Something for those evolutionists who have been taught genetic mutations are helpful to a species and lead to one species evolving into a different species.

Adalia Rose testifies to the consequences of genetic mutations. You want evidence? You can’t handle the evidence:


  1. optimisticgladness said:


  2. Chris said:

    I find optimistic gladness’s remark offensive – what could possibly be “precious!!!” about this sick attempt to provide evidence of a supernatural creator.

    Of all the attempts I have seen to deliberately distort the facts – this is the worst by some chalk.

    The idea that we “can’t handle the evidence”, would suggest this was evidence and not a cruel misrepresentation using an unfortunate and wonderfully high-spirited child.

    Bereft of detail in the post, I can only assume that the author is suggesting that because some mutations are not benificial, this somehow cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

    Well let me tell you, and any 12 year old child who has has the benefit of education will too, that no one ever suggested that the theory of evolution relied on a series of positive genetic mutations. No one suggest this is the case. The author knows this, optimisticgladness knows this, we all know it – yet the only mystery remaining is why this post even exists.

    I feel unable to give bring myself to give a 5th grade natural history lesson. If you a person who believes this viedo in any way contributes to the suggest of a supernatural intelligent designer then you are really beyond hope.

    • Chris Woods said:

      I completely agree with you Chris.
      For more than one reason, I am unable to express how disheartened I am that Creditaction could post this.

      Words fail me.

  3. You asked what could be precious Adalia, another great question, thank you. Firstly, she is an image bearer of God, fearfully and wonderfully knit together in her mother’s womb (Psalm 139, 13-16). She has equal value, dignity and worth to you and me. Our laws would have allowed her mother to have arranged her murder in a clinic because of her condition. That’s a terrifying thought that someone so beautiful, talented and courteous could have been killed just because she is different.

    The atheistic evolutionary worldview peddles the ‘theory’, and we agree it is nothing but a theory, that we are the result of a grand random cosmic accident. To many with that worldview it must seem reasonable to allow the murder of humans in what should be the safest place in earth, a mother’s womb. However, they are wrong because our lives have specific meaning and purpose and so does Adalia’s precious life. So the post is here to celebrate her life and show that it has purpose, value and meaning. Furthermore, It is a demonstration of mankind’s infinite separation from the animal kingdom that we would care for, appreciate and celebrate the life of Adalia. In the same way we have abstract, universal and unchanging laws of logic so we have abstract, universal and unchanging moral laws.

    You see, evolutionists have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to the problem of where the new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a myxomycete or a maze-mastering mammal. Their best guess is gene duplication (which gives them an extra length of DNA, but it contains no new information) followed by random mutations that are supposed to turn the duplicated information into something new and useful. Adalia’s condition is a consequence of a genetic mutation. I am sure she and her family would be the first to agree that random genetic mutations in a species are not something to be welcomed – any twelve year old child could see that.

  4. Chris Woods said:


    It’s been ten weeks since you posted this and I have finally calmed down enough to give a reasoned response.

    1) You said, “Something for those evolutionists who have been taught genetic mutations are helpful to a species and lead to one species evolving into a different species.”
    Evolutionists know that most genetic mutations are actually UNHELPFUL. The fact that you infer that evolutionists are taught otherwise IS A LIE. You know what happens to people who bear false witness.

    2) You said, “Adalia Rose testifies to the consequences of genetic mutations.”
    WRONG. Adalia Rose testifies to the consequence of ONE SPECIFIC GENETIC MUTATION. The fact that you infer that progeria syndrome is a consequence of genetic mutations in general, IS A LIE.

    3) You said, “You want evidence? You can’t handle the evidence:”
    The only evidence on show here is your ignorance.

    4) You said, “The atheistic evolutionary worldview peddles the ‘theory’, and we agree it is nothing but a theory, that we are the result of a grand random cosmic accident.”
    The creationist’s favourite argument is, whenever referring to either the theory of evolution or the big bang theory, to put the word theory in inverted commas. This does not diminish the argument for evolution, it justs shows the creationists’ ignorance of scientific terminology.

    5) You said, “So the post is here to celebrate her life and show that it has purpose, value and meaning.”
    LIAR. Simple as that. The reason you posted it is because you incorrectly believe it to be some sort of evidence against evolution. Admit you lied Adrian, your soul is on the line here.

    6) You said, “evolutionists have never been able to… …into something new and useful.”
    I suspect that you do not know what a ‘myxomycete’ is or why it is mentioned alongside a ‘maze-mastering mammal’. I suspect this for two reasons. Firstly, because you cut and pasted the entire paragraph from an article by Alex Williams. And secondly because you have a remarkably poor grasp of science. (Even for a creationist.)
    Williams main objection to the theory is that there is, “no direct experimental evidence for this claim”. But then this is hardly likely as Watson and Crick only discovered the double helix sixty, not a million years, ago.
    Furthermore, recent experiments on fruit flies by Sidi Chen, Yong Zhang, and Manyuan Long, have observed new genes created. (ie. genes with totally new functions.) This is a simple fact.
    Even ID advocate Michael Behe doesn’t deny it. However he proposes that the successfully duplicated-and-diverged genes didn’t arise by natural selection, but appeared by the instantaneous intervention of God. But that idea is wrong on two counts. Firstly, because of the appearance of dead, nonfunctional pseudogenes that were unsuccessful duplicates. (If God made gene duplications to create genetic novelty, he failed in the majority of cases, and left his failures sitting around in the genome.) Secondly, because what we see is not instantaneous but gradual change: the younger a gene is, the more rapid natural selection acts. That directional selection continues to act as the gene gets older, but then slows down and finally becomes purifying selection, so that new DNA changes are eliminated. This pattern is precisely what’s predicted if duplicates arise by accident and then quickly change by selection to assume new functions.

    7) You said, “I am sure she and her family would be the first to agree that random genetic mutations in a species are not something to be welcomed”.
    I am sure that she and her family would not appreciate that you posted a clip of her underneath the word “Mutations”.
    Imagine that I had a blog and wanted evidence that supported the theory of evolution. So what I did was write the title “Monkey Ears” in a big bold font. And underneath that I wrote ‘Adrian Clark’s son testifies to the consequences of being descended from apes. You want evidence? You can’t handle the evidence:’ And underneath that, I posted a picture of you and your eldest son. – Would you find this offensive? Do you find me offensive now? I hope so.
    Do you think Adalia and family would find your post offensive?… BECAUSE I DO!

    Yours utterly, sincerely,

    Chris Woods

  5. How do you know what is offensive? You might be wrong about everything you know. Unless you borrow from my worldview you can’t know anything. The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 53:1)

  6. Chris Woods said:


    I made seven points, all of which you have ignored.
    Instead, you have fallen back on the standard creationist stance of replying with an avoidant question and then quoting scripture. I’m sorry Adrian but this simply won’t do. You tag most of your posts with the word “logic” but are unable to use any yourself.

    However I shall set an example and answer your questions. Not because I have fallen for your trap of avoiding commenting on what I have written but because I want to show anyone reading this, that, unlike creationists, atheists will actually provide answers.

    1) You said, “How do you know what is offensive?”
    I know what I find offensive. I know what my wife finds offensive. (She thinks you are scum, by the way.) I do not know what you find offensive… However if you don’t think that implying that someone’s daughter is a mutant is offensive, then you are even weirder than I thought.

    2) You said, “You might be wrong about everything you know.”
    You’ve told me this before and it says far more about your inability to reason than it does mine. I really can’t be bothered to go through it again.

    3) You said, “Unless you borrow from my worldview, you can’t know anything.”
    This sentence is devoid of logic. Apart from the fact that you are clearly wrong, why should I borrow from the worldview of a none-too-bright, closed-minded liar?

    4) You said, “The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 53:1)”
    This is one of the most inane bits of scripture you’ve quoted yet. It not only proves nothing, it also means nothing. I don’t care if the fool says in his heart there is no God because the wise man says it in his brain.

    I think it’s time you did the “Good Person Test”. Let me know how you do on the “are you a liar?” question.

    Adrian, I have torn your post apart. I have shown your arguments to be nonsense and exposed you as a liar. Now for the sake of common decency, remove this deeply unpleasant post and I shall return to my normal civil self.

    Chris Woods

  7. You are floundering my friend for you have no basis for your knowledge apart from God. The opinions you express are otherwise arbitrary. From where do you get the authority to make these knowledge claims or what standard does your wife use to determine that I am scum. Your conscience allows you to know right from wrong, it is given you by the God who created you but as Romans 1 says you suppress the truth by your unrighteousness. I repeat you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make any of your morality judgements. It may give pause for thought to know that your wife’s expressed opinion is fulfilling biblical revelation: 1 Corinthians 4:13 reports that Christians will be viewed as scum of the world, the refuse of all things. God Word is infallible and it command you to repent, Acts 17:30. Ten out of ten will die, you will die and face the God who created you and he will judge you for every thought, word and deed. Only the atoning, sacrificial death of the Saviour can save you from God’s wrath that abides upon you. However, he promises to save you, if you will flee to the Cross, confess, repent and put your faith and trust in the Saviour, Jesus Christ. He will take away your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. The Bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Today is the day of salvation. I care for you and fear for your soul.

  8. Chris Woods said:

    Did you do the “Good Person Test” Adrian?

    • Chris said:

      The problem with this debate is that the blogger begins with an attempt at logic and rationalism, when this is exposed as a crude and a charlatan approach, the argument descends in “well Jimmy told me to do it” i.e. God told me to do it – it would look something like this, “he even said that he would call me a a a [sobbing] ‘fool’ if I didn’t say it mummy”.

      The ability to twist the argument into the etherial, poetic and philosophical when the going gets tough (which frankly doesn’t take long), is a great illustration of the weakness of the God hypothesis. Start by attaching theory though lies and rational argument, when that fails badly, attack the words, like what is ‘logic’, ‘who’s judgement’, ‘What truths’ as if establishing a negative (that there is no basis for ‘knowledge’ – not true – but lets go with it) proves a positive, it must therefore be an intelligent designer. Even if we were to go further, it’s amazing how it always turns out to be the bloggers favourite intelligent designer that he’s referring to.

      So if you allow the argument to descend to you can’t have an opinion unless you accept a God [his God?] gave you the premise for you, the blogger gives himself license to say whatever he wishes about whatever he wishes, including gross offensive images. Just look… the blogger could twist and distort this argument to practically any behaviour – now there’s something to ponder…

      So with his pants firmly around his ankles and his bottom equally firmly spanked by Chris Woods logic. A strong indication of how fundamentalism can breed form the most innocuous of sources – is this not a perfect example of why we should be a little bit more militant, and less tolerant, of religious nonsense; I don’t know what is.

      • Chris Woods said:

        Creditaction is a total hypocrite.

        He spends his days wandering around, asking the good people of Bristol questions based around the ten commandments. If anyone admits to ever having told a lie, however small, he tells them that they aren’t a good person.

        Creditaction has no problem however, preaching lies from his internet pulpit. He is, it would seem, completely unrepentant about this.

        His response to you, that he posted the video of Adalia to, “celebrate her life and show that it has purpose, value and meaning,” is totally and utterly untrue, as he gave his reason at the top of the post. ie. “Something for those evolutionists who have been taught genetic mutations are helpful to a species and lead to one species evolving into a different species.” To later pretend otherwise, shows that not only is he a liar, he is also an idiot.

  9. Chris Woods said:

    “you have no basis for your knowledge apart from God.” – Yes I do.

    “The opinions you express are otherwise arbitrary.” – No they’re not.

    “From where do you get the authority to make these knowledge claims” – I do not need authority to state the truth.

    “what standard does your wife use to determine that I am scum.” – My wife is pretty easy going but she finds your post repellent.

    “Your conscience allows you to know right from wrong, it is given you by the God who created you” – No it isn’t and no he didn’t.

    “Romans 1 says you suppress the truth by your unrighteousness.” – “The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution.”- Albus Dumbledore.

    “I repeat you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make any of your morality judgements.” – Utter nonsense. Morality is not the preserve of Christianity.

    “It may give pause for thought to know that your wife’s expressed opinion is fulfilling biblical revelation: 1 Corinthians 4:13 reports that Christians will be viewed as scum of the world, the refuse of all things.” – Wrong. She does not think Christians are scum. It’s just you. “Lord Voldemort’s gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great.”- Albus Dumbledore.

    “God Word is infallible and it command you to repent, Acts 17:30.” – “Humans have a knack for choosing precisely the things that are worst for them.”- Albus Dumbledore.

    “Ten out of ten will die, you will die and face the God… …salvation.” – “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”- Albus Dumbledore.

    “I care for you and fear for your soul.” – Fear for your own, Adrian, for you are a bearer of false witnesses.

  10. So you know you have a basis for knowledge apart from God and yet you confess that you might be wrong about everything you know.

    Again, what authority are you using as the standard for making these bold morality judgements?

    • Chris said:

      “Whoops a daisy!” I think your trying to prove a positive with a negative again. Because we have no basis for knowledge (Negative) (which is your crazy hypothesis not mine), but running with it, the conclusion is… that a supernatural creator must of given it us (positive).

      Do you think by repeating these twisted logic you make them more compelling. Or how it leads to your creator god and not someone else’s.

      The ability to distort messages in this way is the major cause of human suffering on this planet.

  11. And the authority by which you make your morality claims is…

  12. Chris Woods said:

    Oh Adrian.

    Adrian, Adrian, Adrian. Once again you have decided to ignore every comment and question put to you, and instead respond with your own ridiculous question.
    And the sheer stupidity of the question makes it very difficult to know where to start with an answer.

    My wife works with children with learning difficulties and learning disabilities. I have met some of these children socially and I can’t imagine any of them being quite so inane as you.

    I have, however, thought of a couple of different answers for you. Take your pick, because whatever answer is given to your question, it cannot possibly further your argument, for the reasons Chris has already given you. (Twice!)

    In no particular order…

    1) “And the authority by which you make your morality claims is…” that I am a member of society and it is society that dictates what is moral and what is not.

    Morality is not God given. Morality is not absolute.

    Even in Christian societies, morality varies enormously over geography and time. Would you burn a woman for making medicine today? – not so long ago that would be the Christian thing to do.

    Morality is a social construct and is a direct consequence of natural selection. Murdering members of your tribe weakens the tribe and so is bad for you. Likewise, theft, rape and other acts of violence within the tribe will weaken it. Therefore tribes with morals will flourish and immoral ones die out very quickly.

    Violent acts against other tribes though can strengthen your tribe and these acts can be easily morally justified, (and even holy), by calling it war.

    These exact same behaviours can be seen in competing groups of both chimpanzees and baboons.
    So you see, morality is strong evidence for evolution, not God.

    2) “And the authority by which you make your morality claims is…” Lord Voldemort. It was He Who Shall Not Be Named that gave me the authority. It was He and He alone, and by His authority I know what is right and what is wrong.

    Are you actually going to respond to either of these answers?

    Are you going to admit to being a liar? I think you should, the proof is already in black and white.

    Or are you going to, once again, ignore everything that’s put to you and reply with a pointless, circular argument that fails to address anything at all?

    (My money’s on the latter by the way.)

    Chris Woods

  13. You make the absurd claim there is no abstract, universal, and existent absolute morality, it is determined by society. When would it be morally right to rape a young child?

    • sailchecker said:

      Whoops a daisy! Think you erred again… finding something that’s exceptionally highly likely, does NOT create an absolutely. Good try though. If you wanted to make a case for the existence of a universal, and existent absolute morality; this is a void attempt.

      Just because you might struggle to find an example where this was morally acceptable, it is absurd in the extreme, (particularly give Chris W excellent examples in his answer), that you have suddenly create both an an absolute and a case for your intelligent designer.

      it’s yet another crude attempt to use semantic trickery. The issue of allowing your attempts, is that the same crude methods are used by fundamentalists with the most devastating outcomes. Moderate versions (although your imagery is anything but moderate against any standard), as perfectly show in this debate, are simply a breeding ground for this type of extremist.

  14. Chris Woods said:

    Adrian. Well done. I win.
    Just as I predicted, you went for the pointless, circular argument that fails to address anything at all option.

    Proving that the colour black exists does not disprove that there are a million shades of grey. – If you think it does then you either have a very low IQ or you have a mental illness.
    When would it be morally right to rape a young child? – In my view, never. However even this crime is not as evil as say for example, killing everyone on the entire planet. (With the exception of Noah’s family.)

    Adrian, your view of the world is a binary, black or white one… and it is clearly a fantasy one.
    Your continued inability to address any of the points raised, further erodes the shaky foundations on which your faith is based.

    Do you understand any of this?… Or do you still think it’s okay to post a video of little girl, without her permission, as completely erroneous evidential support for your own agenda?
    If you still think that is okay, why not start a new post? It could go something like this…

    Something for those evolutionists who have been taught that morality is not absolute.
    The little girl in the video below testifies to the consequences of non-absolute morality. You want evidence? You can’t handle the evidence:”

    Beneath this text you could then have a video of a little girl being raped.
    You clearly want readers of this blog to have this picture in their head and make a connection with non-absolute morality. Why not just post a video of it?

    What do you think? Good idea?

    Have you done the Good Person Test yet, Adrian?

    Are you a good person?.. Or are a man so far removed from the views of normal society that you no longer have any idea what morality is? (Oh, and of course a liar.)

    Chris Woods

  15. This is not trickery for I am simply demonstrating the absurdity of your positions. Next you’ll be telling me that 2 +2 equalling 4 is determined by society. You seek to disprove the existence of God without whom you cannot have knowledge. The laws of science, mathematics, logic and morality exist, and they are abstract, universal and eternal. You know it but you suppress the truth by your unrighteousness, (Romans 1:18). You both need to repent.

    Are you saying that circular reasoning is wrong? This is a knowledge claim. Answer me at least this: “did you come that knowledge claim by using your senses and reasoning?”

    • sailchecker said:

      It is trickery and it is circular reasoning. By proving 2 + 2 is absolute, you neither prove that morality is nor the existence of your creator god. It fails to help your case in either circumstances and highlights the attempted slight of hand perfectly.

  16. Chris Woods said:

    How dare you say, “Answer me at least this:”
    I have answered every single one of your inane questions.
    You have answered NONE of mine.

  17. Chris Woods said:

    Oh and just so that I continue to answer all your questions whilst you continue to not answer any of mine…

    Yes, circular reasoning is wrong. This is because a conclusion based on the unequivocal acceptance of the premise, renders the conclusion invalid. – If you think otherwise, you are a simpleton.

    And yes, I came by that knowledge using my senses and reasoning. This process is called thinking. Maybe you should try it.

    Go on, have a go at thinking about some of the things I have written. And I mean actually trying to understand it rather than ignoring it and then reading a Ray Comfort book to see what what he would say in response.

    Thinking for yourself can be fun!

  18. Chris Woods said:

    Dear Adrian,

    Three days and no reply.

    At first I thought that maybe you were doing exactly what I asked and that you were actually having your own thoughts…

    Then I thought that your avoidant question was simply that. – A question that simply avoided answering anything that had been put to you.

    But I suspect the real reason is that you wear a wristband with ‘WWRS’ written on it. Whenever you talk to anyone, you glance down at your wristband and say to yourself, ‘What Would Ray Say?’
    Now that I have banned you from giving me an answer from Ray Comfort’s ‘Big Book of Apologetic Nonsense’ you are unable to respond.

    I’m sorry. Why not let’s go through the argument anyway.
    Does it go something like… “You used your senses and reasoning to come up with that knowledge claim… But God gave you your senses and reasoning… So God does exist… So your claim must be wrong.”
    Was that it?

    I, and no doubt all the other disillusioned atheists reading this, am dying to hear more of your intelligent and well thought through pearls of wisdom.


    Chris Woods

    PS. If you don’t think Lying for Jesus is still lying, your Moral Compass is well and truly smashed. (Even if it’s an Abstract, Universal, Eternal and Absolute Moral Compass.)

  19. Chris, Close, but no cigar. I love your tease about Ray Comfort, you are a funny guy. I am sorry for not getting back sooner I’ve been cleaning my tennis shoes and making sure the CoolAid is at the perfect mix.

    Let me help. You have employed your senses are reasoning and have made knowledge claims. However, to ‘know’ anything you have to have absolute knowledge or revelation from someone who does.

  20. Chris Woods said:


    Thank you so much for getting back to me.
    I think I finally understand.

    What you are saying is that…

    1) I cannot say that circular reasoning is wrong because I have not received divine revelation and cannot know anything.

    2) Therefore if I did receive revelation I would know whether circular reasoning it is right or wrong.

    2a) Let’s assume that I had received revelation and I knew for sure, (because God told me) that circular reasoning is wrong. Unfortunately this knowledge destroys all your arguments for the existence of God because you used circular reasoning as ‘proof’ against the logical arguments against. Therefore God doesn’t exist. But this is impossible because God existed in order to give me absolute knowledge. Obviously, this scenario can’t happen.

    2b) Therefore, if I did receive revelation it must mean that I would know that circular reasoning is right.

    Or to put it another way, if I accepted Jesus into my life, I would be correct in using arguments that have no basis in logic.

    Or to put it another way, if I was a Christian, I can throw logic out the window and say whatever I like regardless of how nonsensical it is.

    Thank you again for explaining this to me. Your position is now perfectly clear.

    Logically, this same argument applies to my belief that you are a liar. You have proved beyond all doubt that you are a liar but I cannot ‘know’ this, because unlike you, God doesn’t talk to me.


    Chris Woods

    PS. My wife has used her senses and reasoning to come to the conclusion that you have a mental illness and should seek help. Obviously she cannot know this for sure, as like me, she doesn’t have voices in her head telling her what to do, either.

  21. Are you sure you don’t think yourself omniscient for you sure do draw conclusions that sound like you reckon you are. It is my prayer that the day comes when your marriage is blessed with knowing the source of the love that binds it together and that what seems foolishness to you now will become clear. “…in Christ is hidden all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom.” Colossians 2:3

  22. Chris Woods said:

    And it is my hope that should my cognitive faculties ever become so deranged as yours or my moral values ever become so disgustingly low, that my wife will have me sectioned. Or shot.

    What have I said that makes me sound like I think I am omniscient? I have pointed out to you elsewhere that I most certainly do not know everything. Only a total cretin would make such a claim.
    I have extrapolated the logical conclusion to your claim regarding absolute knowledge and circular reasoning. If there is another conclusion, please write it down step by step. (Seriously, please do this for me. Treat this as challenge to, once and for all, silence the stupid atheist.)
    Using logic to draw conclusions does not mean you think you are omniscient. It means that you have the ability to think for yourself. – An ability which you clearly lack.

    I see that you still refuse to comment on your status as a liar. Are you afraid of compounding your lies? It makes no difference to God. Two lies are no worse than one lie. In fact, to use your own sick example, child rape is no worse than one lie, so using your perverse binary ideology, you are no better than a child rapist.

    Carry on ‘Lying for Jesus.’ At least we all know where you stand now.

    “Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort.” – Albus Dumbledore

  23. Is it the standard of morality set by society’s that causes you to determine that lying is wrong?

  24. Chris Woods said:

    I don’t believe that lying is inherently wrong. You do.
    I believe that there are good lies and bad lies.

    This post is 30 comments in. I have answered every one of your questions. You have still not answered any of mine.
    You are exposing yourself as a liar and a fool, unable to refute anything I say.
    Each of your comments is just yet another avoidant question.

    How do you think you look to anyone reading this?
    Do you think you are doing a good job?
    Do you think people will be swayed into believing your illogical brand of Christianity by your inability to reason?
    Are you secretly working for Richard Dawkins?
    Is this a new tactic of Dawkins’ to show that creationists are lying numbskulls?

    There’s another 6 questions you won’t answer.

  25. I am interested in what you believe and from where you get your standard of morality Chris. In your worldview Chris, is it society that determines bad lies in the way that was proposed in an earlier post?

    You are perfectly entertaining Chris, thank you and I am sorry about not responding sooner to your question about whether I am a liar. However, you’ve heard the good person test enough times to know that the Bible teaches that if anyone tells a lie they are a liar. I have told lies therefore I am a liar. The bible tells us that all liars will have there place in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, along with the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, and idolaters. I am a liar, in fact a total wretch and it would be only just and right for me to spend eternity in the conscience torments of hell for my disobedience, mockery of God, and offences against the one who gave me life, the very air that I breath.

    • Chris said:

      Let me get this straight… If you are faced with revealing to Nazi guard the whereabouts of Anne Frank’s family… you would not have lied?

      Your absolutist approach is a little scary and undoubtably leads to methods of justification used for most, if not all, the worlds atrocities.

      • Chris Woods said:

        Hi Chris,

        Thanks for the link. A very sensible article. Funnily enough, I thought of responding to Creditaction with the point in the final paragraph. ie. “Do these jeans make me look fat?” We can only assume that Creditaction responds in the following ways…

        Jo – “Adrian, Do you think I’ve put on weight?”
        Creditaction – “Yes Love. To be honest I’m sure you’ve put on a few pounds. Especially on your belly.”

        Jo – “Adrian, Do you think I’m looking old?”
        Creditaction – “Well Darling, the lines on your face are getting pretty deep these days but luckily because you’ve put on a bit of weight it’s not quite so obvious.”

        Jo – “Adrian, do you still love me as much as when we got married?”
        Creditaction – “Well Sweetheart, when we first got married both our libidos were much stronger and the constant sex reinforced our bond. Now that we only have sex once a month, if that, it’s simply not the same. I do love you, but in a more companionship kind of way. Besides, twenty years ago, you were the the most important thing in my life. Nowadays I love God and my love for you and the boys doesn’t come close to that.”

        Chris Woods

      • I appreciate the helpful article, thank you. It demonstrates a number of things. First that the author has looked at the evidence through his presupposition that his great great great grandfather, crawled out the primordial goo and evolved into him. A human being, a person with a conscience able to to determine between right and wrong. Now, given his worldview he needs an explanation, other than he is made in the image and likeness of God with a conscience, knowing the difference between right and wrong, to explain all the lies he tells and deception he broadcasts. So he attempts convoluted psycho-babble to explain his position and suppress the truth. You really have to be educated to be that stupid.

        Now you Chris appreciate integrity; in fact honesty is the watchman of your success. So we have to ask why would you appreciate such intellectually dishonest material? Again, it’s presuppositions. You are determined to go through life, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary, pretending God isn’t the giver of life, the creator of all things, and the one who gives you the air you breath. It is called the pride of man. You are too proud to look to the Cross of Jesus Christ and bend your knee in humble submission, giving glory to God for offering to save a wretch like you by the precious blood of his son.

        The wages for our sin is death, and without a substitute, without someone to take the punishment you and I deserve there is no hope. No matter how hard you work, the good services you undertake, the kindness you offer to neighbours and family, you cannot earn your redemption. A just God will not reward people for breaking his laws, otherwise he wouldn’t be just he would be corrupt. People do not go to hell for not believing in Jesus they go to hell for their sin.

        There is only one path to salvation and it leads straight to the foot of the Cross at Calvary. That’s where you need to place your faith and trust Chris. Not in man and his feeble theories and psychological analysis, we’ve both heard enough of that nonsense, but in Jesus Christ. Acts 17: Repent and believe the Gospel; in Jesus Christ who is the Truth and the Truth will set you free.

      • Chris said:

        This is diversion away from a position that made your hypothesis look as stupid and as ill informed as it actually was. Not only that I predicted it. I predicted the pernicious tactics that would be used.

        Anyone following will see the blogger using phrases like “goo”, as if it gives something positive to the debate. Those in the falt earth society also find those who demand the earth to be round in such roundly mocking terms.

        This issue with this moronic tactic is that, if you say that any opinion is clouded by worldview, then why are we bothering as this is a simple ‘get-out-clause’ to any thumping you receive at the hands of logic or evidence. Just hit your opponent with the highly patronising, “awww, look at the poor deluded fellow… it’s is funny to see his deluded views affected so badly by his world view.” Of course we actually know that’s exactly what happens to faith based theories. What these dedicated twisted minds would like you to believe, is that by using the “world view defence”, they have created a stalemate which allows them to spout increasing amounts of nonsense unchallenged.

        Of course, it’s true aim was to distraction from the question posed: would you tell the truth if the Nazi guards asked you the whereabouts Anne Frank’s family. Creditaction fails again to deal with the question, instead, once beaten soundly, resorts to these pernicious tactics. Like the flat earth society, and frankly any insane theory out there; it is possible to use the same arguments back and think you have created a draw. Of course no reasonable person would offer the evidence of the flat earth society the same levels of credibility as those demanding the earth is round. The FES would treat all arguments form the “round Earth” corner with utter contempt (regardless of the standard of evidence) claiming any view is simply borne out of world view delusion.

        So lets move on. By first equalising the debat in the manner described, insults fly; non of which are connected to the matter in debate. Look:

        “Now, given his worldview he needs an explanation, other than he is made in the image and likeness of God with a conscience, knowing the difference between right and wrong, to explain all the lies he tells and deception he broadcasts. So he attempts convoluted psycho-babble to explain his position and suppress the truth. You really have to be educated to be that stupid.”

        The “convoluted psycho-babble” the blogger refers to (as if the “You really have to be educated to be that stupid.” doesn’t fall into that category!) widely accepted hypothesis that all humans lie, and do it often. When I say widely, the blogger failed to contradict the hypothesis or the evidence, instead attacking its premise. I think you might be noticing a pattern forming here.

        If the blogger did disagree “So we have to ask why would you appreciate such intellectually dishonest material?”, suggests he might, he gave no reason for it. What do you think we got instead of a rational appreciation of this study? You guess it, a few passages of biblical nonsense.

        What would have helped anyone following this debate, was:

        1. To have heard what Adrian’s views were on the Anne Frank dilemma.

        2. In clear terms why he agreed or disagreed with the idea that we all lie each day.

        3. How that helps him justify his version of the creation myth.

        Lastly, “A just God will not reward people for breaking his laws…” Is this the same just god that turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt?

        or is it the same “just God…” that:

        Instructed Saul through the prophet Samuel to “go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Samuel 15:3-4)

        So in response, we won’t here a rational response to the dilema posed, we will hear more rubbish that stand up to even less scrutiny. We will see more attacking the premise and see the debate shifted to the absoute morals which has been shown to be a circular and ineffective defence by others.

  26. Chris Woods said:


    A simple, ‘Yes I am a liar’ would have done.
    Call it my atheistic cynicism if you like, but the rest of your post sounds like you are playing to the crowd. You are just trying to regain a shred of credibility. I shouldn’t bother. After 30 plus comments, I don’t suppose anyone but me is still reading this nonsense. I still believe your best course of action is to delete the entire post and forget it ever happened.

    Don’t worry about the, ‘eternity in the conscience torments of hell’, though. A quick ‘sorry’ to God and you can look forward to eternity in Heaven again.
    In fact why not commit a few other sins first. Why not blaspheme and have quick sneaky peak at some porn, (you know, like you used to), and then say to sorry to God as a job lot. God doesn’t mind. As long as you are really sorry it’s fine.
    Actually, why don’t you film yourself raping a small child, put it on this blog along with some comments about absolute morality and then say sorry to God. Just be genuinely sorry about it and you’re okay. I’m sure your wife, Jo wouldn’t mind either. Just tell her God’s let you off and she really can’t complain. If you get arrested, you can just tell the judge that morality is not determined by society and you’ll be home in time for supper.

    Am I still ‘perfectly entertaining’?

    Chris Woods

    • Your words show that you do not understand the Gospel. Being sorry for your sins wont save you. The criminal can stand before the judge and say he is sorry and the judge will say, “so you should be, you have broken the law”. You need a substitute, someone to take the punishment you deserve, to pay your fine, then you can be legally released. It is through repentance that you might appropriate forgiveness that comes through the Saviour, who said: “forgive them father for they know not what they do”. If you repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ, you will turn from your sin, have new desires, motives, and purpose to a life that is precious and valued. Feel sorry for your sin by all means, repent and believe the Gospel. Will you sin again, sure, but you’ll hate sin, confess your sin and seek to grow in knowledge and wisdom through reading your Bible every day. That’s the amazing offer that’s available today if you will get on your face in the dirt before God, confess your sins, repent and turn from your old ways. He promises to take your hard rebellious heart and give you a new heart, a heart of flesh full of sincere love for your wife, kids, neighbours and even your enemies. That’s grace: Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see (John Newton).

  27. Chris Woods said:

    You say ‘sorry’ won’t save me but ‘repentance’ will. My dictionary has ‘repentance’ and ‘sorry’ both meaning regret. I may not understand the Gospel but you clearly don’t understand English.

    I see you have given up all hope of rational argument and have fallen back on just telling me to read the Bible. Well done. I literally can’t argue with that as there is no argument there.
    All I can say is… Read Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. It may change your life.

    • Repentance is a translated from a greek word, metanoia. It means to change your mind, to turn from your sins. Repentance is a turning from your former ways, your rebellion against God, your love for your sin and turning from your former ways to face Almighty God. Being sorry and confessing your filth and wretchedness is an aspect, but it is not repentance. It’s like the child who offers an apology but goes straight back to doing what they know is wrong. The BIble says that unrepentant are like a dogs returning to their vomit. Repentance is a gift appropriated through the power of God the Holy Spirit, the the third person of the trinity. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast”. Ephesians 2:,9.

      • Chris said:

        So given that you have successful manipulated this to provide opportunity to give your audience some meaningless non scripture and that you are agreed in the main that repentance is ‘changing your mind’; you are familiarly reticent on the actual subject of changing your mind about the appropriateness of the indefensibly offensive post? Was there a hidden mia culpa?

      • Chris Woods said:

        Oxford English Dictionary
        Sorry – feeling regret or penitence
        Repent – feel or express sincere regret or remorse

        Any normal person might think that these two words were interchangeable, however, as we know, Creditaction is far from normal. So if he wants ‘repent’ to mean ‘change one’s mind and not regret then so be it.

        So has he changed his mind about being a liar?
        He has not removed any of the lies from this post. Furthermore, he has subsequently gone on to lie in other posts. For example, his deliberate misrepresentation by quote-mine of Dr. Hammer, (12th June) and his fictional paleontological evidence, (14th June 14).

        It seems to me that very little repentance has gone on at all. I think perhaps he is a dog returning to his vomit.

      • Chris Woods said:

        By the way…

        We’re still waiting for an answer on the Anne Frank dilemma.
        What would you say to the Nazi Guard?

        Please don’t bother to reply if it’s just another avoidant question.

  28. Chris Woods said:

    You have written elsewhere…

    “Some matters I have raised in this blog have proved contentious.” – The bone of contention is your failure to understand common decency.

    “We have seen this manifested in intolerant and discourteous language.” – I have neither sworn nor taken the Lord’s name in vain.
    Or is this a reference to me repeatedly calling you a liar? I make no apologies for this. Perhaps if you had admitted it 30 comments ago, the conversation wouldn’t have got quite so ‘snarky’.
    Or was it where I insinuated that you heard voices in your head? I assumed God spoke to you directly. If he does not speak to you directly then you are trusting the word of a mere human and we agree that humans lie all the time.
    Was it the child rape? You first brought up the subject of child rape and questioned whether I would find it morally acceptable. All I have done is thrown it back at you.
    As regards the comments about your wife… I have tried to get you to make the connection with regard to involving innocent parties without their permission. You have done this with Adalia Rose. You have suggested that she is a mutant to make your nonsensical point about evolution. I have suggested your wife has put on weight to make the point that lying is not inherently wrong. (At least I didn’t post a video of Jo.) – Do you still not see that if I have been discourteous to Jo, then you have been to Adalia?

    “I care for and appreciate those who contribute” – Good, because I fully intend to keep on contributing every time you misrepresent, lie or are just plain morally corrupt. (As is the case with this post.) As Albus Dumbledore once said, “It is important to fight, and fight again, and keep fighting, for only then can evil be kept at bay, though never quite eradicated.”

    “From these conversations the reader can be determine whose motives are purer.” – We certainly can!

    “some suppress the truth to varying degrees” – Right again!

    “as we have seen… apart from God there is no reason, morality or knowledge.” – Nope. Sorry. Where did we see that? Not in the comments on this post, that’s for sure. In fact, I would say quite the reverse is true. I think you’re telling porky pies again.

    “However, for this blog entry, in a way to calm stormy waters”… – Really? Or is the truth that for the ‘Mutations’ blog entry you have been unable to form any coherent arguments. Even your avoidant questions have been torn apart. Your only course of action was to start a whole new post.

    With regard to the rest of your new post regarding the human eye, I shall leave you with the sage words of Albus Dumbledore. (The words of Dumbledore probably mean nothing to you but it is my belief that if I keep quoting them ad nauseum then it will finally all make sense to you and you will pick up the complete works of J.K Rowling and be saved.)
    “From this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork.”

  29. Young man, have you really made up your minds to this? Have you clearly looked into the fires which are before you, if you persist in despising Christianity? Call to mind the words of David: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1). The fool, and no one but the fool has said it: but he has never proved it! Remember, if there ever was a book which has been proved true from beginning to end, by every kind of evidence, that book is the Bible. It has defied the attacks of all enemies and faultfinders. “The Word of the Lord is flawless” (Psalm 18:30). It has been tested in every way, and the more it has been tested, the more evidently has it been shown to be the very handiwork of God Himself. What will you believe, if you do not believe the Bible? There is no choice but to believe something ridiculous and absurd. Depend on it, no man is so grossly naive as the man who denies the Bible to be the Word of God; and if it be the Word of God, be careful that you don’t despise it. J.C.Ryle

    • Chris said:

      There is good reason to despise Christianity given the imbalance of misery it causes. Note to followers of the techniques used by the blogger – scripture used to divert away from a proper kicking the grounds of logic and reason.

      The scripture readings can you used the other way around. After all you could get no one to agree that it is less likely to be true that the fool is the person that believes in God because of poetic fairy tales? Personally, prefer Albus Dumbledore.

      I find it deeply patronising that a standpoint that is comparable with belief in the Tooth Fairy, be described as “grossly naive”.

      • Chris Woods said:

        Dumbledore is a great man and is in no way fictional. J K Rowling was filled with the spirit of Dumbledore when she wrote the Harry Potter books. So the books are literally the Word of Dumbledore.
        No-one has ever proved that the Harry Potter books aren’t true and they never will. They have been proved true by every kind of evidence. Hogwarts exists outside of time and space. Harry died and rose again. The books are axiomatic. They are the truth and the way.

        It’s never too late to repent your old ways and bend your knee to Dumbledore. As the great man said, “You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be.”

      • Are you saying that it is wrong for me to patronise you?

  30. Chris Woods said:


    Were you patronising me?
    Your last few comments have been as equally inane as all your other comments. Was one of them meant to be patronising?

    Please feel free to be as patronising as you like, just tell me when you are, so I know.

  31. Chris Woods said:

    Then I am truly sorry for getting this wrong.
    By which I mean that I am experiencing regret and remorse and I wish I had never made this mistake.

    By the way…

    We’re still waiting for an answer on the Anne Frank dilemma.
    What would you say to the Nazi Guard?

    Please don’t bother to reply if it’s just another avoidant question.

  32. Great question, As a born again Christian with a new motives and sense of purpose, how can I follow my desire to be obedient to God’s perfect moral law when faced with this kind of dilemma. Well, the Bible, the most reliable book in all of antiquity, is timeless, so it is always timely. From the Old testament we can learn principles that we can apply today. Genesis 14:13 tells us how Abraham divided his forces and attacked at night the enemy holding his nephew Lot hostage. From a military perspective it is apparent that he used deception to defeat his adversary. While Abraham was prone to sin, like any other man, we don’t see the Lord condemning him for this action and can see from other Bible narratives that deception in a time of war is normative. When faced with these situations we take care; seek the full counsel of God, praying, reading His Word, and then making our decisions secure in Almighty God’s providence. We are called to defend and protect the widow, the orphan and the poor but first and foremost to proclaim the Gospel. The answer therefore is that I would gladly deceive the German soldiers in the situation you presented. I also hope that I would take the opportunity to hold up the mirror of God’s Law to them, helping perpetrators of crime to see their sin, the nature of their offences against the God who gave them life, and share the good news that despite their depraved nature and proclivities God sent his son to die on cross to take the punishment they and I deserve. It’s the good news of the Gospel. It’s one thing to die for one you love, but to die to those who hate you, who have the temerity to deny what is plain to them so that they are without excuse, is whole amazing new dimension of love.

  33. Chris Woods said:

    So there are times when the right thing to do is to disobey one of God’s Holy Laws.
    So I could, given the right circumstances, directly contravene one of His Universal and Unchanging Laws, without committing a sin and this would not affect my chances of going to Heaven.

    Is this right?

  34. Absolutely not. That is a misunderstanding of Scripture. The answer to your summation is offered by Jesus who said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5, 17-20. In another place Jesus said temptations to sin are sure to come but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him that a millstone be hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than he should cause one of these little ones to sin. Luke 17:2.

  35. Chris Woods said:

    You said, “I would gladly deceive the German soldiers” but now you say that one must never break a Holy Law.
    So how were you going to deceive the guard? Perform a card trick perhaps?

    Please answer the following question. You may use as many words as you like to answer but the first word must be either ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

    You know where Anne Frank and her family are hiding. A Nazi Guard approaches you and asks, ‘Do you know the whereabouts of the Frank family?’ – What do you reply?…

  36. “Good morning Sir, no I do not know the whereabouts of the Franks, in fact just the other day I noticed them getting on the bus with a ferry ticket to Dover, we haven’t seen any of that family for days and I hope never to see there like around here for the foreseeable future. By the way did you know that according to Paul Davies Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University, “…the amazing thing is not that life on earth is balanced on a knife edge but the entire universe is balanced on a knife edge. It would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were even slightly off…”

    Now from my answer what do you determine about the fate deserved of my soul for my bold faced lie and breaking of the fifth and ninth commandment? Should God, who is a righteous judge, punish me as a lawbreaker? You may use as many words as you like but please answer the question, do I deserve hell, God punishment for lawbreakers (sinners) or heaven, God’s eternal kingdom where there can be no sin in his presence? You may refer to the words of Jesus I provided previously to help with your answer.

  37. Chris Woods said:

    I believe the fate of your soul to be discontinued existence after your death.
    You do not deserve Hell for your breaking of the fifth and ninth commandment. Even if you broke all ten repeatedly, you do not deserve eternal damnation. We have punishments in this life to deal with crime. We do not need further punishments after death.

    I don’t understand your point. Either breaking a commandment can sometimes be the right thing to do or it is never the right thing to do. Which is it?

  38. The Bible explains why you don’t understand, however, you do not submit yourself to the authority of the BIble so there is nothing to profit from you and I studying the Scripture together. You need to repent, believe the Gospel and put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as you Lord and Saviour – then we could undertake a Bible study in order to harmonise these verses, systematically examining the 66 books of the BIble through the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Remember, the Cross is folly to those who are perishing 1 Corinthians 1:18.

  39. Chris Woods said:

    Does the Bible explain that, like Schrödinger’s cat, you exist in two universes at the same time?
    In one universe, it is a sin for you to break a Holy Law and in the other universe, you would lie to the Nazi and your righteous God would welcome you into Heaven.

    This is the only way I can see an answer to this otherwise unsolvable conundrum…

    Either that or you have simply painted yourself into a corner.
    On the one hand, God’s Laws are Universal and Unchanging, and on the other, they must be mutable and subject to interpretation in order for ‘good lies’ to exist.
    The only course of action left to you is to say, “if you believed in God, it would all make sense.”
    It would also probably all make sense to me if I had a frontal lobotomy… performed by a heavy handed surgeon… who’d drank 8 pints of snakebite… and had smoked a big fat spliff.

    The fact is you don’t need to justify anything you do ever. You can be as morally corrupt as you like, even if it breaks one of the Commandments.

    You could murder someone and then say, “it is a sin to kill but the Bible explains why you don’t understand that it was okay.”

    You could even be so morally despicable that, without her permission, you could post a video of a little girl with a cruel genetic disorder. You could put her on display underneath a banner that says ‘mutations’ and then lie about your reasons for doing it.
    You could then spend days lecturing atheists that without your particular God, morality wouldn’t exist. The irony being that you can even justify contradicting your own Christian morals if it suits your purpose.

    Honestly Adrian, I strongly suggest you ban me from your blog as I swear I will tear apart every ridiculous thing you write.
    Anyone with half a brain will see your lame attempts at logic as pitiful. And as for your morals… I have shown your blog to Christian friends of mine and you do not want to know what they think about you. (By the way, these two friends do put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and they have no idea what part of the Bible both accepts and denies the Commandments, Schrödinger style. (Mind you, their brand of Christianity isn’t your brand. They have a moral compass for a start.))

  40. Your response is complete baloney, it ignores my responses and that is because you read my answer through the lens of your presuppositions. I am sure you had a reasonable grade score average, you certainly can be articulate, and I am sure make polite and engaging company. However, the BIble proclaims that you are a fool. This is not to demean or ridicule you but to lovingly call you to confess what you already know in the hope that you will repent. If I said that I didn’t believe in words you wouldn’t get out a dictionary in an effort to prove to me that words exist, you would rightly call me a fool. Likewise, if there was something you did not know out of ignorance I wouldn’t call you a fool but I would show you, help you so you would learn. A fool is someone who ignores something that he already knows.

  41. Chris Woods said:

    “Your response is complete baloney, it ignores my responses” – This is irony, right?

    “that is because you read my answer through the lens of your presuppositions.” – Oddly, my Christian friends, whose presuppositions are very different to mine, agree with me, that you simply don’t make any sense.

    “the Bible proclaims that you are a fool” – Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince says, “Dumbledore is a great wizard. Only a fool would question it.” Do you question it, Adrian? Are you a fool?

    “This is not to demean or ridicule you” – Luckily, as your capacity for intellectual reasoning is so inadequate, I couldn’t possibly be offended. Instead, I pity you.

    “but to lovingly call you to confess what you already know” – Ahh. That old chestnut. If I knew God existed and I will be damned to Hell for my sins, why would I pretend that He didn’t exist? This is very similar to all your other arguments, in that it makes no sense.

    “If I said that I didn’t believe in words you wouldn’t get out a dictionary in an effort to prove to me that words exist, you would rightly call me a fool.” – No I wouldn’t. I really would get out a big, heavy dictionary… and hit you with it.

    “if there was something you did not know out of ignorance” – Is there any other way of ‘not knowing’ other than ignorance?

    “A fool is someone who ignores something that he already knows.” – Whereas an idiot is someone who has been brainwashed to a point beyond reasoning.

  42. Chris Woods said:

    I like your new method of answering questions. Instead of asking an avoidant question, you simply give no answer at all and tell me to read the Bible.

    Why bother to run this blog with your pseudo-scientific posts? Because when it comes down to it, you don’t want to talk about science. You tag half of your posts with the word “logic” but again when it comes to the crunch, logic flies out the window.

    All your posts are the same. They start off with a piece of ‘scientific evidence’ (usually peppered with quote-mined misinformation) that ‘proves’ some part of a literal reading of the Bible. These proofs are then shown what they really are. – Lies and nonsense.

    Recent examples include,

    1) 16th June. It’s impossible for your readers to make an eye from scratch, therefore the Abrahamic God must exist.

    2) 14th June. Despite 34 species of related dinosaurs having feathers, there were no feathers in the fossil of Mononykus… Therefore, evolution is a myth.

    3) 13th February & 12th June. Everyone alive today is related to someone in the past. In your mind, this clearly proves that man was created by God.

    4) 10th & 24th April. If an atheist astronomer, whom you regard as having sub-normal intelligence, makes a calculation regarding molecular biology and says that life arising naturally on Earth is unlikely… it means that there must be a God.

    5) 12th April. If an author of a children’s science book is quote-mined ‘properly’ it makes her sound like she thinks abiogenesis is impossible whereas she was actually explaining that the reverse is true. This obviously disproves the theory entirely.

    6) 28th March. There is one scientist in the world who believes in a different method of cellular activity to any other molecular biologist. Despite the author of this new theory being an evolutionist who believes that life on Earth is measured in billions of years, his views somehow prove that evolution is a myth.

    7) 24th March. A child having a genetic disorder is evidence that evolution is a myth.

    Your conclusions to all these evidences above have been debunked and yet you continue.
    You pretend that science backs up your Holy book but it doesn’t.
    When your ‘scientific’ theories and logic are shown to be lacking, you quote the Bible. – I don’t have any problem with you quoting the Bible – BUT NOT AS A PROOF AGAINST EVOLUTION.
    You can tell me I’m a fool for not believing as much as you like. – BUT NOT AS A PROOF THAT A GOOD LIE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A LIE.

    Why don’t you go back to your sports training posts? You didn’t sound so silly in those.

  43. Chris Woods said:

    So your response to my comment above specifically regarding pseudo-scientific posts was two further pseudo-scientific posts.

    1) Piltdown Man was a fake. Was it? Was it really? I had no idea.
    Piltdown Man is actually a brilliant example of how scientists, examine and re-examine evidence. It shows how scientists are subject to peer review. If corners have been cut or evidence is lacking or even in extreme cases where evidence is faked, other scientists will find it out and expose them.

    2) A quote from Fred Hoyle which you mistakenly believe has something to do with evolution.

    Both posts have been shown as nonsense. And your latest post of an advert for the amazing Ray’s new film is laughable.

    How many times must you be shown as a fool before you stop?
    Do you honestly believe that you are saving souls by showing that creationists either lie, misrepresent or just plain talk twaddle?
    As an atheist, I consider you an absolute gift. There isn’t a week that goes by without you presenting your world-view as foolishness.

    Keep on blogging Adrian.

  44. Chris Woods said:

    Not content with trying, and failing, to ridicule secular scientists, you have now started on Christian ones. (I refer here to your hilarious post on Frank Tipler.)

    Your tactics are becoming increasingly bizarre.

    Either remove this post, ban me or I will continue to comment on each and every stupid, stupid thing you say.

  45. The judgment of a person who values the life of a puppy over a person. Mmm…

  46. Chris Woods said:

    I have made no judgement here. I was asking for your comments on the Ray Comfort clip.
    As for your reference to the word ‘person’, please see my response to you on your PERSON post.

  47. Chris Woods said:

    Just in case that you don’t approve my comment on the PERSON post, and for the benefit of anyone else reading, my comment explains how medical science backs up the legal position of a 24 week fetus NOT being a person.

    Therefore you are wrong in your continued allegations that I value the life of a dog over a person.
    You must have read my comment before posting the above but you just can’t stop Lying for Jesus can you.

    • Chris Woods said:

      Here is my PERSON comment again…

      Is it a person?
      No. The picture is not a person, it is a foetus.

      Is abortion murder?
      No. Murder is the wilful killing of one or more persons. As a foetus is not a person, abortion is not murder.

      Is it fair to compare abortion with the Holocaust?
      No. The Holocaust was the horrific murder of millions of people. These were people who had memories and loved ones. To compare this to the termination of lifeforms that do not even think, is preposterous.

      • Chris Woods said:

        Pt 2 (Without the hyperlinks to the sources in the original comment)

        At 24 weeks, a fetus has not even started to create neural pathways in the cerebral cortex.
        Without these neural pathways, there are no thoughts, memories or feelings. The fetus is surviving using just its brain stem.

        Regardless of the lack of neural pathways, the fetal brain is visibly unformed even at 33 weeks.

        Are you suggesting that Jews have no thoughts or feelings, or that their brains are unformed? If not, then there is no truth in your evil comparison to the Holocaust.

      • Chris Woods said:

        Come on Adrian, are you going to post my comment or not? Am I being censored now?
        Post my comment, along with the links, in order that people can decide for themselves…

        Or can’t you handle the evidence?

  48. Chris Woods said:

    Now that we’ve cleared up that bit of misdirection and ad hominem…
    What do you have to say regarding Ray’s clear case of bearing false witness?

  49. The important question is when you are going to bend your knee and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? for bend the knee you will and confess with your mouth you will, in this life or the next. Bear in mind that you are someone who values the life of a puppy over a person. You are commanded to repent (Acts 17).

    • Chris Woods said:

      Once again, you refuse to even acknowledge the question.


      A foetus is not a person.

  50. It is a logically absurd position to suggest that it is anything other than a person in a mother’s womb. It is one of the issues that shows the veracity of the Bible verse that says: only the fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 14).

  51. Chris Woods said:

    You really aren’t in a position to dictate on what either is or isn’t logical.


  52. I don’t need a position, simply an appeal for those considering the situation to apply the laws of logic that God gave. Those universal, abstract, constants that can work with our conscience to determine right from wrong. In this case the logical law of non-contradiction would apply. It is a question of personhood. If what is in the mother’s womb is a person then abortion is murder. Today is the day of salvation, repent today put your faith and trust in the saviour for God may choose not to give you your next breath let alone tomorrow.

  53. Chris Woods said:

    I know you aren’t going to answer because..
    a) He is lying
    b) You are just as much of a liar as he is.

    Here are just some of the sillier lies you have told recently…

    Pro-choice women are responsible for the banking crisis.

    Charles Darwin is responsible for domestic violence and teenage suicide.

    Karl Marx is responsible for the fact that people ‘celebrate the killing of babies’.’

    And here’s one I just found from your older posts…

    Helen Gurley Brown, former chief of Cosmo is responsible for the murder of Tia Sharpe.

    What next? Richard Dawkins responsible for female genital mutilation?

    Or maybe Professor Stephen Hawking responsible for the great fire of London?

  54. You really should consider starting a religious cult to employ your talent for taking another words and cramming different meaning into them. You are going to die Chris and face judgment. You know God exists, and you have a creation to show you. Putting your trust in JK Rowling, the tooth fairy, elves at the bottom of the garden, of the flying spaghetti monster, the theory of evolution or the idea that nothing+chance+time=everything will not help you when you stand before the God who created you.

    Repent Chris, turn from your sin and put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ who died for your sins, and conquered sin, death and hell by rising again. He was seen by eye witnesses who recorded their experiences and wrote them in a book for you to read. As you said before you may well have a better knowledge of what is in the Bible than me. I am sure with your brilliant mind that is true, however, the demons believe and shudder (James 2:19) )and the Devil knows his Bible as we see when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness.

    As Jesus said to his disciples after his resurrection, recorded in Luke 24:25, o foolish ones and slow of heart to believe…This is heart issue for your Chris. Jesus gets to the heart of the matter and Bible says that only the fool believes in his heart there is no God. You are bound to foolish ideas, philosophies and theories and somewhere buried deep in your conscience you know it. With each passing breath you close with your appointed day of death, it’s on your agenda, and as God hardens your heart he awaits to pass his just, reasonable and loving judgment on your every thought, word and deed.

    You are commanded by God to repent, put your trust and faith in Jesus Christ, only then will the person of the Holy Spirit equip and enable you to understand His Word. Repent Chris while you still have a breath in your body.

  55. Chris Woods said:


    I see that you stopped with the rather ridiculous of habit of re-posting Ray Comfort’s ridiculous ramblings.
    I actually quite liked your last post from Tozer. You credited him both before and after and none of the post contained any lies or misrepresentations about either science or scripture.

    However it has been several months since there has been anything new on thewisethingtodo.
    Whilst I am sure that you haven’t lost your faith, I did wonder whether you had had a rethink regarding some of the things you had written. In particular, I wondered if you might now want to remove this rather nasty post about the unfortunate Adalia Rose Williams. It does neither you nor Christianity any favours. Quite the opposite in fact as it makes you, and by inference, Christians in general seem both callous and unable to reason.

    Yours Hopefully,

    Chris Woods

    • Alalia is an image bearer of the living God, marvellously woven together by God in her mother’s womb. She has equally value, dignity and worth as any other human being. She is infinitely different to the animal kingdom, with a God given conscience like yours and mine. That conscience, along with the laws of God which are written on her heart, means she can know the difference between good and evil. Chris, could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: