AdamAndEveIt.info

How did Richard Dawkins evolve his yellow streak?

samchapman — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:17:46 +0000

Any fans of Monty Python may remember Brave Sir Robin, who “bravely ran away”. Well, it’s not just for fictional knights, but also over-indulged atheists. Richard Dawkins was a no show at last night’s debating opportunity at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford, having penned a snooty note in the Guardian all about how William Lane-Craig wasn’t good enough to debate him, whether this is measured by academic repute, or by moral standing. His latest beef with the man he refuses to debate is that he doesn’t like him defending God having lots of people killed in the Old Testament. Should have been an easy win for Dawkins then, except for his own rejection of objective morality and acceptance of infanticide, which kinds of limits how much he can clutch at that particular straw.
When Dawkins published ‘The God Delusion’ I made sure I was familiar with it, even getting his audio narration so I wouldn’t miss any intonation that might help, but it was such a disappointment. It is not even competent atheism. It is just polemic, and having some familiarity with his would-be opponent’s work, which is very competent philosophy and theology, I can see why Dawkins was running scared.
It’s been a bad few years for atheism. Apart from all the bravado of the new atheists:- Dawkins doing such a bad job on his book; being seen to lose some arguments and run away from others; and their loss of the 20th Century’s top atheist philosopher, Professor Anthony Flew, when he came to the view that there probably was a God after all. All in all, not good, and so I’m charitably linking this video made by an atheist, which shows that even he doesn’t believe Dawkins any more.

Theology Matters

samchapman — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:26:58 +0000

Will you do a moral 180 in the next 30 minutes?

samchapman — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:08:24 +0000

Watch this video and see if your worldview survives the 180 test…

If you are like-minded – why not accept this free invite to use Google+

samchapman — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:48:31 +0000

You can be at the cutting edge of social networking. Forget Facebook and Twitter – I have invites for the beta test of Google+, the new social network from the world’s biggest search engine that allows you to be selective about who you share your information with, allows you to set up ‘hangouts’ where you can have video chats with mates who happen to be online at the same time, and much more. Click here for your invite (you’ll need to create a Google ID if you don’t have one) – and please don’t wait too long, or sign up if you’re not going to use them, as invites are in short supply at the moment.

Objections Christians Have to Polygamy 2) The ‘One Flesh’ Gambit

samchapman — Sun, 15 May 2011 22:39:27 +0000

We now have the second in our series of presentations on Objections Christians have to Polygamy. This addresses the ‘One Flesh’ gambit and lasts less than 5 minutes.

Here are the links for YouTube and the HD version on Vimeo. If you like them, tell your friends. The Vimeo version can be played directly below.

Objections Christians Have To Polygamy 2) The ‘One Flesh’ Gambit from AdamAndEveIt.info on Vimeo.

Objections Christians Have to Polygamy 1) The Adam and Eve Defence – video links

samchapman — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:50:21 +0000

We now have a full set of video links for the first in our series of presentations examining objections Christians have to polygamy. The first is the Adam and Eve Defence, and lasts less than 5 minutes.

Here are the links for YouTube and the HD version on Vimeo. If you like them, don’t forget to tell your friends/social networks, and it will encourage us to produce more.

Vimeo HD movie for Christian Objections to Polygamy 1) The Adam and Eve Defence

samchapman — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:09:30 +0000

Objections Christians Have To Polygamy 1) The Adam and Eve Defence from AdamAndEveIt.info on Vimeo.

Objections Christians Have to Polygamy – 1) The Adam And Eve Defence

samchapman — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:41:21 +0000

Evolution as Bad Science – 11) And finally….

samchapman — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:26:20 +0000

Let’s finish with what eminent evolutionist Steven Jay Gould called the trade secret of paleontology. The key word in the term “missing link” is missing. If evolution were true we would see transitional forms in the fossil record, something on its way to being something else. But with all the furore and clamour for publicity, not a single one has ever been found. Bill Bryson’s “Brief History of Everything” admits that all the bones that exist that are supposed to be ancestors of man would fit in a family car. And there are no transitional fossils between them, and no evidence that they really were anyone’s grand-daddy. Charles Darwin openly worried about the lack of missing links in the fossil record. He thought it was an argument against his theory, but put the problem off till the future, hoping that generations of fossil-hunters would find one for him. But there’s been nothing, nada, zilch. It just didn’t happen.

Some folk make a career out of evolution. They give speeches and sell books knocking the idea that God made us, and make a living out of making a monkey out of you. The BBC and the Discovery Channel help them along with the approach that blind repetition will make people believe them, and sadly, for the most part, that is what happens. But it doesn’t matter how many people believe it or how often they repeat it- if it didn’t happen, it didn’t happen.

Evolution’s success as a theory is dependent on the fact that it meets a very specific demand – the demand for some reason to reject God, so that we can reject the requirements he places on us. People don’t take heroin because it’s good for them – they take it because they like how it makes them feel. It’s the same with evolution – it will give you “the pleasures of sin for a season” – but ultimately it screws you up, and ignores the reality of a Creator who made us all, and who sent his Son to die for us, and to defeat death so that we can have forgiveness through him – if we’re willing to accept him as our Lord.

Evolution as Bad Science – 10) Living Fossils

samchapman — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:37:06 +0000

No, not members of the House of Lords, but those rather embarrassing little creatures that ain’t when they should be. Now, as you and I both know, one of the key elements of the fossil Job Description is ‘being dead’. Go, climb a mountain, find a rock, split it open with a hammer, find something that looks like a sea creature, and while you consider whether this is evidence of whether the world was once covered by a global flood, like it says in Genesis, also take time to notice that this creature is an ex-creature. It is no-more. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. It is dead. Yet everything from sharks to Gingko plants have been called “living fossils” – and why? – because they are still alive, yet we find fossils of the same types of creature in rocks that evolutionists claim are think-of-a-number hundred million years old. Which becomes a worry once you work out one of the main ways biologists and geologists date rocks. The biologists date the fossils from the sorts of rocks they find them in – they trust the geologists. The geologists date the rocks from the sort of fossils found in them – they trust the biologists. And this is one big circular argument, just waiting to be punctured – except that it already has been, by the “living fossils”. You see, if the geologists are right, then the shark has been swimming around for 75 million years and hasn’t changed a bit – your Gingko plant has lasted even longer, and the last century’s chief candidate for “fish that walked”, the allegedly 300-million-year-old Coelacanth, turned up in the Indian Ocean in the 1940′s (oh and by the way, didn’t have legs, but fins as it turned out, and didn’t walk on to a beach, it’s a deep sea fish – bad luck chaps! Guess again!). This is a problem for evolution – 300 million years, and nothing happened – not one little change – and yet the dinosaurs are supposed to have risen and fallen, followed by me and thee in that time. One biography of early long-age theorist James Hutton is entitled “The Man Who Found Time”. Evolution needs to invent lots and lots of time in which things can happen – the more the better – just add time, and maybe people will believe that what is impossible will surely happen if you just wait long enough. But time isn’t just a place where you can hide all the evidence you mysteriously haven’t found yet – it is the enemy of evolution, allowing for more decay and a greater genetic burden. However long you’ve got, it still doesn’t work. And as for the 300 million years? – Well, when Mount Saint Helens blew its top in 1980, one scamp by the name of Dr. Steve Austin waited for the lava to cool, took a sample and sent it off to the lab for dating. The lab said it formed 300 million years ago – it wasn’t even 3 years old – it formed on camera in front of the entire world. Radiometric dating methods assume too much to be reliable.