Top Ten Proofs that Creationists are liars

or perhaps just greedy. Definitely intellectually dishonest.

I refer the reader to toptenproofs.com which is a site that exists literally to sell you apologetic reasons to believe in God. I will save you some money by telling you, pro bono, that each of the reasons can be simply and easily debunked by any person willing to examine the reality in which we actually exist.

I’m just going down the list, destroying the first argument of the first claim of each of the CDs on sale at the site.

Claim: Christianity is the Only True Religion
First evidence offered:

Jesus is the only “religious leader” who actually claimed to be God on Earth, in the flesh

Refutation: Google the following (in roughly chronological order).

Just for fun, I thought I’d mention that the website author’s subsequent claim is that John is an eyewitness of Jesus’ life, when all lines archaeological and other evidence show that, at best, the gospel of John was written decades after the reported death of Yeshua of Nazareth. This is acknowledged almost universally by anyone who’s studied the bible beyond just reading a modern english translation.

Claim: God’s Existence
Evidence provided:

For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it.

Refutation: This is the much abused, and very unhelpful “Argument from Design”. We recognize designed objects not by their complexity, order or beauty, but by knowledge about the designer and contrasting them with naturally occurring objects. It is intellectually dishonest to refuse to recognize this once it has been pointed out.

Claim: Evolution is scientifically impossible
Evidence Provided:

So much of the evidence presented in school textbooks, science journals and consequently the secular news media is just partial evidence. People can be made to believe just about anything if they are only given part of the evidence, but when all of the evidence is presented, the truth has a funny way of coming out

Refutation: Wow, that’s true. Shame we don’t have several man-years to invest in proper thorough demonstrations of all the facts, per student. If we made that investment, this would be the smartest nation in the history of mankind within one generation. I wonder whether we’d start with masters’ degree courses in astronomy, statistics, geology, biology, atomic theory, chemistry, nuclear physics, or quantum mechanics (per student) first? Or should we just try to teach these things all at once? Get real. We teach our kids only the basics because they’re only going to listen for so long, then start focusing on lunch, or the kid sitting in front of them, or sex.

There are, in fact, endless catalogs of scientific journals and other literature being distilled into what is taught to our kids. I wouldn’t want to try to read them all, and neither should you.

Claim: for the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Evidence provided:

None of us were around when George Washington was President, so technically, we can’t “prove” he was President, however, if there is enough historical documentation attesting to his Presidency and corroborated historically by enough eyewitnesses, combined with absolutely no documented claims denying these facts, logic demands we accept his Presidency as historically true. To deny this would be illogical and unscientific.

Refutation: I LOL’d when I saw this opening argument. The difference, of course, is the volume and quality of historical documentation and corroboration involved. I don’t have the numbers but surely at least a bare majority of the electors in the electoral college of 1789 believed he existed at the time. Wait, we’re talking about George Washington? That’s 100% of the electoral college (69 reasonably educated and duly appointed men) who must have at least had contemporary knowledge of his historical existence. Not that I’ve read them, but it is certain that the Library of Congress has an endless collection of documents of myriad purposes and forms, about or addressed to our First President.
This argument is being made by someone who most likely believes in a literal reading of a collection of ancient poems and stories that only claims 44 authors, but doesn’t try all that hard to assert that it was never edited. This book incidentally includes the tale of a man who killed 10,000 men, solo. Consider: even using the gentlest possible way to slay a person with the jawbone of an ass, would it really hold up to ten thousand repetitions of that same action? In the conditions of hand-to-hand war, is Samson likely to have survived long enough to have done this gently? How reliable can the bible be? [Edit 2007-09-18: turns out it was only one thousand. Guess they’ve got me now]

More Evidence provided:

History records from eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ actually died and then 3 days later rose from the dead and was seen by 500 men over a span of 40 days.

Refutation: Many accounts do exist. But do they all tell the same story? I haven’t read every scrap of parchment ever dug up in the area that dates to 30CE, but I do suspect that since the 4 gospels, selected by majority vote of a council who did (whose purpose was to canonize the scraps that most agreed with each other to form a doctrine), don’t even tell the same story, it is quite possible that the 500 men who saw him, well, didn’t. To claim that all the four gospels agree is dishonest. To assert that hundreds of accounts that don’t agree count as historical corroboration, is even more dishonest.

Claim: America’s Christian Heritage
Evidence Provided:

that out [sic] Founding Fathers believed in a BLENDING of Church and State, not a separation.

Refutation: This is a joke on its first face! Next assertion please.

Better Evidence Provided:

I remember saying “Fisher Ames, the author of the 1st Amendment said the Bible should be taught in schools, but you say a teacher even having an open Bible on her desk is a violation of the 1st Amendment, so I’m curious…..who do you think knows more about the 1st Amendment, the guy who WROTE it, or the ACLU, 200 years later?” I couldn’t believe my ears when the ACLU actually said to me “we do”. They actually said that.

Refutation: Can’t dispute his argument that Fisher Ames was concerned about the bible not being properly used in every classroom. But Ames and the other Founding Fathers had direct historical memory of the tyranny of the official (“blended”) state church, and would have wanted to prevent that. The prohibition of using the bible as a textbook comes from two powerful ideas. 1) the bible isn’t such a great text for teaching morality or history, viz Jefferson or Paine. 2) use of any religious writing as a textbook by any instructor with a captive audience does in fact Establish religion. The ACLU’s “We do” argument is surely based on subsequent Supreme Court opinions, which are as legally binding as the Bill of Rights, but more easily modified.

Claim: Dinosaurs Lived With Man
Evidence Provided:

First, dinosaurs were nothing more than reptiles that continued to grow. Most people are unaware of the fact that reptiles never stop growing in size.

Refutation: Wow. So, why don’t we see giant-sized reptiles now? The biggest ones (crocodiles to my knowledge) get up to about 20 feet. Even when they’re over 130 years old, like the “first humans”. Even in places where food is plentiful. Dinosaurs had to have grown more quickly. Fact: Very few dinosaurs looked like anything alive today. More facts: Dinosaur fossils are not found with human fossils. Ever. The strata in the geologic column tell a story that cannot be explained away by the great Flood. Why? Because reptiles that are alive currently also show up in the fossil record contemporaneously with humans, but dinosaurs never, ever do. Rabbit fossils never show up in the Pre-Cambrian strata. There is a mechanism that explains this, called geologic time. It’s real. To deny this is dishonest. Liar.

Claim: Theistic Evolution is Not Biblical
Actually, I don’t have a problem with this one. It is clear “prima facie” that the authors of the bible had no concept of how old the earth actually was, or any rigorous theories on the origin of species.

But I will mock this single assertion: “[T]he Bible does not say the Earth is flat. It describes it as a sphere suspended upon nothing, which of course, is true” because the bible also describes the world as having ends, and the heavens as having pillars.

Claim: a Young Earth
Evidence Provided:

Over 99% of all the layers in the actual ground are different than the official “Geologic Column” you see in your Geology book. Bottom line, it appears that way on paper, but not in the ground. The layers in the ground are actually all out of sequence, upside down, inverted, missing layers, etc. The layers are all randomly shuffled throughout the entire planet like a deck of cards. This is exactly what we would expect to see if there were a worldwide flood producing massive mudslides all over the Earth. It is not what we should see if these layers supposedly represent the surfaces of the Earth over the last “500 million years.

Refutation: yes, there would be missing layers all over the place. This is predicted by the theory behind the Geologic column. Nobody’s saying that all this material just piles up over time like layers on a really large onion- the material has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is several things, e.g. lava, meteorites and space dust, the skeletons of really large numbers of very small animals, etc. Erosion is an obvious example of how layers could be missing. The random mudslide hypothesis on the other hand is testable, and easily demonstrated to be untenable, and denial of this is dishonest.

My final evidence that these guys are dishonest?

On their face it appears strongly that these materials are either produced by, or culled from, Kent Hovind’s creationist sect, y’know, down south.

And of course in the interests of skepticism, I encourage you not to take my word for it. See also Talk Origins, Iron Chariots, and of course Google is your friend.

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “Top Ten Proofs that Creationists are liars

  1. Your refutals are really shallow,& your going to have to try alot harder to convince people. Check out http://www.sciencefindsgod.com for starters and see how one of your fellow athiest colleagues studied up and found the truth. Most people in the world today have accepted “the theory of evolution” as truth. The path to destruction is wide but the path to righteousness is narrow. PROVERBS 1:7 fear of the lord(GOD) is the beginning of knowledge but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
    IF you looked @ the HOLY BIBLE and particularly the book of revelation and discern the prophecies in it you would find that they are being fulfilled in this day and the world is heading in that direction. Can it really hurt you to honestly seek the truth. I can tell it will be to your regret not to. Remember this now …. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST is Lord. Amen

    • Marc I think you should buy all of Bob Dutkos CD’s again. This is how he makes his money, and you need to believe what he preaches so its a win win situation for both of you.

    • You are an idiot. A true idiot who cannot think for himself. Relgion was created by man and it is dying, thank god, hahaha. If something is true it doesn’t change over time and all of relgion has changed over time or upgraded to another religion to try and stay intune with the evolving society and real facts from real scientist. The show ancient aliens make more sense than some made up character living in the skies. Wake man your living a fantasy there is no GOD as any religion claims. There might be humanoids out there in the universe that may have visted earth in the past and may have modifed us you know DNA and all the genetic modifications we are doing now, so people of the ancient world may have made them into gods…read up on sumarians. Now that is much much more realisit than the laughable creation story.

  2. Okay, I allowed the above comment so I could say this. I have known many people who “honestly wanted to know the truth” and ended up with Jesus.
    I have also known a smaller number of people who decided to put “the truth” to the test and find it miserably lacking.
    The several sciences I reference above are not afraid of “the truth”. In fact modern scientific thinking is very good about stripping bullshit away from “the truth”.
    If you’d spent one tenth the time studying biblical criticism, or astronomy, or ANY OTHER FAITH SYSTEM of ancient or even recent times, that you spend on whatever flavor of Christianity you are stuck with…. GAH, I don’t know what to tell you. You’re stuck in a paradigm that doesn’t work, and doesn’t allow you to permit yourself to wonder why it doesn’t work.
    My refutations are indeed shallow, because I have a life and lack the time for a doctoral dissertation on each lame argument these fools come up with.
    What you haven’t demonstrated is how they are wrong. Can you? Without quoting scripture or your pastor? I doubt it.
    Sorry, you lose.

    UPDATE: I followed his link http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/ after I hit the submit button. I apologize. Should have gone there first.
    Here’s why it’s worth going back to. The linked page references Antony Flew, who was a vocal atheist forever. Now, go ahead and click the link “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God” HE SAYS ON THIS PAGE THAT HE STILL DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE JUDEOCHRISTIAN VERSION OF GOD. It’s a huge and improbable leap to go from citing a website that claims god is real because Antony Flew thinks so, to saying “see, see, he saw The Light! now he’s saved!” etc. Marc B, did you even read the article? You have lost my respect and I have lost all motivation for replying to you politely.
    You’re a fucking idiot.

  3. Now your getting all emotional. Emotion being anger, hence calling me a f—ing idiot. I am married and like most married people I do some f—ing, but I don’t think I’m
    an idiot. Hey that’s just what I think though. Anyway Bob Dutko is pretty busy doing alot of great things for people and service unto God so I thought I’d shoot back a little. I have the CD’s but haven’t listened to them all. I’m thankful for Bob and his ministry. If you really want to have an intellectual showdown regarding these things I’m curious to know if you have gone on Bob’s website or e-mail and confronted him on it. He likes to hear from sceptics and be challenged so…go ahead. In addition to earlier exchanges, I forgive you because I am supposed to do so. Getting back to end time prophecy in the book of Revelation:
    You seem like the kind of guy that knows all so just for others who may read this and just might agree with me:
    Considering the reuniting of the Roman empire under one trade system and law being Europe and America following behind in uniting America, Canada, and Mexico in a similar fashion starting first with trade(check out I-35 corridor) and then most likely by law. It seems undeniable we are approaching a one world goverment which will be headed by someone. He will have his right hand man to tell help him tell all his lies. He will bring peace & prosperity between all including Israel and Islam. You(misterpost) and your fellows who deny GOD and His Word will love him especially when he publicly executes GOD’s prophets (see Rev. 11:7-10) but enjoy it because it will only last 3 & 1/2 days until GOD will raise them up. (Rev.11:11) I gotta get but I’ll be back to chat some more. Do you deny these things mentioned above regarding the days we are living in? Also for starters on my refutal to your statements: AS Bob Dutko asked: What did Budha,or Mohamed,or confusious, etc. do when a loved one died or when there was a storm or a lepor, or sick loved one? They lived with it. History records no miracles from any of these figures and by the way they are all sleeping in theirs graves except the true son of our loving GOD, Jesus. gotta go….. if you (misterpost) have so huevos in your pants can you print this comment and maybe share your real first name. Adios for now.

  4. You misunderstand. Calling you a fucking idiot was a cool headed decision based on the evidence at hand.

    You apply to the book of Revelation the same logic that allows other fools to apply the “predictions” of Nostradamus to our times, even though he was writing about current events.

    The methods used by bible-thumpers to apply scriptural predictions to modern times are far from rigorous, as evidenced by the fact that there are thousands of subtly incompatible interpretations of any given biblical text.

    I’m not upset and you have not “struck a nerve”. I am also not interested in being baited by any reference to the size of my genitalia.

    Good day to you.

  5. That’s a beautiful metaphor for what I’m talking about, thank you.
    By the way, Marc- DID you read the “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God” link? Because your use of that page as support for your argument seems to show that you did not comprehend it.

  6. I apologize, I read only the front page and not the article following. Now that I have, I see he does believe in intelligent design of some god and not God almighty who sent his Son as an altimate gift to mankind which all history cannot debunk. It was my mistake to throw that out there in a hasty fashion. One link I do however fall back on for real hard scientific evidence is http://www.creationworldview.org. Since seeing is believing for a faithless atheist this would be a good sight to check out for such. Misterpost, you never did respond to my question regarding your list of false gods and any historically recorded miracles they had accomplished. For the fact that God made the sun to shine for all, I can say have a blessed day mistersmartypost.

  7. Dude, you bore me. Really, your question is dumb.
    Almost by definition, ALL of the gods of the ancient Middle East and Mediterranean area accomplished “miracles”. The deities of other cultures vary wildly in power and scope, of course, mostly with the imaginations and experience of their worshippers. Faith healing happens all over the place, and is not restricted to Judeo-Christian followers, though it is most prevalent with them.
    It’s not my responsibility to educate you on these questions. It was your history teachers’ responsibility. I am very sorry for you that none of your teachers ever taught you the names Osiris, Mithras, Hercules, Enkidu, Ulysses/Odysseus. These folks were surrounded by divine intervention and have nothing to do with christian mythology. The list of “false” gods is enormous, and interesting.
    Of course, you wouldn’t find any information about them in your bible so you might not have heard of them. Well guess what- other books exist aside from the bible. Some predate the bible, many of them are more interesting, and most are better written. They’re worth a lot of reading.

    Take a look at your bubble from the outside for once! We live in a far bigger and more interesting world than described in the bible, you just have to acknowledge it and learn to wonder.

    Regarding “historically recorded miracles”, I have a page for you to look at: http://skepdic.com/miracles.html
    Please give it a better read than the first link you sent.

    I did read the page you sent. Not impressed, nothing that hasn’t been debunked before. It starts with an assumption- that the bible is inerrant (a sad joke in my opinion)- and runs with it, dismissing a little too easily anything that contradicts its basic assumption. That’s not science.

    Another that deserves some link love is the young earth faq. http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

    Have a well-informed, factually grounded day, Marc

  8. I know that wikipedia is perceived as this evil liberal whatever, but it does at least have some surface-level information about a lot of stuff. See for example its list of gods (by culture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gods_by_culture and (by association) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gods_by_association
    Spend a few hours on this. Find a couple of gods you like, and go to a University library, or at least the nearest public one. Spend a few days there.

    There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Bore me no more with it.

  9. I don’t have a few days to spend at the library or sit around making blogs like you apparently do. Fact is I just got online to check out a couple things and came upon your blog. I don’t use computers as often as I have the last few days going back and forth with you. One thing I realize is I can get online to find something and end up getting side tracked looking at exactly the opposite than what I came for. You can find all the info you need and a whole lot more than you really need. I think you may have overdosed a little. Intellect is a good thing but it can be a hinderance to ones faith of the unknown. If one is a ________ (fill in the blank) he/she can find plenty of others to help oneself be justified in his cause or beliefs. Misterpost you may have an interest in Mythological heroes & insignificant religious figures(yaaaawwnn……..) talk about boring, I don’t pay attention to fairytale gods or religions with uncertain documentaion. If you really can’t find any wisdom or moral sense to a book in the holy bible such as PROVERBS than it’s clear that we are just from different schools of thought & you may be a lawless self righteous person without a clue of any basic moral fiber.(you’d have to really read it to understand that). My God is real. His word is real and I see the truths come to reality in my life alot. I really don’t need to see any stories of Jesus or biblical text confirmed with history or anyone. I’ve witnessed firsthand Gods workings in people around me and myself. Misterpost, You have a soul, you should let that big brain of yours rest just a little while. Have a good one.

  10. I apologize. I have misjudged you, spoken in haste. You are not a fucking idiot after all.

    After this exchange I now understand that term does not even begin to describe what a self-righteous, dogmatic, closed-minded, stupid blowhard you are.

    Again, that’s not an emotional response. I’ve met plenty of jackasses like you before and I’m well past bothering to get emotional about it, beyond feeling no small degree of pity for you, and worry for all of our children.

    You, who came to my blog to instruct me “to honestly seek the truth”, now tell me you do not have time to spend in a library to learn about the mythology of other cultures? You imply that (yawn) the religious figures of other people are insignificant, when they surely believed at least as fervently in the pagan gods as you believe in the god of Abraham (a mythological figure)?

    You even imply that all I do is sit around writing my blog, and that I am lawless without any moral fiber. You don’t know me from Enkidu, who are you to judge?

    How would you know whether I’ve read Proverbs or not, have I mentioned it? I have read it. It is, in fact, my favorite book in the bible. The fact that I do not read it as a holy infalliable text does not make it less interesting, nor imply that I have no morals.

    You’re shining a blinding bright light on your own hypocrisy. I suggest you take another look at the thesis of this blog entry, which is that creationists (as you appear to claim to be) are intellectually dishonest because they only look at the evidence they want to see, and then denounce real scientific knowledge (which you seem to want to do). The thesis once again is that you (Marc B) and your kind are the worst kind of liar- the kind that cannot admit they’ve been caught in their dishonesty.

    Thank you for proving my thesis. Good Day.

  11. Misterpost and I have been pals for a long time, so we have had chance to discuss our different points of view regarding religion, politics, the world in general, and whether or not Dan Quayle had more brains than George W. Bush. That being said, I would like to comment here in line with the discussion being had between Misterpost and Marc B.

    Unlike Misterpost, I cannot call myself holding Athiest (or athiest, depending) views. Unlike Marc B I cannot call myself a Christian (or christian). I suppose the term best used, if forced to use one, is Agnostic. I believe that there is something out there, but I’m not the person to preach what it is, and it certainly has better things to do than muck about in the daily lives of our self-abusive species.

    This is not a decision that came about randomly. I was raised in an Irish Catholic/Reformed Jew/Presbyterian household. My family presented very different points of view, and allowed me to research on my own as to what I felt best described “God.” I went on retreats, read voraciously, spoke with just about every religious figure I could corner. Hell, I even dated a Jehovah’s Witness. Based in part on this, and other things I won’t get into because I’m starting to bore myself, I think I have a fairly level mind when it comes to discussing religion.

    The point of this whole ramble? Very simple: delicatessen morality. Each religious point of view pulls what it wants to out of whatever text it finds most in line with its spiel. The basics are often swell things to live by — be nice to one another, listen to your folks, don’t steal, don’t kill. Then it starts going off into wierd tangients — God will save you from the snake in the box when you put your hand in, God will pull you up in the Rapture and let you watch everyone else die, God wants you to be a cannabal and eat flesh and drink blood. Kill yourself, and others, and be a martyr; be tortured and become a saint. Send money to a certain PO Box in Tennessee.

    Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

    Marc’s very arguments and references are the main reason I stay away from organised religions in general. If he’s trying to sway a reader to his point of view, he’s lost my confidence. I’d rather have doom and gloom which I discovered than have “to know God is to be saved” forced down my throat. I cannot agree with “you’re going to hell if you don’t buy my brand of bible-thump.” Isn’t that why we have these wars in the first place–aside from oil, I mean. Does it mean that because Ug, the cave man, is in hell because he never heard of Jesus, being born thousands of years too early? Or Ghandi’s becoming a kebob ’cause he didn’t get into the schtick?

    Bullshit. If your heavenly father does that kind of pick and choose, you can have him. I’ll stick with something that protects and loves his children regardless of their own opinions.

    Go back and stick your head in the sand Marc. The world moves on, and someday this too will pass.

    I need a beer.

  12. Read it again. I said you “may be……” I was using judgement, and not judging. So your judgement of my character in your last statement has lost ground. Same for your opinion on creation science, there is real scientific knowledge on creation, you just choose not to examine. I can be self righteous at times, even though I haven’t you given a reason to call me that or a liar. Someone can be sincere and think they are right when they are really wrong but it would be unjust to call them a liar. You lack in the ability to debate without insulting people like a child and you have no sense of humor whatsoever. It’s really like talking to a robot. Fact is, I am a liar. I am also a hypocrite. If your so bored with me, why do you keep coming back for more. Your keystokes say one thing but I think your motives tell otherwise. Maybe you(misterpost) …….are a liar also? SO….simple question, are you a liar?

  13. Pardon the intrusion, as well as my ignorance: Whilst I can go on for days finding scientific, proof positive evidence in the favour of evolution, I fail to remember any non-religious based journal that has the same for creation. Please tell me the source. I would honestly like to read this.

  14. Throw in the rigorous science behind miracles while you’re at it.
    If I could find one study of miracles with evidence that Judeo-Christian miracles have more validity than (pick your alternative flavor), that doesn’t fall apart under rigorous scrutiny, and you’ll have a convert.

    Good luck.

  15. Misterpost, don’t change the subject. Are you not a liar? Truthfully, all it takes is one lie and you are a liar. I would think chances are we are all liars at sometime or another. I will not judge you, just maybe you’ve never lied. However, you know what one might call a person who is a liar and calls others liars. OK, It’s clear then. Lets be past that. As for the whole argument, should we beat up on each other so much in the quest for truth. It’s been a little fun rippin on you but it hasn’t really birthed any resolve…….yet. Syd, despite your instructions for me at the end of your statement I don’t mind the intrusion. Your input and sense of humor are appreciated. Last time I checked it’s still known as the “theory of evolution” in regards to proof positive info. I do have some material sources for you to check if you really want them. Yes I have some that are non-religious based. I do agree that there is alot of suffering and loss in the world because of religion. I don’t agee with alot of stuff amongst Christians. There are some scammers and nuts with prayer napkins, miracle water etc. Woe to them. Within christianity some have done some damage (including myself) at times as far as representation. Many make the mistake of judging God by his imperfect people. I would like to address a couple things if a may at a later time along with those resources. Thanks for hearing me out. G’ day.

  16. The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church. — Ferdinand Magellan

    Spirituality: The last refuge of a failed human. Just another way of distracting from who you really are. — George Carlin

    I do not judge God by imperfect people. That would be pointless, like judging the whole of the automotive industry by Ford. I do not judge God at all; rather, as I said, being sort of Agnostic, I feel that it’s not for humans to decide on what the whole thing is about. The Bible is an interesting text, full of stories, many of which were written years after the actual events, mostly compiled by people who simply were not there. The current canon isn’t even half of what was written to consider religious text. Constantine picked and chose whatever suited his political aspirations of the time. You might as well take a Popular Mechanics from 1952 and base your judgement of an entire generation from that for as much good as it will do.

    As for the comments directed torwards me regarding “theory of evolution,” may I also respond with “creationist theory.” I still say there are more facts regarding the former than there are the latter and will remain obstenant in that opinion. “Some that are religious based” suggests there aren’t that many, and I would think that there is good reason for that — lack of evidence. What I’m saying is: I’d rather believe that my car is going to run, than have faith it’s not gonna explode on the interstate. (of course, driving a Volvo, I can afford both ha ha.) Until I see something that says “poof, you were sand, now you’re a gopher,” it ain’t gonna fly with me. Besides–who’s to say that your God didn’t come up with the idea of evolution in the first place? ‘Cause of what it says in Gensis, one of the most self-contradictory chapter of the Old Testament? It can’t agree with whether or not Eve was the first woman (see: Lilith). As a resource material it fails miserably. Sorry, it’s true.

    Misterpost and Marc B ain’t gonna change each other’s minds. I strongly think that Misterpost’s non-belief system is just as strong as Marc’s belief system, if not more so. That’s why it is so much fun to be in between. I can disagree with Misterpost to a certain extent, and yet still see Marc’s Christianity as but another colour in a multi-hued, self-absorbed rainbow of God-bothering.

  17. I haven’t changed the topic- was not my thesis that creationists are liars? Have I not provided, with your help, some evidence that shows creationists to be intellectually dishonest (again, continuing to assert ideas that have already been discredited earlier in a discussion is one example of dishonest)?
    Listen, I’ve heard these arguments before, and they’re no more persuasive now than the last dozen iterations- Ray Comfort loves to start his arguments with “Have you ever told a lie?– then you’re a liar and you need god’s forgiveness”. What crap!
    Regarding the theory of evolution, I have another link for you to peruse: http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html just for starters.
    But you probably won’t spend any time there- why would you, it’s not funny. Here’s something to show you that indeed I do have a sense of humor: http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html
    Hell, read the whole site- http://www.re-discovery.org/

    I’m not going to trollbait you with further argument, you’ve contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Go away.

  18. Sd, rgrdng jdgng Gd, rll dd nt drct tht cmmnt t r th pstmstr. jst thrw tht t thr cs sm ppl d tht. Ppl lk Frdnnd Mglln. f tht’s n fct wht h sd. ‘m tkn r wrd fr t. dn’t blv Gd ss tht n hs wrd. H ds s: Frm JB 26:7 H strchs t th nrth vr mpt spc; H hngs th rth n nthng. f t’s fnc w f sng flt t’s bnd m.
    [Disemvoweled by misterpost for quote mining the bible, which counts as being boring. Get the fuck off my blog.]

  19. “I might repeat to myself, slowly and soothingly, a list of quotations from minds beautiful and profound — if I can remember any of the damn things.” Dorothy Parker

    I tire of this. This is the reason I have a “No Soliciting” sign on my front porch screen door. One can only go ’round and ’round so many times before the centrifugal force makes you want to vomit.

    My grandmother used to say, “Never try to teach a pig to sing — it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” I’m inclined to think that this is misterpost’s music classroom, and those who enter and speak are some kind of student. Regardless of what you wanted, you’re in here, so you voluntarily signed up for the course. If you don’t like the cirriculum, then head on down the hall.

    As for me, I’m going to the loo and then for lunch. I’ll be back at the start of next period to see how the next chapter reads.

  20. I just have to say that I found this all very interesting and a little bit funny. Yes, I do read your blogs, I don’t know if you knew that or not, but I find it gives me better insight into how you think. As for your…well…can you call it a conversation with Marc B.? I find that Syd pretty much hits you both on the mark.

    Marc B., you have been judgmental and closed minded, whether you want to admit it or not. You know nothing of misterpost’s life or upbringing. I do. He is one of the most honest people I’ve met, and that is saying a lot. Not that you would know that, because you don’t know me.

    misterpost, I know this is your blog and all, but all the name calling? It does sound kind of childish. I’m sure that you can make a point without being so…well, you I guess.

    Anyway, I just wanted to say something here. Not that it is very important or relevant to anything, but I believe that you will see and find what you want to, and no amount of convincing, talking, reading, beating, research, proofs, or anything is ever going to change that until someone opens their mind to a possibility other than what they have always believed. Honestly, no ones beliefs can be “proven”. We will just have to wait and see what happens after we die…until then, what’s the point in arguing…just agree to disagree. However few in the world are actually able to do that, they have to prove to another that they are right…no matter what the cost.

    I’m not as quick or well informed as many people, and I do have my own set of beliefs, but I think that both of you are a bit hard headed, and wrong on some of your hardcore beliefs and points. That being said, no, I can’t prove any of it. That is just my gut feeling.

    Well, all that being said, I think I’m going to go to bed now…

  21. I am familiar enough with Johnson.
    He offers no useful alternative to Darwinism, nothing of substance to show that his alternative is better.
    QED

  22. My point exactly. When I ask for facts, I want something scientific. I hardly think that suffices.

    BTW–it was a beautiful day today in Lincoln, NE. The sun was out and it was amazingly comfortable. That has no bearing on anything, except to say that it was a very nice day, whomever or whatever was responsible for it.

  23. An ammendum to my comment:

    Even if I were less inclined in my stubborn mindset for fact, I would certainly hope that “the Creator” would have more imagination than to just go “poof, here you are.” My opinion is that it would just be too easy and show no panache, no creativity (pardon the pun).

    I’d also like to think that we are indeed still evolving. What we are now, as a species, isn’t exactly the healthiest thing this beautiful ball of rock has played home to. Maybe the next thing, Human 5.0 or whatever, won’t be a race of asshats (I owe misterpost a nickel in royalties for that one).

    BTW–Good reading that plays a bit with religion and actually has some ideas in line with mine:

    Good Omens by Neil Gaimen and Terry Pratchett

    Small Gods by Terry Pratchett

    The Last Continent by Terry Pratchett

    Hell, any of the Discworld series from Pratchett. The Last Continent, however, does have a very interesting god in that has a definate goal in mind.

    Read ’em and laugh. They may be fiction, but we should be used to reading fiction by now.

  24. I love the back and forth, thats hilarious. I’d like to inject some more humor into this. “The Bob Dutko Show” everyday prays for the troops in Iraq (in Bob’s opinion, a very just war). But this time I sent a name to be prayed for…Private Jen Italia and her two children. Say it quick Marc, even you will get it. You could here the other people in the background laughing as hard as I was. Keep it real! Ps. have you heard Dutko’s theory of ghosts?

  25. I’ll have to forgive you for being such an immature, inconsiderate ass, since you must be a jr. high school student or something. Whether the war is just or not, freedom is not free. Many americans have given their lives in serving this nation and its citizens and then there is …..you. dig yourself

  26. Freedom isn’t free……..It costs folks like you and me….and also innocent Folks their lives and Americans alot of money…shitty, I know, but the bible says that Jesus hates innocent blood being spilled. Did you know that if the Americans find a bad guy in a crowd of 30 innocents it’s cool for them to kill ’em all? that is true. But since their praying to the wrong God I guess it’s ok. Thank God, Allah, Vishnu, Budha that our God is the right one. And also, I guess prayers don’t work since bullets don’t bounce off of the American flag! damn it! pray harder!

  27. “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” Ferdinand Magellan

    The quote is a fabrication of Robert Green Ingersoll. It is found in his essay “Individuality.” This may be accessed at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/individuality.html
    It’s in the fourth paragraph of his essay:

    It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions, — some one who had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, “The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.” On the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success.

    This was first pointed out, as far as I know, by Dr. Tom Gorski in his website “Knowing What Ain’t So” at http://www.churchoffreethought.org/cgi-bin/contray/contray.cgi?DATA=&ID=000011010&GROUP=048. Dr. Gorski is one of four founders of the The North Texas Church of Freethought.

    To the credit of Wikiquote it clearly points out the quote is disputed and attributes it to Ingersoll http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ferdinand_Magellan

    At http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Atheist%20Quotes.htm it immediately corrected the attribution: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
    ……….Robert Green Ingersoll (not Ferdinand Magellan)

    At http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-63650.html they already were able to determine that it was Ingersoll who in fact said the words he attributes to Magellan. “Regarding a flat earth, please note that Ingersoll used a quote attributed to Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), the Portuguese and Spanish explorer: ‘The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church.’ Ingersoll uses this quote to make a point: ‘The trouble with most people is, they bow to what is called authority.’ Ingersoll’s thrust in this article is that ‘It is the duty of each and every one to maintain his individuality’ and ‘There can be nothing more utterly subversive of all that is really valuable than the suppression of honest thought–No man, worthy of the form he bears, will at the command of church or state solemnly repeat a creed his reason scorns.’ I agree with Ingersoll. If you do not, that is certainly your privilege.” The author assumes Ingersoll got it from an authentic source. But I have read the primary sources on Magellan—eyewitness accounts by Antonio Pigafetta, Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, Martinho de Aiamonte, Sebastian Elcano—nowhere is there such a statement from Magellan. Ingersoll most definitely cites no authority.

  28. I am a Christian and I do find your arguments thought provoking.
    I don’t know if you would ever be interested in doing a debate with a local Christian station. You probably have heard of Bob Dutko. Would that ever seem like something you may do. Or maybe you already have. I would like to tune in and listen if you do. Let me know so I can make sure I hear.
    Have a great day.
    Mike Epley

  29. You understate the magnitude of Dutko’s dishonesty about Fisher Ames. Ames was NOT the author of the first amendment and a few Google-clicks will show. Even bible-thumping David Barton describes him as but a “helper.” When historic authors, for sake the of brevity, attribute the FA to a single person, it’s Madison. No surprise there.

    And to dishonesty: I have repeatedly emailed Dutko and on at lest one occasion have mailed him hard-copy pages from my history books with full citations and references showing his error. His reaction? To again and again knowingly repeat the falsehood and then accuse “the left” of lying about history, evolution and the like.

    What a fine guy Dutko is.

  30. your presentation of these Christian beliefs is wrong. you take only parts of arguments and take them out of context to make them sound stupid and intelectually dishonest. these arguments from Bob Dutko’s CDs are much more valid than what you say. your “evidence provided” things do not show the true evidence only take parts of it that dont represent the whole argument.

  31. I disagree.
    Naturally.

    These beliefs (see for example “Evolution is scientifically impossible”) could not have been more clear or easy to understand, though I’ve noticed there is less detail on Dutko’s site now than there was when I wrote the original post. Can you tell me how I have misrepresented them?

    I have also not taken the claims out of context. I have quoted directly from the site, e.g “History records from eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ actually died and then 3 days later rose from the dead and was seen by 500 men over a span of 40 days.” We have two contexts here – one is called History and the other is known as the bible. In the context of History claims of having risen from the dead are not unheard of, nor are claims of divinity. It had been done before, it was tried during Jesus’ lifetime, it has happened since. That is the context of history. The context in the bible is that only one of the gospel stories mentions Jesus being seen by anyone other than a few close friends. Do you know your New Testament well enough to identify which?

    I’m bored with this argument. I stand by what I say – Bob Dutko is full of shit. I hope you didn’t spend too much on his CDs.

    • your presentations are partial because the information is missing. you are simply not refuting the scinetific, ot historical, etc. proofs of evolution being false, of Christ’s ressurection, etc. in your rebuttal of Dutko’s evolution cds you say it would take too long to teach all these things. How long was the CD? the comments on Dutko’s cd would not take years to explain. i coud argue the same thing against you. the evolutionary theories take a lifetime to learn, just look at all the scientists who are still studying them. if you truly examine the scientific evidence with an open mind and unbiased, you will see that evolution cannot stand.
      Another thing that bothered me was your assertion that the Gospels do not teach the same thing. Have you read any of them? if not then i suggeset you do. the Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all had different target audiences. Matthew was written mainly for the Jews. His purpose was to provide an account of Jesus’ life using Old Testament referances that supported believers, and Jesus’ claims of being the Messaiah. As an example, Matthew often uses Son of David (King David of Israel) instead of Son of God, as the other authors use, to make it more for the Jewish reader. The title of Son of David and Son of God are not contradictory. Son of David is used because Jesus is from King David’s line, and this helps to establish Him as Messiah because many prophesies use this. Matthew also focuses on Jesus’ teachings of the Kingdom of Heaven and so his narrations include more events of Jesus preaching this than the other Gospels. Mark however does not contain these symbols to Jewish customs and laws, and prophesies. The Gospel of Mark is directed toward Gentiles, and most historians think to those in Rome. Over 40% of the Gospel of Mark focuses on Jesus’ last week on earth. Obviously, he will have included events others did not. The Gospel of Luke has a whole other flavor. it was written to a man by the name of Theophilus, a Geintile. The name Theophilus means lover of God. So this Gospel is directed primarily toward those who are seeking God and who love Him, or have already accepted Him. So this book goes more in depth about Jesus’ ministry. It includes more parables that are meant to primarily to help those who have already accepted Him. The Gospel of John has another goal the John himself states in chapter 20 verse 31 “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” This gospel is primarily directed to Non- Jewish followers of Jesus. If you read all the Gospels you will not find ANY contradiction between them. they tell many of the same stories and fill in the gaps of one another. where Matthew talks more of Jesus birth, Mark does not but focuses on the death and resurection. All the gospels are inter related and to assert that they are dishonest is false.

      By the way, these are not my original ideas. they come from some study helps in my Bible and are well backed.

      • I guess I don’t take too much issue with the idea that the new testament is internally consistent – haven’t read it through in one sitting in years so don’t have anything to add here.

        What I take issue with is the fact that the myriad churches that base their ideas on the new testament are *not* internally consistent, with themselves or with the new testament.

        Also the bible as a whole really ought to be more consistent with reality than it is, if it were written by the author of reality itself, as these bible-thumpers claim it to be.

        I don’t see a singular god bubbling out of all the noise – what I see instead is different interpretations of the same books by different people. Some divine inspiration.

  32. I feel very sorry for these creation scientist’s as I am in favour of creation science. As I saw on another website which I cant remember the name off these creation scientist’s dont get enough credit for all the work and real science they put in, after all they all have phd’s and god knows what else. They study the same science as atheist scientist do but everyone has there own interpratation. Another thing is I get very offended when creation scientist are often called biased and liars just because its fits in with the bible and the bible is a very trustworthy source if you go on allaboutthetruth.org for any spectics and athesist, this is when I find people who woant listen or read the bible properly by an almighty god who is witness to the very beginning and who has always existed very biased, hypocritical, ignorant and arogant.
    This is how strong I am in Christ Jesus our only true god. AMEN

  33. First, congratulations on congratulating yourself on how strong you are in Christ Jesus.
    If he were in fact real, I’m sure he’d have done a facepalm having read that last bit.

    Your site didn’t work. A pity.

    I do want to clarify something: I don’t call the creationists(e.g. Bob Dutka) liars because their worldview fits with the bible. I have little issue with being consistent with your own message.

    What gets me is that when faced with actual facts that conflict with biblical teaching, these people would rather side with the bible than reality.

    I maintain that this is intellectually dishonest, but doesn’t make you a liar. You’re not a liar until you’ve had reality thrown in your face countless times, yet still choose to make your living peddling crap.

  34. Well ok I’m open to people’s opposing opinions because i’ve had countless debates with my friend’s on this so fair enough. However when you say if Jesus were in fact real, he is real regardless of wheather you believe in him or not, obviously in your case you dont. That site I mentioned is brilliant as it gives answers to difficult questions, because their are alot of people out there who choose to reject the bible for various reasons, the list is to long but the answers are obvious. Myself as a christian who studies the bible I find very interesting which contains very helpful notes, refrences and evidence which indeed backs up the bible very well as a trustworthy source as written by almighty God’s eye witnesses who were well educated people back then, these were achual events where all prophecys were fullied even today as well as healing and I stand witness to healing today. In regards to what you said about my message I’ve noticed that when people say science cant agree with the bible because there would be a major up roar and plus science is not allowed to side with the bible, also when proving the bible as a trustworthy source which it is we’re not allowed to have that either so we’re not allowed to win either way which frustrates me alot. Sorry if i go on abit i tend to get carried away. Anyway you say you went on that site I refered to I wonder why it didnt work, I mean I had problems believing in jesus at one point but now I see sense in jesus and the gospel and no sense in evolution. Anyway each to their. own.

  35. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. At the age of 17.5yrs, Jesus saved me and changed my life, before i was violent, profane, selfish and lustful. Today I look back on my life and marvel at the change that has taken place. I can never forget my encounter with God in a little gospel church one sunday night back then, 36 yrs ago. It probably will come down to personal faith and experience. Those who reject Christ as the their saviour will find justifiable reasons to do so and those who accept Him will revel in His wonderful grace.
    One thing I am absolutely sure of. This world must have a maker, life is too complex, too ordered and too well engineered to exists without an intelligence at the helm. In my opinion,the God of the Bible seems to be the most qualified candidate. I will hold to Him.
    I am not sure what atheists are holding to, perhaps when they come face to face with death we might find out, the resurrection sure makes death comfortable.
    Tyrone.

    • When Jesus saved you and changed your life, did he give you any clarity on how/why it is that the special “revealed truth” he provides to one faithful person or another is not consistent?
      Was it Jesus himself who told you life was just too complex and well-engineered to have come into existence without the help of an intelligent guiding force?
      Did Jesus give you more specific details on the age of the Earth, i.e. whether it’s 6-10K years old as implied by the bible, or 4.55 billion years old, as all the physical evidence would suggest?
      I’m interested.
      Why should your personal experience change my mind?

    • Wow, I am an atheist that was able to live his whole life without being violent, profane, selfish, and lustful. Maybe you just needed Jesus to tell you what to do, because you couldn’t figure it out on your own?

  36. I was raised with religion (Catholic), and my family remains very religious, but thankfully they instilled in me something more powerful than their religion: the importance of THINKING FOR MYSELF. The more I search for logical answers, the further from religion I find myself. I considered myself agnostic for a time, and now am moving more toward atheist. I found this site while looking for info on Bob Dutko. A friend insisted I borrow his ten proofs CDs because it disproves evolution. After listening to the first minute of that CRAP, I missed my exit (I was driving)and found myself yelling at the CD, and feeling very sorry for any individuals who actually believe that man. He pretends to use “science,” to debunk evolution, taking great pains to describe flaws in the geologic chart and carbon dating, but finds it perfectly ok to jump to the very unscientific and un-provable conclusion that a christian god exists?!
    And on an unrelated note, but pertaining to this blog: Although raised with religion, I certainly didn’t need it to become a “good person.” I’ve known way too many “good christians” who are not good people by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, those who touted themselves as such were more often than not, not very good people. It’s not difficult to be a kind and generous person without religion. On the contrary, it’s probably easier. Just my opinion! : )
    And kudos to misterpost for posting opposing views, such as those of Marc B. And yes, he is proving your point…

  37. …and one more thing- I like my friend’s idea of inserting “Santa Claus” or your favorite fictitious character in place of “Jesus” or “God.” It exposes the silliness of it all, in my opinion.

  38. What a bunch of crap. I’,m sorry I wasted my time reading all these entries. I kept hoping someone would come up with some intelligent PROOF of what they’re saying ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT! I will just have to continue to search for another site for someone with an IQ above 120 that shares with a civil tongue. This is one of the most worthless sites I’ve seen yet. Hey, misterpost, thanks for nothing!

  39. Here is the way I see it. Keep in mind, you only get in to Heaven if you Believe. not just by being Good.

    Here is the SCIENTIFIC EQUATION for all of you!

    You Could either Believe and Be right! (me) OR,

    You could Beleive and be Wrong.

    You Could Not Believe and be Right (what a terrible choice!)

    Or Worse of all, Not Believe and be Wrong. (Burn Baby Burn!)

    You Choose! I’ll take my chances with Jesus and believe thank you very much.

    • What if you Believed in the wrong god? What if it is the catholic version of god and you’re wrong, or the mormon version, or allah, or Zeus?
      How do you know the difference?

      I’m not being facetious, I’m genuinely curious as to how you have determined that the god you believe in is more real/important/whatever than all the other gods all the other cultures in all of human history have believed in.

      Anyway your equation is just a reframing of Pascal’s Wager, which is a flawed argument. I’ll let someone else explain to you the details. Come back after you’ve read it.

  40. Dutko, I believe, says the earth is young–based on a count of the biblical genealogies. Based on the biblical calendar, Noah’s flood occurred in 2758 BC, or 4768 years ago. Those who, like Dutko, embrace the biblically-based young earth theory, discount ALL scientific evidence (such as carbon dating, etc.) indicating that the earth is much, much older. I recently read that a Bristlecone Pine (called “Methuselah”) in the White Mountains of Eastern California,was determined to be 4890 years old by counting the tree rings in core samplew in 1957.
    For more information on tree-ring evidence indicating that trees lived prior to 2578 BC based, not on carbon dating, but on counting the number of tree rings in the trees (one tree ring = one year of growth).

    How could these trees have survived the global flood described in the bible? I’ve read arguments claiming that sometimes trees have two rings in a single year. I’ve heard counter arguments,based on actual research, saying tht the Bristlecone pine skips rings many times more often than it has two rings per year. Also, I’ve read that tree ring studies have tended to validate the accuracy of carbon dating techniques.

    Genesis says that every living thing perished–everything outside the Ark, that is. Noah didn’t take trees, grass, etc., aboard the Ark, so how did the animals survive after they left the ark?

    Yet, shortly after the ark settled on the ground, Noah’s dove went out and brought back an olive leaf.

    There is but one explanation for the survival of the Bristlecone Pines and the finding of an olive leaf only a few days after everything on the face of the earth outside the ark had been destroyed. God worked another convenient miracle to bail himself out of a situation-according to Genesis, that is.

    • It’s even worse than this.

      Methusela is the oldest known living tree. They’ve done tree-ring dating going much much farther back than 4890 years by comparing/adding the rings of trees that died in different years but the same geographical area.

      And there’s also, you know, all of the geological evidence, and astronomical, etc, that the universe is older than the ol’ Hebrews even had the math to understand.

  41. Ha, ha, lots of funny comments here and of course, the original poster’s “refutation” was quite hilarious, also.

    I could spend lots of time on your many errors if I had an inkling (or enough digital ink), including your misspelling of “Dutko” – I know, a “big” 5-letter name! Whoah! Your “superior” intellect makes me roar! (with laughter, that is… in case you’re also prone to overlooking sarcasm).

    But, maybe the funniest was this comment by Demetrius: “Wow, I am an atheist that was able to live his whole life without being violent, profane, selfish, and lustful…”

    Ignoring the stupendously ironic misuse of grammar in that sentence, Demetrius (or any other Atheistic religionists), if you are an Atheist, you are defending a losing, nee, a dying religion, one that essentially believes that NOTHING created EVERYTHING, in spite of increasing volumes of evidence to the contrary.

    In your case, you MISTAKENLY claim to be “living.” By your own Atheistic definition, you don’t even exist! Study the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics to see if this is correct. Then, if you’re still not certain, pinch yourself a few hundred times in the same spot. Either way, I’m sure it will be both enlightening AND fun for you (in an Atheistic sort of way).

    For myself, yes, it’s been great fun but I gotta run… gonna check out the comic strips now. Just wondering; maybe you know: Is Dilbert an Atheist, too, or does he really exist, at least in a 2-dimensional world?

    Need proof that God is good? He allows “perfect” Atheists like Demetrius to live, doesn’t he? That’s all the proof I need.


    Seen on a restroom wall: GOD IS DEAD. -JANICE
    Underneath it: JANICE IS DEAD. -GOD.

  42. One of your fundamental errors is in thinking that by mocking non-evolutionists, you’ve somehow validated Darwin’s creation myth.

    What empirical evidence do you have of Life arising from non-Life by only random, natural processes? Random genetic mutations CREATING newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function?

    To “spelling and grammar” you need to add “logic.”

    • Nice hit & run argument there, douchebag.
      This page isn’t about “proving” evolution (the evidence you ask for? sitting at a keyboard right now, not understanding my point), it is about showing Bob Dutko to be a lying sack of shit.
      Tell me, how have I gone wrong so far?

    • Yeah, as if I’d give one dime of my money to Bob Dutko.
      Have you listened to the CDs?
      If you have them, send a copy to me. I solemnly promise I’ll give them a real thorough listen.
      If Dutko’s arguments fleshed out in detail prove to be more valid than the rough synopsis I saw on his site when I wrote the original post:

      • I’ll change my mind
      • I’ll publicly post on this site the reasons I changed my mind
      • I’ll purchase my own copy of the series with my own actual money, and
      • you’ll have a convert.

      If not I’ll post about the whole series, in detail, one disk at a time, right here.

      Do we have a deal?

  43. I just might. But one thing before I go out and buy a bunch of CD’s I’m not sure I want:

    I have read every word on this blog. You hold such anger and contempt towards people on here (you can say that you don’t but it certainly appears that way) for thinking something and that according to you- they are too stupid to be able to do the research or would never commit to reading things in their entirety. And you ridicule them publicly for this. But the basis of this entire blog is founded on something you haven’t even heard out in the least yourself. Which has weakened the integrity of your words to complete collapse IMO.

    Anyone who says ‘cold water boils faster than hot water’ could at least have a chance to say ‘here’s why’ don’t you agree? And I really don’t care which water boils faster- its just a point.

    The fact is, if we built the method of science around ridiculing and accusing someone before even giving them the chance to say ‘here’s why’ like you have done- our advances would be no where near where they are and we would still be burning people at the stakes.

    So you clearly sit upon a ‘throne’ of scientific discovery that was built upon virtues that you do not seem to posses(well on this blog anyway).

    Based on the evidence in my life, the world has become better (more evolved?) with love and not anger. In summation It appears as though you are fueled by anger towards something and suffer from a more severe case of what you accuse and ridicule everyone else for having.

    Hugz!

    • Contempt, yes.

      Anger, not so much. I’m not angry at people for being misinformed, just disappointed. It does anger me a bit that my fellow humans will profit by selling material that is demonstrably wrong.

      I never told Marc B that he was too stupid to do his own research. I pointed him in a direction, and he decided for himself not to take the initiative. That in itself may be stupid, but I don’t believe he lacks the capacity.

      But feel free to buy the CDs. Send me a copy, etc.

      In the meantime, let’s discuss “here’s why”.

      Enlighten me. Pick one point where you think I’ve gone wrong, and tell me “here’s why”.

      I welcome the opportunity to either learn something new or be more clear about where I stand and why.

      • “It does anger me a bit that my fellow humans will profit by selling material that is demonstrably wrong.”

        You should then take a look at many of the things that the ‘scientific community’ has done in order to advance faulty logic. Some of these things leap frog onto other ideas, but when the initial ‘idea’ was found out to be a lie or wrong, well the initial lie doesn’t matter anymore or they try to hide it because their livelihood is at stake. Overall, IMO it is more based on control (to push forward a centuries old agenda that has little to do with science) mainly, but also on a micro level, selfish money, power and fame than truth more often than not. I’ve seen a ton of questionable ‘Christians’ but I have also seen cases of convicted scientists that have admittedly lied in court- and their lies are still being taught as truth in schools. So I agree with you on that part.

        Ok all that was my opinion based on years of stuff that I have read- so I don’t want to be ransacked over it. Point being, this corruption happens tons on the other side of the coin. And many of these things are still in textbooks today- in fact SAT scores depend on it. And I believe are there mainly to push forward an agenda over the fact that there may not be total truth to it.

        I did pick a point. The point was that you haven’t heard out ‘heres why’. I don’t have the ‘heres why’ in these points but I don’t need to posses the ‘heres why’ to make the point I made. I’m not sure I want to spend a bunch more time on this…lol.

        I am trying to be open minded on this whole thing but I recently watched Zeitgeist Refuted Final Cut (a little off topic) which can be found on youtube and it seemed cool – to my inferior mind anyway.

        What I get from Christianity anyway is that it’s a conversion of the HEART not mind and thereafter a total transformation that has nothing to do with going to a building on Sunday morning and singing a bunch of songs with other people.

      • Sigh.
        The beginnings of another Conversation Fail.

        Your reply to me asking you to point out where I’m wrong in my arguments boils down to “well ‘science’ gets stuff wrong too!”

        Really, is that all you’ve got?

        I think your real point is that I haven’t heard out Dutko’s CDs fully. Granted. I concede the point.

        I had two original objectives in making this post:
        1) to suggest to the reader that the CDs aren’t worth the money, based on a quick skim of the topics as brought up by Dutko.
        2) to take Dutko’s hints at what the content of his CDs would be, and address those hints with my own hints about what the rebuttal/refutation/counter-arguments would be

        What I’m interested in hearing from commenters is whether or not I’ve got my arguments straight thus far.

        Am I somehow incorrect? How? If you think I haven’t made a mistake in reasoning on my major points, do you therefore agree with me that Bob Dutko is full of shit?

      • Pure trivia: this blog post is the #1 result on all the major search engines for “Bob Dutko is full of shit”. Thought I’d share.

  44. I answered you on

    “Enlighten me. Pick one point where you think I’ve gone wrong, and tell me “here’s why”.”

    with

    “I did pick a point. The point was that you haven’t heard out ‘heres why’. I don’t have the ‘heres why’ in these points but I don’t need to posses the ‘heres why’ to make the point I made. I’m not sure I want to spend a bunch more time on this…lol.” -How did you miss this?

    And you even responded with a snarkish talking down even though you didn’t ‘hear’ what I said. I did NOT answer your question with ‘science gets stuff wrong too” this is where your conversation skills fail friend- that was just added in because this argument had a one sided nature to it in this regard and did not take in to the account that it happens on the other side. Furthermore, I was replying to another point you had made your anger toward corruption and NOT your question- but you can re-read it if you want to correct yourself.

    The beginnings of the fail came before my reply then. You obviously haven’t fully contemplated the consequences of not studying his CD’s.

    Like I said before, the integrity of your argument has imploded because of this. Retitling this to Top 10 Things I haven’t looked into would be more accurate and the contents might hold more validity.

    So to answer your question: this whole thing has given me nothing to ride on whether Bob Dutko is telling the truth or not and those objectives have failed.

    A slap-chop with a free sham-wow isn’t worth the money according to reports but you’re not all up in arms over that. And you probably haven’t tested their claims either so if you were to write about it who would you want to listen?

    Judging a movie by the trailer is also a good comparison. Are you going to go stand outside a movie theater and tell people not to go in and watch it all night ’cause you saw the trailer? No one including yourself would find this wise counsel- I see no difference.

  45. Well, like I said from the very beginning- I see that this is actually an issue of the heart. Not mind. The mind can make many things logical. We live in a society full of lies but I believe there is only 1 history. The absurdities of Christianity were the hardest thing for my ‘Educated’ eyes to get over. And the legions of people who have done terrible things in Christ’s name actually don’t follow tenets of Christianity and do more harm than good. It actually took me a much more open mind to try and accept these ‘absurdities’ than anything I had been ‘taught’. But I will tell you that there was no one around me to tell me what to do for years- before during and after the transformation, so the transformation in my HEART that happened is clearly from a God who is interested in a relationship with me – NOT a religion. The HEART needs to be open first. Then the absurdities start to make sense- you don’t need anyone to tell you anything! The message has certainly come from above to me and I don’t even have a church. I have been on a divine roller coaster for a couple years since- I have been healed of things science said I was stuck with. But that’s for another day.

    I guess I could say that if we had a task of assembling 100 people each, I, with people who’s lives have been transformed – even without a church or anyone else around (and have nothing to gain)- by Christ, and you assemble 100 people who’s lives have been transformed by not believing in god, I wonder who would accomplish this?

    Bring on the persecution and ridicule. This is all I have to gain- but I do it because I have been transformed by something I know this world can not offer. Christ crucified is foolishness to those that perish.- A state where I had been for many years.

    • Ok, now we’re getting… somewhere.

      I’ll set aside your point about there being 1 history – I think History (being a manmade endeavor mostly written by the victors in wars) is inherently flawed and what you really mean is that there is but one Truth/Reality.

      You follow that with the mention of people doing atrocities in the name of Christianity (and other religions). No disagreement.

      You seem to follow this with a vague description of how you were transformed, and that everything you learned was wrong, and somehow this counts as evidence of god, possibly even the truth of christianity… and I wonder what this has to do with my argument about Bob Dutko, Kent Hovind, et al being (again) full of shit.

      Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not interested in persecuting and/or ridiculing you, or your religious experience. That really is for another day.

      Does Bob Dutko have a point (or two, or more) in his CDs that I’ve somehow mis-guessed, or not? I won’t be sending any money to him to find out, but I feel I have enough information already to guess at what the contents will be, and I have made my response to that content.

      There might be details I’m unaware of that make his arguments valid, but I have my doubts.

      Help me out here: am I full of shit, or not?

  46. No Sir! I don’t think for a second that you are full of it! On the contrary I think that this comes from a place of honesty and passion from you and for this I commend you!

    I do think however that this is a ‘crust study’ and is not proof of anything. I must admit I have spent (or wasted) the 14+ hours on Dr. Hovinds series and I found it quite thought provoking and I can say that I looked into many of the refutations of his claims- and there are plenty! But I also find that for each refutation, there is a counter refutation- on both sides of the coin when an idea is presented. I’m not even sure that Dr. Hovind is right on anything- but I do honestly believe that He and Mr. Dutko also come from a place of pure honesty and even a ‘burden’ for people they believe are lost (no matter how closed minded that may seem). So I don’t think any of you are full of it. And I personally commend you all for being passionate when it comes to matters of truth. I just think more love respect and kindness could bring things closer to where we should be.

  47. Hey you got a problem with Bob Dutko why dont you call in on his show on Fridays for the free for all. Phone number is 18778282262. My money is on Bob. He would mop up the floor with you….99.9% of everything you say is wrong and can be proven so.

    • I disagree.

      Naturally.

      If what you say is true, that 99.9% of everything I say is wrong and can be proven so, can you give me an example? Just one?

      I’m not interested enough in trying to convince his audience of anything, to bother calling to his show. I’m not interested in what Dutko has to say.

      Let’s look at things this way & see where things go from there: 99.9% of what I say could be wrong. If it can be proven so by Dutko, it could probably be proven by someone else. James, for example.

      James, what do you think? And why?

    • Previous comment disemvoweled for the crime of unmitigated douchebaggery.

      By all means disagree with me, but please bring an argument next time, and don’t call me a coward on my own blog.

  48. One question though. What if the evolutionist are right. What have you lost? Nothing. But, What if the creationist are right. What have you lost? Everything…

      • I read through Pascal’s Wager that you linked, and I would have an argument for their proposition. They assert in their section on ‘Begging the Question’ that their is an anti-conventional god, as I am sure you are well aware of their argument as you have linked it, and I would argue that they failed to add anything to Pascal’s Wager, as they have essentially used the equation A or B or B, where A = no deity and B = deity. They intended for that to read A or B or C, but the anti-conventional god in this equation should be combined with “B” and just be that a god exists. Would you agree that if there is one that has control over our eternal destiny, then they would be classified as a deity?

        Therefore, I would argue that there should be two, or more, sets of matrices for the question. Matrix 1 – No god exists vs A god exists. From there, we get two directions… either no god exists, and we end it there, as nothing else would need to be proven… or a god exists, and from there, then we need to determine which god exists (Which religion has it right). That is where we would need to set each religions theology vs each other (i.e. Christians vs every religion, then Muslim vs every religion, then anti-conventional god vs every religion and so on). Granted, this would take some time, but in theory this would be the correct pattern to determine our fate.

        The other argument I would make, is in the Atheists Wager, they assume that if there is a god, there is a 1 in infinity chance of selecting the correct one, and I do not believe that would be correct. My reasoning would be that there are not an infinite number of gods, and if you would for a moment (after the moment you may go back to your beliefs) consider that there is a god, then wouldn’t it stand within reason that he would either have overcame the other “gods”, or would make himself known through history and still be relevant today? Many of the “gods” that they would include being a part of the infinite number are extinct. So that would create far better odds of actually discovering which theology is correct, if “B” from above was the conclusion, don’t you think?

        Full disclosure here – my faith is Christianity, but not that of what is commonly known through the churches (which I believe are corrupt and after the dollar bill). To be more direct, I put my faith in Jesus and try to follow his teachings. I thought it would only be fair for you to know where I stand, as I have read where you stand. If I have things correct, your answer to the initial matrix is A, whereas mine is B.

        Well hopefully you still check this blog. If so, I’ll talk to you later.
        -Jason

      • I don’t personally find the Pascal’s Wager argument convincing as a reason to believe in a god or not, or even a good place to begin discussion, which is why I previously gave it just half a line of comment and a quick link to someone else’s analysis.
        In my estimation, an omnipresent Creator who is interested in the minute details of my life would be self-evident. This is why I do not believe such a thing exists – no good reason to.
        In some ways I think some the teachings of Jesus are good to follow, while others are not. It seems to me that the result of your choices (which teachings to follow, which to ignore) are what matter (regardless of the existence of the deity in whose name you make your choices).
        Those choices are the ones that matter because your actions are what actually affect others around you, and also define your character.

        But on to the actual topic of this posting: Am I right (that Bob Dutko is full of shit and this brand of creationist is just Lying for Jesus), or is Bob Dutko right? If he is right, can you support this conclusion? What do you think, Jason?

    • I don’t know what you’d consider a reliable source, so I thought I’d go to the most obvious.

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington

      So, you know, it may be possible that I made a mistake with my assertion that George Washington was elected unanimously by the Electoral College – twice. But if I made a mistake, the historians fact-checking the White House website have made the same mistake.

      I went to the trouble of checking the wayback machine to see if this is part of some “liberal conspiracy” – the page only goes back to 2009 so, ya know, maybe.

      But that doesn’t explain how I learned the same fact in American History class, in 11th grade in 1993.

  49. Id like to know why you hear of evolutionist scientist converting over to the creationist point of view and not the other way around. You never hear of a creationist scientist converting over to the evolutionist theory. Seems to me that the further along in time that we get the more evolutionary scientist seem to be bailing out. We christians welcome them all. GOD Bless!

    • Perhaps, James, that you hear about more scientists becoming creationist and not the other way around, but that’s not what I hear.

      Perhaps it’s a question of who you’re getting your information from?

      If you have reliable sources for this assertion, let’s have them. I want names, dammit!

      In the meantime, let’s get back to the subject of my post. How, again, is 99.9% of everything I say above wrong?

      Again, what do you think?

    • I followed your link.
      You’ve got it wrong. This post – which I wrote like four years ago btw, and spent very little time researching, and is to this day the #1 Google hit on the phrase “Bob Dutko is full of shit”, but I digress – was not meant to be a thorough debunking.

      The original text of the post states this clearly, and I’ve reiterated this point in the comments.

      Couple specific places where I think you’re straying from reality here:

      1) There’s no copyright infringement going on here. There’s this thing known as “fair use” (search “fair use” or see 17 U.S.C. § 107) which means in part that I can quote sources for criticism. Besides I already offered to let someone purchase the CDs for me
      2) You’ve asserted that I’m wrong, or lying, or both – and going to hell to boot – but never told me how/where/why I’m wrong. Should I be condemned for holding an incorrect opinion, when I don’t know why it’s incorrect?
      3) I’m happy to provide more details on any point I’ve made for which you think I haven’t provided enough evidence. Ask away!

      In an honest battle of the blogs it would be correct to link to the blog (at least the post) you’re criticizing. Will you add a link to this site on your blog so future readers can follow the whole conversation and decide for themselves who is being honest here?

      I’m interested in your responses to my questions, or I wouldn’t have asked them. Will you respond?

  50. When you truly become aware of god’s character you begin to understand that he doesn’t want you to be controlled or told what to do. He wants you to yearn for the morality spoken of in the bible and to strive for that. He does not want to control you and dominate you in any way such as, leading members of many churches have attempted to do over the years. He wants you to be free and learn under his wisdom.

  51. I used to be a creationist when i lived in Louisiana, they taught misinformation and propganda and i sounded just like James…. then i left state and moved to Arizona….

    Once there i found it hard to let go and accept that the bible was wrong, and everything in it was pretty much made up or recorded so that it could be used to enslave…..

    James you really need to take a good look at people like Bob Dutkos, hes really absent minded and lies. not only that but he twist the real facts so that it can fit his propaganda

    • Are you kidding me? Have you ever came to think that the evolutionists are twisting the real facts to fit their theory?

      And How can you say that Bob Dutko is a lair if you have never listened to his CD or called and had a debate. The truth is that you don’t want to accept anything other than what science has come up with. When someone wants to direct you to the other side of the argument you reject it. Because you know you might be wrong and you dont want to be proven wrong. There is much scientific evidence that evolution is obviously wrong. Where are all of the fossils?? If evolution is correct then we should see way more transition fossils than fully developed fossils. But what do we find in the ground? 99% fully developed fossils and the other 1% of fossils are animals that are deformed. We see many animals today that are born with extra body parts. If a cow gets born with an extra leg there is no reason to think that it is evolving into a spider.

      How do you explain the 10s of thousands of Polystrate fossils found all over the world? Please tell me how could the earth be possibly 4.5 Billion years old if these fossils are punching through 2 or more of these layers that supposivly represent millions of years? Obviously these trees did not live to be millions of years old..

      You don’t have a valid argument if you cant listen to the other side of the argument.

      • You know, I really didn’t spend all that much time talking about evolution. To me, the evidence of evolution is simple, obvious, ubiquitous, and self-evident.
        And I did mention several times that I’m happy to give the CDs a thorough listen, and then pick them apart detail by detail if I still disagree with them.
        Here, I’m going to offer to make you a deal, then I’ll make two predictions:
        The deal first – stop me if you’ve heard of this before – I’m happy to listen to the CDs, but I am not at all willing to contribute any of my hard-earned money to this charlatan’s ministry.
        So if you want to argue that I’m all wrong because somewhere in the CDs is the magic that I’m missing, then buy me the CDs.
        In exchange I’ll send you an audio copy of the evolution science book of your choice – from a short list I’ll provide you if you take me up.

        Both of us can give the other side a real good thorough listen, and then we can talk about this.
        Deal?

        In the meantime, can you tell me where I’ve gone wrong with an argument I actually made in this blog post? Just one?

      • Sorry, I forgot the predictions:
        First, you’re not going to take me up on this & buy me the Dutko CDs, because you’re not willing to take up the other side of the argument, and actually listen to an audio book that disagrees with your preconceived world view.
        Second, you’re going to continue to argue that I’m somehow being unfair – but still 100% wrong – without explaining at what point in my arguments I’ve gone wrong.

        I’ll bet you a Bob Dutko CD.

  52. Jason, I don’t know where your comment went. I “approved” it, replied to it, and it’s not here.
    Might be a caching issue, don’t know. I don’t control this particular site so can’t really investigate the low-level tech details… Sorry

  53. I really don’t mind your opinion about Mr. Duktos, however I have to reject your comment about “do not even tell the Same story,” on the account witness. In a real world, if you are in a trial where there are 4 or 50 witnesses, you will NEVER find the same story/point of views, except that they all are in agreement in advance to say exactly the same, if so, you fall into a miss-trial case.

    This happens not only at these levels but also at levels of people who study physics and astronomy. If all the scientists say the exact same story with the same dots, commas and details, then I can imagine that what is being delivered here “is a miss-trial case”, therefore there must be differences in the facts on the account witness, not only by issues of translation or different points of view based on their knowledge, but also on its own human logic.

    For instance, Matthew says that Jesus travelled on a donkey and a colt and Mark and Luke are focusing on this detail while Matthew focuses on the prophetic fulfilment. Logically, if there are two animals (Mom donkey and a colt…. give him a try and ride a colt without his mother at the front), then there is also, at least, one animal. There are many samples in the Bible like this that seems to be contradictory, however this can be clear if you read Jews; customs on their land.

    I doubt very much that all the “pseudo-gods”, or “deities” you mention in your refutation, they had the psycho-logic, spiritual and power knowledge of synthesis to say and pray what is written in John 17. After that, there’s nothing more to add to the discussion. Everything else is verbiage to try to compare apples with oranges.

    You can prove scientifically that the universe is a sphere with a diameter of about 29 gigaparsec.
    But science will never be able to prove what there was before the “dot in the infinite dimension”, who feed that “dot” and put all components within, who generated the inflation for this exploit and most importantly … where your soul is the second after you cease to exist.

    • I don’t really have a lot of time to re-research every assertion I made in a post I wrote five years ago. I have a life, job, family, etc.

      Please do your own research.

      I have asked many times in the comments: Am I wrong? How?

      I’ll briefly address four points you’ve made:

      1. If you really think the gospels all tell the same story, at a high level (forgetting the little details, I mean the big stuff), then I suggest you read all four again.
        Read them in sequence or in parallel, take notes or not, make charts or not, I don’t care. Just read all four. And don’t try to read them “in context” or “in the right spirit” either. That is to say, don’t read any other part of the bible during this exercise, and don’t read any apologetics that try to make sense of the gospels. Just objectively read the four gospels with the question in mind “do these tell the same story?”
        I think the gospels make that argument for me.
      2. As I mentioned to Marc B., how much do you know about the mythology of the Middle East prior to, and during, the time of the bible (Old and New Testaments)? As I said, the local deities are varied, and interesting. The more you learn about them, you’ll find that YHWH is not so unique and special, and maybe you’ll realize how many deities were worshipped for thousands of years before Dutko’s favorite textbook on reality was assembled.
        When you’re done with the Middle East, find out about ancient and/or modern religions elsewhere. What things to they have in common? How do they differ? These questions are not “yawn” boring like Marc B. asserted – they are in fact the keys to understanding who we are as people [which is one of the “big questions” the religions try and fail to answer].
        Edit: For some seriously interesting reading, try researching the few prayers we still have that were written down by ancient/pre-Hebrew cultures. You’ll find that there’s much to compare/contrast with John 17 – you just have to read a few books other than the bible.
      3. It is a demonstrable scientific fact that the Universe itself is impersonal, ancient, and extremely interesting all on its own. Why do you assume that there was a “who” who created it?
        Where would this “who” have come from?
        Who created the Who who created the Universe?
        Who created the Who who created the Who who created the Universe?
        Who created the Who who created the Who who created the Who who created the Universe?
        Who created the Who who created the Who who created the Who who created the Who who created the Who who created the Who who created the Who who created the Who who created the Universe?
        At what point does this question become absurd enough that you realize that a personal Creator is a silly and unnecessary proposition? Why can’t the Universe exist without a Creator? Ponder.
      4. Demonstrate to me that I have a soul to worry about that will persist after I die.
    • Also, and I’m just being a pedantic dick here, it’s only the “known” or “visible” universe that has a known/measurable diameter. It is not known for certain whether the totality of the Universe is finite or infinite, or whether there are infinitely many other parallel Universes (there is theory that says it’s possible, but the data are as yet inconclusive).
      It is definitively not a simple sphere – google on “WMAP” and “geometry of the Universe” for lots more background than you’ll bother to read.

  54. Of course they lie,because they have yet to provide
    any verifiable,testable evidence for their claims.
    Creationism/intelligent design do not even have a
    scientific model of their own to produce.They only
    take REAL science and twist it to fit their agenda.

    Real Science doesnt prove or disprove the existence
    of any god,as no real scientific evidence for or
    against it has been found with current technology.
    Each time you ask them to provide testable evidence
    they spew an endless deluge of circular reasoning
    that goes nowhere.
    Creationism is a christian concept created by christians,
    base on the bible so they are inherantly biased in all their
    claims,they cant accept that their bronze aged belief system is
    seriously flawed and they will defend it at all cost,
    even to the point of making outrageous unscientific claims.
    Whenever science presents a proven fact, the creationist answer
    with, “That’s not true,god Did it”, yet they provide no empiracle evidence of any god,mojo man,wizard,fairy,socerer or magic bean tosser.

    Even with all the suposed theories,assumptions and speculations that Creation scientist have made they are still unable to provide verifiable,testable,tangable evidence that god,allah,ganesh or holy bob was responsible for all creation.
    They will continue to push their god belief and nothing more.

    Its beyond all logical reasonibng that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh,drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

    The biggest thing is when a creationist can POOF their Jesus into my living room so that this god can be examined then it will remain a mythological fairytail created by brnze age goat herders who practiced creative writting while gazing at their flock.

    • It’s even worse than that.

      They attempt to provide verifiable evidence, then stick their fingers in their ears and yell “I can’t hear you” when you verify that the evidence is incorrect/faulty/nonexistent/biased/flawed/etc.

      Sometimes they will even start a blog to “refute” your argument, copypaste a bunch of apologetics to support their side of the argument, leave your comments in moderation purgatory forever, and drop the blog – because they lack the tools to hold up their own side. (see above)

    • I agree with this sentiment in principle, but you didn’t make it very clear – which side of this argument are you advocating here, and why?

  55. Misterpost: I understand your “anger”. I too have this “anger” towards the liars who lie because they know they have a chance to fool the gullible and uneducated into believing their brand of religion. I listen to Christian radio to keep abreast of the self-delusion and lying perpetrated by every radio Christian I hear.
    One of my favorites is the claim that sea-fossils on some mountain tops proves that the Flood happened. “Some is my word”. What I hear on the radio is that “mountains all over the world have sea-fossils upon them”. This makes it sound as if all mountains have these fossils. As anybody with even a small amount of geology knowledge is aware, there are quite a few mountains that do not. It is also known that the mountains with sea-fossils on top have been lifted from the bottoms of seabeds over the course of million of years. But of course the liars omit these facts that prove their Flood is a lie. They also lie about the geology of the Grand Canyon because said geology once again disproves their lies.
    Is it considered ok by Christians to lie as long as it brings converts to their religion? Does a conversion based upon lies and ignorance have any meaning?
    I do not know if anyone still reads this blog. For any who do and might wonder; my credentials include several complete readings of the Bible, full Catholic indoctrination including First Holy Communion, 8 years of Catechism, Confirmation and Baptism. Fortunately I come from a line of intelligent thinkers so Christianity I think was pushed more as an homage to those who came before than out of real conviction.
    All one needs to do is read the Tower of Babel segment of the Bible. Two of the glaring errors in said segment should be enough to convince anyone who can think that the Bible is not Truth. For those who cannot think well, I will state the two errors.
    #1: It is stated that God came to look at the tower and declared that, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
    Problem: Why does an all-knowing god have to look at the tower in person as he knew this was going to happen before Adam was even created? Nothing will be impossible for them? Even had they built that tower until they raised it high enough to reach the point where lack of oxygen would have made more building impossible they would not have reached “heaven”. Therefore they would have failed to complete their goal as it was IMPOSSIBLE.
    #2 God confused their language and scattered them over the Earth. Quite strange it is that these scattered people became so different from each other physically in so short a time. I guess the people who wrote the Bible did not know about Asians and Nordics. Even though their language was “confused”, they would easily find a way to communicate after a short time and would easily be able to resume building. Is an all-knowing god so ignorant that he does not realize that people of different languages can still communicate and cooperate?

    I am already outside the premise of the OP, so I might as well add one more thing. If you want to know a truly evil god, just read the Book of Job. It is catastrophe poured out upon a righteous man just to prove a point to Satan. What an evil, arrogant jerk this god is. Of course, at the end God gives Job more than he had had prior to his unmerited abuse. As if this somehow makes it all ok. It reminds me of the wife-beater giving his wife the proverbial bouquet of roses and saying, “I will never do it again”.

  56. Evidence that creationists are liars:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

    (Judgement Day: Intelligent design on Trial)

    It’s shown many of those on the Intelligent Design side are outright liars, they lied on many issues and the judge even said so. They used deception in the creation of Intelligent Design, it was just a rewrite of creationism. Then the ID “scientists” refused to acknowledge the any science and papers that showed they don’t know what they are talking about.

    Creationism and ID is put forward by liars, the ignorant and the gullible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s