that they aren't getting the entire story. I don't know if it goes into the problems with the evolution theory yet, got to watch it first. Enjoy the trailer.

Richard Dawkins, in that trailer, said - "As a scientist, I am pretty hostile to a rival... doctrine"

doc·trine

   [dok-trin]  Show IPA

noun

1.

a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated,as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; theMonroe Doctrine.

2.

something that is taught; teachings collectively: religiousdoctrine.

3.

a body or system of teachings relating to a particularsubject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Duelling Professors (Peter Atkins vs John Lennox)