Not to steal this title idea from Alister McGrath, but I did watch EXPELLED last night all the way through for the first time and I just HAD to say something.
First of all, for people who HAVE seen EXPELLED, scientists of today are finding more and more evidence for Intelligent Design than they are for Evolution, so SUCK THAT, EUGENIE SCOTT!! Eugenie Scott herself admitted that there are no peer-edited articles supporting Intelligent Design. You know what that means? That means that they're only writing articles supporting themselves.
I'm sure all of you reading this article right now are thinking that I'm just a cocky teenager who doesn't know anything about science, but look at the picture up there. Do YOU know what that is? Those are Haekel's Embryos. That picture is in almost every science book ever created. And it's a total fake. These people printing those science books are teaching their kids absolute nonsense. Real embryos actually look nothing alike. Google it. You'll find that this picture is an absolute fake. Eugenie Scott who works for this national education place for science said that they're keeping that in there because it promotes Evolution. Soo...you're lying through your teeth to promote evolution? How does that work?
Second of all, none of these evolutionists know how life began on earth. None. There was this one guy that Ben Stein interviewed who said that life began on the backs of crystals. "How?" "I just told you, life began on the backs of crystals." "But how did that happen?" "I just told you..." and this went on for a while. Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", even admitted himself that no one knew how and that maybe aliens came and seeded our planet. But he spent his whole life devoted to evolution and being totally against Intelligent Design. And now he's admitting that? I don't think he realized what he was saying. I say that Intelligent Design answers so many of the questions about how we exist and why we exist.
Anyone hear about the Miller-Urey experiment? They were designing an experiment to recreate the elements on pre-life, pre-historic Earth to show that life could jump-start on its own. See a problem with this? They DESGINED this experiment. So pre-life, pre-historic Earth points to a Designer. Don't you see? I may seem like I'm not being fair, but I am totally being fair.
Third: In "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins writes that the God of the Old Testament is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (Chapter 2, p. 31) The thing is, he doesn't realize that God made a new covenant with His people, and that the God of the New Testament is a loving, caring, gracious God. Did Richard Dawkins even THINK about that? The people of the New Testament and of now are given a second chance for their transgressions, and Richard Dawkins is happy to overlook things that aren't going his way, or are inexplicable to him. If I could ask him one question, I would ask him why he attacks one God. I would ask "Why not Buddha? Or Allah? or any of the Hindu gods? Why not Joseph Smith for crying out loud? How about the people who possibly still believe in Zeus? Hera? Athena? Why just one God? You said that it's very liberating to stop believing, so why not tell everyone who has a belief in any god or gods that they're being idiots? That their faith is blind? Why just the Christian God?" Actually, that would be more than one question, but it's one subject. Do you see my point? Why are all the New Atheists so against the God of Israel, of all the Christians? Why are they so intolerant? They tell us as Christians that we are intolerant of any other religion, that there can be more than one Way. But why aren't they tolerating Christianity? Hmm? Ask yourself that.
Hmm...what else? Oh yes, evolution defined as change over time? Yes. Evolution from a common ancestor? Not so much. There is Darwin's tree of life, and Darwin thought that eventually, all archaeological and scientific findings would lead back. He guessed wrong. What happened was micro-evolution, change within species. The tree of life didn't work out. What evolution is based upon is just assumptions. You take all these assumptions away, and evolution crumbles. Darwin was aware of that. Darwin was also aware that if we really DID evolve from monkeys, then how did we get our minds? How can we possibly trust ourselves to know what's right and wrong? I could come to your house and steal your tv and you could say that was wrong, which proves and objective moral code that we all follow. It's not possible to say truth is relative. Belief is relative. I could say that I believe the sky is green in the middle of the day, so it's true and that wouldn't make it any more true that you saying that you're becoming the Hulk as I write.
There are many things wrong with the way New Atheists believe, also. If they get there way, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, all that would be taken away in the science, political, and even work world. They're taking a sledgehammer to the very foundation of this country. They're tearing at the fabric of Western Society. Stop them if you value even the Pledge of Allegiance, which says "One Nation Under God," stop and ask them why? Why must they rid America of Christians? Why must they rid America of religion? Why America? Why the home of the free, the land of the brave? The country that many fought and died for. They fought for freedom. Now fight for yours.
~Kaliebag
0 comments:
Post a Comment