Fools

cameraImageProxy.mvc

 

Devotees of the religion of evolution would want us to believe that nothing + time + chance = everything in existence. Sir Fred Hoyle would beg them to apply their reason:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.” Sir Fred Hoyle

The truth is that the fool says in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. Psalm 14, The heavens declare the glory of God, they are without excuse, Romans 1.

 

Advertisements
14 comments
  1. Chris Woods said:

    “Devotees of the religion of evolution would want us to believe that nothing + time + chance = everything in existence.”

    1) Evolution is not a religion. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘religion’ as ‘the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”
    But you know this already.

    2) Evolution has nothing at all to do with…
    a) The creation of the universe
    b) The creation of life
    So for the second time in one sentence, you are wrong. Evolution is the theory of how life evolved. As you are permanently confused about this, try this little tip… Try to remember that the first four letters of each word are the same. EVOLution and EVOLved.

    Why do you keep getting these two things wrong?
    Do you believe that if you repeat an untruth often enough it magically becomes true?
    Are deliberately trying to misinform the good people who read your blog?
    Are you suffering from dementia and simply forget what has been explained to you many, many times?
    Maybe you have a mental illness or simply just have a very low IQ.
    Or do you think it Holy to Lie for Jesus?

    Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are scrambling your mind Adrian.
    Turn off The Living Waters and put on the Discovery Channel, you may actually learn something.

  2. The evolutionists I meet certainly demonstrate a faith in their theory that has the appearance of religiosity. I will concede that it is not religion in the way that we would normally see a conventional religion. I will also recognise that you only claim to believe in the theory that we crawled from the primordial goo and over the intervening years have evolved into the human being with a conscience that is typing away at that keyboard with no idea where matter came from but you know it wasn’t Almighty God who sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. I also remember that you accepted you could be wrong about everything you know, accept for the stuff which you are certain about but then you could be wrong about that. And you think my mind is scrambled? But then you could be wrong about that. You Sir, need to repent.

  3. Chris Woods said:

    It is not religion in the way that we would normally see a conventional religion because IT IS NOT A RELIGION!
    My Catholic friend would be deeply offended if I told him his religion was Evolution and not Catholicism.

    With regard to your second point that I ‘only claim to believe in the theory…’ what are you saying? That because I only claim to believe in evolution that maybe, perhaps, really I don’t? Whether I believe it or not, (and I do) has no bearing on the incontestable truth of the theory.

    And your third, garbled, point shows that you still do not understand what acceptance of personal fallibility means.

    I believe that polars bears are white. In fact I am certain of it.
    However there is the possibility that in actual fact they are all scarlet.
    All the TV programs I’ve seen have been faked. That for some peculiar reason, scientists do not want to tell us the truth and all the polar bears on TV have been digitally doctored to appear white.
    The one I saw in a zoo could have been bleached.
    I don’t deny the possibility that I could have been hypnotised so that every time I see a scarlet bear on snow, in my mind I see it as white.
    It’s possible that I have an unknown condition of the retina which means that I always see a certain shade of red as white.

    All of the above are possible, however I consider them so unlikely that I believe that the whiteness of polar bears has been established beyond reasonable doubt. I still admit though, that I am not omniscient, therefore I can be wrong.

    Now you are either omniscient or you too can be wrong. Are you omniscient Adrian? Either you know as much as God or you could be wrong. Which is it?

  4. I don’t deny you have knowledge, you do, that’s the point. To know anything you need omniscience or revelation from someone who has. You know that God exists for it plain for through his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, which have been clearly perceived, however, you suppress the truth in your unrighteousness. (Romans 1).

  5. Chris Woods said:

    If you take the word ‘know’ to mean absolute 100% to the nth decimal degree, then you are correct that one must have omniscience to know anything at all.
    But you are categorically wrong about receiving revelation from someone omniscient being the same as actually being omniscient.
    If you have only received revelation then it is second-hand information and you have no way of verifying its truth.

    Furthermore, before God entered your life you were by definition, fallible and therefore could be incorrect in thinking that He ever actually entered your life at all. The fact that you feel that you know it to be true is irrelevant as you admit that at the time you were fallible.
    The man in the asylum believing he is Napoleon, knows he is Napoleon.

    So, do you know as much as God or could you be wrong?

  6. Chris Woods said:

    By the way, just so that you can get a little perspective on it…

    If you were going through a mid-life crisis at the time of your finding God, you would be especially vulnerable and fallible.

    Were you experiencing any of the following at the time…

    1) Redundancy from a job. (Especially if it was a life-long career.)
    2) Death of a parent.
    3) Were you aged between 40 and 45?
    4) Loss of libido
    5) Marital problems
    6) Did you feel the need to get away or ‘find yourself’?

    If you answer ‘Yes’ to three or more, you were almost certainly in crisis. This would have affected your judgement and any decisions taken then, need to be reflected upon at a later date.

    Hopefully none of the above applies to you and you really are omniscient.

  7. Did you apply your senses and reasoning to reach this understanding? This is perplexing when you have already said you might be wrong about everything you know. You have a contradictory and confusing narrative when you keep making these knowledge claims. You can know nothing apart from God, it is absurd to claim otherwise, but then your endeavours to rationalise someone trust in faith in the redeeming blood of Christ with such absurdity demonstrates that. I really do thank you for your commentary for your provide readers a demonstration of the futility of the atheistic position. Logic, science and most of all Scripture declare the glory of God. Even the greeks knew that there had to be an uncaused cause, and they didn’t have the first law of thermodynamics. This is basic logic. Logic, math, science and unchanging moral laws all demonstrate what you know already. If you die in your sins today you will get what you rightly and justly deserve which is hell, a place of eternal, conscience torment, unimaginable horrors and suffering; does that not concern you?

  8. Chris Woods said:

    What knowledge claims have I made?

    That you weren’t fallible before you found God? – Surely you aren’t questioning this?
    That receiving revelation from someone omniscient isn’t the same as actually being omniscient? – These are clearly two different concepts.
    That if you aren’t omniscient then by definition, you do not know everything and therefore must be capable of being wrong? – Are you suggesting this is incorrect?
    That men experiencing a mid-life crisis can make poor judgements? – This can’t be up for debate. People in crises often make terrible decisions.
    That the man in the asylum believing he is Napoleon, knows he is Napoleon? – Again, this is unquestionable. From his point of view, he is absolutely 100% certain.

    Exactly where have I been contradictory? Explain and we’ll go through it together slowly.

    As for your comment, ‘did you apply your senses and reasoning to reach this understanding?’ the answer to this, is the same as every time you ask me. ie. Yes.
    At no point will I ever answer you without using my senses and reasoning.
    By the way, normal people call ‘using their senses and reasoning’ thinking.

  9. I’m sorry we are getting too far ahead for you, you need time to reflection and to recap. Look I guess you claim to be an atheist or an agnostic, there really is no such person. I will answer how I know Almighty God, it is not because of mid life crisis or any other of the myriad ways the secular worldview seeks to rationalise the issue, I have certainty about the reality, and presence of the God who created you and me and holds the universe in the span of his hands (Isaiah 40:12)for the same reason as you do.

  10. Chris Woods said:

    “I’m sorry we are getting too far ahead for you,” – Are you referring to my question regarding knowledge claims or my question regarding contradictions? Either way, does that mean that you are talking about knowledge claims and contradictions that I haven’t made yet? And if not, would you be so kind as to answer my questions. ie. What knowledge claims and what contradictions?

    As for your second point…
    I know that I am Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France.
    Furthermore, I have certainty about this for the same reason that you know that I am Napoleon.
    You may claim to deny it but I know that in your heart, you know I am Napoleon.

  11. It matters not what you believe, people believe all kinds of nonsense, what matter is that you believe what is true.

  12. Chris Woods said:

    It matters not what you believe, people believe all kinds of nonsense, what matters is that you believe what is true.

    And I really am Napoleon Bonaparte.
    What nonsense do you believe?

    What knowledge claims have I made?

    Exactly where have I been contradictory?

  13. Chris Woods said:

    You said…
    “You have a contradictory and confusing narrative when you keep making these knowledge claims.”

    So what are the knowledge claims I keep making and how are they contradictory and confusing?

    I put it to you, that your state of confusion is more to do with the logical and moral paradoxes that you find yourself in, rather than my sentence construction.

    Either that or you are not confused and are just using lies to misdirect.

  14. Chris Woods said:

    What knowledge claims have I made?

    Exactly where have I been contradictory?

    Why won’t you answer me?

    In fact, why have you not answered a single question of mine ever?

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

%d bloggers like this: