XPost: sci.physics, sci.archaeology, sci.astro
XPost: alt.messianic
From: nobody@dizum.com
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 "Atheist are Stooges" wrote:
>"Apobetics" wrote in message
>news:1181863595.553687.80680@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 14, 11:14 am, "Atheist are Stooges"
wrote:
>>> "Tiktaalik" wrote
>>> > On Jun 14, 4:40 pm, Apobetics aka
>>> > IKnowIAmAnOffensivePieceOfOrdure wailed:
>>> >> The Myth of Evolution
>>> >> "Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French
>>> >> National Center for Scientific Research, calls evolution "a fairy tale
>>> >> for grown-ups." It actually is a cruel hoax! In fact, the arguments
>>> >> that are used to support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak
>>> >> and many are downright frauds.
>>> >> First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No
>>> >> verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been
>>> >> found. Charles Darwin had an excuse: in his day fossil finds were
>>> >> relatively scarce. Today, however, we have an abundance of fossils.
>>> >> Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one
>>> >> kind to another (sorry no apes to humans and no cats to dogs).
>>> >> Furthermore, in Darwin's day such enormously complex structures as a
>>> >> human egg were thought to be quite simple - for all practical
>>> >> purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin (the same
>>> >> argument used by Planed Parenthood to justify abortions today).
>>> >> Today, we know that a fertilized egg is among the most organized,
>>> >> complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific gains, it
>>> >> is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something
>>> >> so vastly complex arose by chance and accident. Like an egg or the
>>> >> human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that
>>> >> could not have come into existence by blind chance.
>>> >> Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the basic
>>> >> laws of science, including law of effects and their causes -energy
>>> >> conservation and entropy - undergird the creation model for origins
>>> >> leaving evolution with no foundation at all in science and making it
>>> >> just another faith - based religion."
>>>
>>> >> The Bible Answer Book, Hank Hanegraaff, Countryman Press, 2004
>>>
>>> > A cretin citing a moron. How typical.
>>>
>>> Of course you provide no scientific rebuttal because you are incapable of
>>> doing so.
>>> Talking mud, flying pigs, magic monkeys, and breathing rocks.
>>> It's all right there in the church of Darwin the apostate preacher who once
>>> practiced witchcraft in the South Pacific.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> I never read or answer these naked apes. I do not suffer fools.
>> Have you noticed that they only attack the person and never have
>> anything on the subject?
>> This is the standard MO of the lost.
>> Who cares what they attempt to think (atheist -think...oxymoron)
>>
>Yea and never forget we come from rocks--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
(sorry for the long reply, but this got me to thinking)
I agree with what you're saying, as the sixth evening and morning
in Genesis chapter one unambiguously states that Adam (pronounced
"aw-dawm", meaning the red race, the first race, of human beings)
was Created in the image and similitude of the elohiym (which is
plural, ergo the Gods, better known as God the Creator), but here
is an interesting quote from Jesus' first cousin John the Baptist:
"...for I say unto you, that God is able of these
stones to raise up children unto Abraham"
--Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8 AV
This goes back to Genesis 2:6-7, most of which agrees pristinely
with the creation myths of other cultures. Moses was a very-well
educated, royal Egyptian high priest in the temple of Vulcan. So
it's not surprising that his incomparably erudite understanding
of the Creation myth agreed those of others, e.g., that mankind
was "Created from the dust and spittle of the earth", "Created
from the dust and foamy-crest of the salty ocean waves", etc.
One more quote, where Jesus said:
"...Among them that are born of women there hath not risen
a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that
is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
--Matthew 11:11; cf. Luke 7:28 AV
So everything that John the Baptist ever said, you can take it
to the bank. God can do anything -- obviously! I'm sure every
believer will agree with that. But why the Atheists seem hell-
bent for leather to "debunk" things which they either don't
understand, or as you've pointed out, Atheists don't *want*
to understand, you seem to have a better grasp of why Atheists
don't want to understand, than I have. I just think Atheists
are mentally insane. I truly believe someone has to be insane
not to believe in God the Creator, our heavenly father, the
One Universal God of all. So what is the Atheists' problem?
Like what makes Atheists believe in their "big bang" theory?
I think the reason they believe that, is because to believe
that the Universe is infinite and eternal, that sounds too
much like God the Creator. So I think that that is why the
Atheists prefer their pet "big bang" theory, because they
can't get their fragile egos around infinity and eternity.
Who can, after all? That's why the ultimate name for God,
and for the dimensions, planes, heavens, of God's Universe,
is deemed ultimately ineffable, unspeakable, indescribable,
etc. It's like that classic 1962 film 'Barabbas', starring
Anthony Quinn, where he visits the house of aging Lazarus,
and asks him "what's it like?" "What's it like to be dead?"
And Lazarus replies with what is arguably the best-written
description of what it's like to be dead, ever rendered in
the history of cinema. I googled for the film's script, but
to no avail. I do remember that Lazarus told him "how do I
tell an unborn child what life is like? Death is like that."
When I first watched that film years ago, I didn't like what
Lazarus said. But when I watched the film again earlier this
year, the writer's *very* keen insight became crystal clear.
I think that if "unbelievers" would listen more carefully
for the profound, spiritual connotation above the mundane
denotation, as with the Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example,
they would then begin to realize what they've been missing,
and have been so foolishly mocking, for all these years.
Perhaps that's the main reason why Atheists refuse to see
the Light, because of the shame that it would illuminate.
That would be one rational explanation, but I'm not sure
Atheists are particularly rational people to begin with.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
