Dawkin’s Dirty Little Secret

Advertisements
24 comments
  1. Chris said:

    I don’t get it? The efforts Christian apologists will go to to justify their parochial medieval bolocks is quite astounding.

    If I was looking for a scientific word, I think I’d go for bolocks. Seriously, is the best your clowns can come up with?

  2. Chris Woods said:

    Creditaction – What is your point?

  3. I see we have some presuppositions raising their hackles. To suppose that this is parochial medieval nonsense demonstrates an ignorance of Christian church history and the Bible that only a child of post modernism would breed. It has taken little more that 100 years for marxist ideology to embed itself in the education system to turn a degree of mutual respect for different worldviews into arrogance. Lenin said give me the four year old and I will give you a socialist republic in a generation. We have a atheistic, liberal socialist, humanistic culture that says anyone who thinks different to our great enlightened minds is a medieval knucklehead and a dangerous bigot. It is the height of ignorance. It results in politicians facing the cameras, after two muslims decapitate a man on a London Street in obedience to the Koran, saying this is nothing to do with Islam. These are the same people who celebrate the killing of babies in the womb as liberating for women. Please join the dots. The consequences are readily apparent through our news media, the state of relationships and global objectification and abuse of women. Morning after pills for children below the age of consent without the knowledge of their parents. Please think about this and repent before your life is taken from you too.

  4. Chris Woods said:

    Creditaction, you said, “Morning after pills for children below the age of consent” – This sounds like you are making a morality judgement based on our society’s laws. But you have previously likened thinking like this to Nazi Germany.

    Surely you should be getting your morals from the Bible, not society.

    The normal age of marriage for Jewish girls in biblical times was 12 or 13. Mary was no more than 14 when Jesus was born, so God impregnated her at around the age of 13. Surely there is an historical and biblical case for age of consent to be no more than 13?

  5. Chris Woods said:

    Creditaction,

    You talked about Marx and Lenin causing the modern day, ‘state of relationships and global objectification and abuse of women.’

    Well I agree with you. It’s high time we got back to marrying off our twelve year old daughters in exchange for money. That would stop all this objectification and abuse of women.

  6. Chris Woods said:

    Well?
    What do you say?
    Do you think we should follow the biblical example and impregnate our children at 13 without their permission?
    Or should we agree with society and follow the Marxist/Leninist principle and maybe, perhaps wait a few years?

    • An atheist said: “The universe may have always existed. It does not need a Creator.”

      That is scientifically impossible, because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything is corrupting. If the universe was eternal it would have turned to dust billions upon billions of years ago. Only God is eternal because He is not physical. He is Spirit

      • Chris Woods said:

        Another word for word cut and paste from Ray Comfort’s Facebook page.

  7. Mmm… As the BIble says, “the fool says in his heart there is no God. You Chris are several heart beats closer to death than when you started reading this post. Each breath you have is a gift from the God who knitted you together in your mother’s womb and in whose image you are created. Turn from you sin now while there is breath in your body, repent and put your faith and trust in the Saviour Jesus Christ, it is your only hope.

    You seem so well read, articulate and intelligent and I am sure you have come to your convictions about me and God by applying that fine intellect of your. However, you know that your mind does nothing apart from your heart. It is your love of sin that is keeping you from humbling yourself before God in repentance and glad submission. How else would you follow these ideas that suppose nothing+time+chance=everything. I am sure you have a quite brilliant mind but you are educated beyond your intelligence and unwilling to see those things all around you which is God’s amazing creation.

    I have a friend who was a mining engineer from many years. He would routinely blow things up. Never in the years he was doing this did he witness anything but chaos as a result of bangs. In fact, if he ever found so much as a pile of rocks at the coalface he knew that someone had been there before him. The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. (Psalm 19:1). It is appointed once for a man to die and after that judgment. (Hebrews 9:27)

  8. Chris Woods said:

    I’m not sure what question you think you’ve answered but it certainly wasn’t the question I asked.
    But don’t worry, I’ll just add this question to my list of questions that Creditaction can’t answer.

    Here’s another one then…
    You say that I am made in God’s image and was fearfully knit in my mother’s womb. But why did he make my embryo with a tail and then remove it before birth?
    (All human embryos also go through a stage in which they have tails that are later absorbed. But sometimes a person is born with an actual tail.)

    And here’s a related question…
    Why does he make dolphin embryos with four limbs and then remove the back two before birth?
    (All dolphin embryos pass through a stage in which they have hind limbs that disappear as the embryo develops.)

    To the evolutionist, these embryonic tails and extra limbs are to be expected but I just wondered if evolution really is the fairy tale that you maintain, why does God put them there only to remove them?

  9. Chris Woods said:

    I’m not sure what question you think you’ve answered but it certainly wasn’t the question I asked.
    But don’t worry, I’ll just add this question to my list of questions that Creditaction can’t answer.

    Here’s another one then…
    You say that I am made in God’s image and was fearfully knit in my mother’s womb. But why did he make my embryo with a tail and then remove it before birth?
    (All human embryos also go through a stage in which they have tails that are later absorbed. But sometimes a person is born with an actual tail.)

    And here’s a related question…
    Why does he make dolphin embryos with four limbs and then remove the back two before birth?
    (All dolphin embryos pass through a stage in which they have hind limbs that disappear as the embryo develops.)

    To the evolutionist, these embryonic tails and extra limbs are to be expected but I just wondered if evolution is the fairy tale that you maintain, why does God put them there only to remove them?

    • Wow, I mean thanks wow. So dolphins as embryos have two extra limbs. This means that dolphins at one time were a different kind of animal running around on the land. However, they lived by the sea and did a lot of paddling and over millions of years they lost the use of their legs so thought they had better swim out to sea and then they developed…oh boy….and you see they are so intelligent because they were once on the land where you need to be cleverer… and you believe this stuff. So which evolved first the ability to breath underwater for up to 30 minutes or the lungs and breathing systems to do that? And I guess the tail on the person on the womb, is further proof that you are a monkey’s uncle, who was once a reptile, after crawling out of the sea as a fish. Talk about tall tails! Get it?

      Look, God did design us just as he wanted. The fact that we have design is absolute proof there is a designer, just as you know the computer is absolute proof there is a computer designer. You have never met the computer designer however, you don’t need to you have the computer.

      Evolutionists typically cite examples of natural selection and claim that it’s evidence of evolution. But natural selection, or adaptation, is simply variations within a kind and has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Though it’s sometimes known as microevolution, the fact is that nothing actually evolves during “microevolution.”

      For example, look at the variety within the dog family, or kind— from the tiny Chihuahua to the huge Great Dane. They have incredible differences, but they are still dogs. Within the horse kind are the donkey, zebra, draft horse, and the dwarf pony.
      Despite their distinctions, all are horses. There are huge variations within humankind, from Asian to African to Aboriginal to Caucasian. But we are all within the same species, Homo sapiens.

      Darwin’s theory of evolution, however, is based on the concept of macroevolution. This is the inference that small variations within a kind can accumulate and lead to large changes over long periods of time. One kind of creature (such as a reptile) will supposedly become another kind of creature (such as a bird), requiring the creation of entirely new features and body types.

      As Stephen J. Gould said, “No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.”

      You have put your faith and trust in the nonsensical religion of evolution. You need to repent Chris and turn to the God you know exists. Your conscience is telling you that you will one day face him to give an account, and it’s currently not looking good for you. I’d hate for you to die in your sins and go to hell Chris. Eternity is a long time to spend reflecting on how your pride filled heart kept you from knowing the Lord Jesus who died to forgive your sins and conquered death by rising on the third day. Repent Chris for today is the day of salvation. God promises to save you.

  10. Chris Woods said:

    Not only have you failed to answer either of my two questions, you have (once again) shown your total misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

    Please define ‘kind’.
    As you say, all dogs are one kind.
    But what about all cats? ie lions, tigers and tabbies.
    What about all horses? And I mean ALL horses, including the extinct 3 toed kinds.
    What about all great apes? Are chimps the same kind as gorillas and orangutans?
    Are all monkeys the same kind? From the tiny pygmy marmoset to the huge blue-arsed mandrill?
    Are all sharks the same kind? (Are rays counted as sharks?)
    What about birds? Are sparrows the same kind as finches? Are arctic terns the same kind as the similar (both looking and genetically) lapwing? Are penguins the same kind as ostriches?
    What about beetles? Are ladybirds the same kind as stag beetles?
    Are damselflies the same kind as dragonflies? Horseflies the same as fruit flies?
    Are wasps the same as kind as bees?
    Were fully beaked Ornithomimosaurs the same kind of dinosaur as the fully toothed Ornithomimosaurs which were the same kind as the half-beaked, half-toothed Ornithomimosaurs?
    Are dolphins the same kind as killer whales? There is very little difference other size and colouring.

  11. Chris Woods said:

    Are killer whales the same kind as blue whales?
    Are sheep the same kind as goats?
    Are goats the same kind as deer? (They have all the same features. Hooves, horns etc,)
    Are deer the same kind as gazelles?
    Are gazelles the same kind as giraffes?
    Are tarantulas the same kind as money spiders?
    Are money spiders the same kind as red mites? (Same morphology.)
    Are mites the same kind as ticks?
    Are prawns the same kind as crayfish?
    Are crayfish the same kind as lobsters?
    Are lobsters the same kind as crabs?
    Are mice the same kind as rats?
    Are rats the same kind as gerbils?
    Are Komodo dragons the same kind as geckos?
    Are geckos the same kind as chameleons?

  12. Chris Woods said:

    ‘Kind’ is definitely a larger group than ‘species’ but unless you can define where one kind ends and another starts, I don’t see how you can talk about the difference between macro and micro evolution.

    Your post seems to suggest that ‘lizard’ is one kind and ‘bird’ is another. So are all lizards one kind and all birds another?

    Please define kinds.

  13. Chris Woods said:

    Are foxes the same kind as dogs?
    Are hares the same kind as rabbits? (Basically the same creature except one is smaller and has shorter limbs and ears.)
    Are rabbits the same kind as guinea pigs? (Basically the same creature except one is smaller and has shorter limbs and ears.)
    Are kestrels the same kind as hawks, the same kind as eagles, the same kind as condors, the same kind as vultures?
    Are poisonous tree frogs the same kind as non poisonous tree frogs? (These are identical groups of creatures with the exception that one group has specialised poison producing glands on its back.)
    Are non poisonous tree frogs the same kind as our native British frogs?
    Are frogs the same kind as toads?

    The Bible also speaks of ‘kinds’ of plant. The plant kingdom too must evolve due to selection. (Even Ray knows this after his unfortunate incident with the banana.)
    There are over 25000 species of orchid. Are all orchids the same kind? The eerily beautiful hammer orchid has petals that resemble the female Thynnid wasp in order to attract the male wasp to aid pollination. Did these petals evolve through natural selection or did God actually create 25000 different ‘kinds’ of orchid?

    Unless you can define ‘kind’ there is no macro or micro evolution, there is just evolution.
    So please either define ‘kind’ or agree to the fact of evolution

  14. The answer you’ll find above. From dingo to Dalmatian is a kind of dog. We know that none life cannot come from non-life. That during mutations no new information is added. We know that the pictures we see of apes on four legs gradually becoming upright to mankind is make believe, an artists impression, as well as Lucy being nothing more than the result of another over imaginative artist working on the remains of a chimpanzee! Your God given conscience tell you Chris that you are a sinner, but your heart is deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). If you repent, turn from your sin. and put your trust in Jesus Christ as his Saviour he will show you the purpose and meaning to your life. Repent and believe the Gospel.

  15. Chris Woods said:

    KINDS

    I shall ignore your comment regarding, ‘life cannot come from non-life’ because as you know, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN!
    I shall also ignore the vast majority of the rest of your post as it has nothing at all to do with my question.

    I will however address your comment, ‘The answer you’ll find above.’
    Well the closest I can find to an answer above is the following passage of yours…

    ‘For example, look at the variety within the dog family, or kind— from the tiny Chihuahua to the huge Great Dane. They have incredible differences, but they are still dogs. Within the horse kind are the donkey, zebra, draft horse, and the dwarf pony.
    Despite their distinctions, all are horses. There are huge variations within humankind, from Asian to African to Aboriginal to Caucasian. But we are all within the same species, Homo sapiens.’

    So you seem to have defined dog kind, horse kind and human kind. Unfortunately, merely naming a few examples is a long way off being a definition.

  16. Chris Woods said:

    DOGS

    Let’s look at dog kind more closely.

    Is dog kind all canines? (ie. Directly related to wolves). Or is dog kind all Canids? (ie. All Canines and Vulpines, (dogs and foxes)).

    So is a fox of the dog kind?
    If your answer is, ‘no, foxes are of the fox kind’, then what do you think about the crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous). Although we call it a fox, it is not a true fox. It is in fact a perfect living example of an animal that is physiologically exactly halfway between foxes and dogs. Cerdocyon comes from the Greek words kerdo (meaning fox) and cyon (dog).
    So is the crab eating fox, a doggy-looking fox or a foxy-looking dog? Or did God create a third kind that was entirely coincidentally exactly halfway between foxes and dogs?

    If however foxes are actually part of dog kind, you should know that there is a third type of Canid called the Basal Canids. There are only 2 species of Basal Canid, one of which is known as the raccoon dog? This is a Canid that science classes as a fox and yet looks far more like a raccoon than either a fox or a dog.
    Is the raccoon dog, a dog?
    What about the extinct Canids such as the 66 species of Borophaginae?
    These were very similar to modern dogs but had 5 toes on the hind legs instead of 4.

    The Canids are actually a sub group of a larger group of carnivores called Caniformia.
    Unlike the cat-like carnivores (Feliformia) Caniformia have long snouts, more teeth, non-retractile claws and are omnivorous as opposed to the cats who are 100% carnivorous
    Examples of Caniformia include all Canids (ie. dogs, foxes and basal canids), bears, red pandas, raccoons, skunks and weasels.
    It is easy to see similarities in all these creatures. In fact, it would be very difficult for a non expert to correctly identify them from their skeletons. It is also easy to see the transitional elements between them. From the 5 toes of most Caniformia to the 4 front, 5 back toed Borophaginae to the 4 front and 4 back of modern Canids. (Although even modern dogs possess a fifth dew claw on their front (and sometimes hind) legs.

    Can you please answer the above question regarding foxes, and the other species I have mentioned, and then, more importantly, if any are not dog kind, please explain why?

  17. Chris Woods said:

    HORSES AND HUMANS

    Once you have accurately defined what makes a dog a dog, we can move onto horse kind. (I am interested in particular about the many extinct species of equus, including the three toed horses and also other tri-ungulates.) Then, once we have firmly established horse kind, we can deal with human kind and discover which of the following list of hominids you believe to be humans and which aren’t.
    They are listed chronologically (most recent first.)

    Red Deer Cave People
    Denisova Hominin
    Homo Floresiensis
    Homo Sapiens Sapiens
    Homo Sapiens (Cro-Magnon)
    Homo Sapiens Idaltu
    Homo Neanderthalensis
    Homo Rhodesiensis
    Homo Heidelbergensis
    Homo antecessor
    Homo Cepranensis
    Homo Erectus
    Homo Georgicus
    Homo Ergaster
    Homo Rudolfensis
    Homo Habilis
    Homo Gautengensis

    Are all these homos humankind?

  18. Chris Woods said:

    I’m sorry. I’m getting ahead of myself. Please just answer the following two simple questions…

    Is a fox of the dog kind?
    And if not, why not?

  19. Chris Woods said:

    No need to answer the above.

    Ray Comfort has posted this very day that the definition of ‘Kind’ is the scientific term ‘Family’. Therefore all Canids are Dogs.
    So Dog Kind not only includes the 5 toed Borophaginae but also the Hesperocyons.

    Evolulutionary biologists class the Hespercyons as the earliest of the Canids to evolve since the Caniformia-Feliformia (Dog-Cat) split 42 million years ago. Its morphology really does mark it as an evolutionary transitionary fossil between Cats and Dogs.

    Here’s what Wikipedia says about it…
    “This early, 80 cm (2 ft 8 in) long canine looked more like a civet or a small raccoon than a canine. Its body and tail were long and flexible, while its limbs were weak and short. Still, the build of its ossicles and distribution of its teeth showed it was a canid.”

    So there you have it. According to Ray, the Hespercyon is not a transitionary fossil at all but a dog. A dog that entirely coincidentally looks like cat-racoon hybrid with dog’s teeth.

    I shall leave it there for now and wait for your response… Then we can talk about 3 and 4 toed fox sized Equidae that belong to the Horse Family.

  20. Chris Woods said:

    Am I to understand from your silence that you do not wish to discuss either macro or micro evolution?

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: