//
you're reading...
Biblical authority, Creation/Evolution

Response to angry atheist blogger

Angry-Blogger2

 

According to a popular atheist internet blogger whom I will not name out of respect… the following is what young-earth creationists believe.  His comments in italics, my responses following…

_____________________________

 

– the very bushy ‘tree of life’ put forward by the evolutionary
consensus in the international scientific community is the same thing
as an ‘orchard’ of separate and distinct trees growing alongside one
another as proposed by young Earth creationism.

I wouldn’t say “the same thing”, but much more similar than normally accepted.  From my understanding evolution agrees that different organisms came into being at different times and started their own lineages… so different trees.  Creation would say God originally created these different trees instead of the “they just happened” explanation.  It’s often misunderstood that creationists do believe in a form of evolution, just dispute the lengths to which it extends and the timeframe – that’s really it.

 


– the ‘ice age’ (including any interglacials similar to the one we are
now in, which you must either reject or else say happened during the
one single ‘ice age’ that is all your Biblical timescale can allow for)
is over and done with – ie what we are in now is not an interglacial at
all.

Not sure exactly what you mean by interglacial, but yes we would say instead of several ice ages there was just one singular event that more than likely lasted hundreds of years.  Our opponents will be quick to add that the Bible speaks nothing of this, but yet ignore that we are siding with the science (which they say we don’t do).  It is very obvious that there has been major temperature and environmental factors such as an ice age.  You see, we don’t dispute that – and in fact it makes perfect sense following a catastrophic global flood that would have set up numerous volcanic eruptions all over the planet thus creating a cloud of ash so great that it would cast off much of the sun’s rays thus cooling the planet.  For us, the ice age confirms the flood and would be much stranger if it didn’t happen.  It would not make sense for a creationist to deny the ice age.

 

– when the Bible told us that Jesus would be coming back ‘quickly’ or
‘soon’ it really meant that he would delay for more than another 2,000
years (in a universe which itself by such a time would be just 6,000
years old). 

Well this one’s easy.  You are not thinking eternally.  God always existed before our time, and we will exist forever – therefore more than 2000 years is easily still “quickly” to God.

 


– all the scientists who view the fossil record merely as
demonstrating that many different creatures, a large number which are
now extinct, have lived and died in the history of the Earth are – when
they reach such a conclusion – being wilfully ignorant of the obvious
fact that the fossil record testifies to a recent worldwide, hill-
covering, flood catastrophe as described in the book of Genesis (and
described by ‘creation scientists’).

Yes…. but we also agree that the fossil record records creature who have lived and died and many are extinct now.

 

– all those who challenge young Earth creationism are either
disobedient Christians, pretend Christians and ‘wolves in sheep
clothing’, or ‘atheists’ who wilfully seek to suppress the truth of the
Christian God’s recent creation.

I don’t think I would say “disobedient”.  I would say “inconsistent” in their reasons for believing.  Picking and choosing.  Creationism and atheism are the extreme positions and the only internally consistent viewpoints.  Any others that try to mix elements and thus fold in upon themselves.



– however much or however little physical evidence you can muster to
support your minority viewpoint about the history of the universe and
the planet, you are perfectly entitled to call it ‘science’. 

When it comes to historical science, we all have the exact same evidence – different interpretations based on different starting assumptions we use to interpret the evidence.  It’s not a game of who has more evidence.

– should opponents make detailed claims, or ask complicated and
difficult questions, which might cause some other Biblical creationists
to start to have doubts about their beliefs on origins, those opponents
should be banned permanently from your websites and discussion forum.

I’ve never done this.  I might if someone asked the exact same thing over and over in the light of me already giving a complete answer on the subject.

 


– it is perfectly acceptable to make videos of evolutionists and old
Earth believers which are edited in such a way as to make such
scientists and those who accept their findings appear to be ‘blind
guides’ who are simply following a man-made belief system that is
devoid of any real evidence backing it up (if Ray Comfort’s forthcoming
‘Evolution vs God’ documentary/polemic does such he should indeed be
applauded by Biblical creationists).\

All documentaries on every subject available is labeled with this exact same criticism.  That’s merely the nature of the documentary business.  I have no problem with people throwing this response, but why not go ahead and answer the questions that those in “Evolution vs. God” could not: give actual observed evidence for macro-evolution.  That’s the best comeback anyone could do instead of complain about the editing.

 

– regardless of evidence, any scientific claims which directly
contradict the Bible are false and are lies of Satan.

The Bible is the standard by which we judge and/or filter ALL worldly information because humans are fallible.  We cannot be our own standard.  History is proof of this.  We fail.  It’s what we do.  I feel much more confident relying on a standard of information outside of my own fallible mind.

Advertisements

About Tim

http://www.gracewithsalt.com

Discussion

11 thoughts on “Response to angry atheist blogger

  1. The person you quoted disagreed with you and took issue with your position without insulting or name calling (that I can see) to label him an “angry atheist” simply because it’s a common stereotype is a lot like writing a blog about a “greedy jew” you talked to the other day. It’s unjustified stereotyping.

    Posted by agnophilo | July 12, 2013, 7:04 pm
  2. Regardless it’s still crummy to repeat the stereotype. I get called an “angry atheist” just for being an atheist, no matter how polite or nice I am to people. If a black person I knew loved fried chicken and watermelon I wouldn’t underline the fact.

    Posted by agnophilo | July 12, 2013, 8:01 pm
  3. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And aren’t you a fundamentalist?

    Posted by agnophilo | July 12, 2013, 8:09 pm
    • Yes I am a fundamentalist, but now-a-days that’s a put-down. Why do you care if people call you an “angry atheist”? What is wrong (from your worldview position) with being labeled “angry”?

      Posted by Tim | July 12, 2013, 8:28 pm
  4. What is wrong with being stereotyped? Seriously? And fundamentalist means someone who takes the bible, particularly genesis, literally. It’s not a slur as far as I know.

    Posted by agnophilo | July 12, 2013, 8:30 pm
  5. The angry atheist was full of logical fallacies, including straw man, hasty generalization, unargued philosophical bias and circular reasoning. Just watch, their presuppositions begin with evolution being a fact, and then everything they see “proves” it based on their fundamentally flawed worldview. Further, creationists are “liars” because we “know” that evolution is true…amazing, we’re “Liars for Jesus”, trying to trick people into believing in a holy and righteous God who hates lying! Actually, it’s just an attempt at demonizing. It works to some extent among people who do not have critical thinking skills are are duped by manipulators.

    Posted by Cowboy Bob (@PiltdownSupermn) | July 14, 2013, 12:17 am
  6. Explain what you mean, please, Cowboy Bob.

    Put Up – or Shut Up.

    As I said in a recent email, you are full of hot air. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

    While you are at it, please also answer my question here (at 11.20 pm UK time on 22 May):
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=360
    Alternatively, please deny that ‘Mister Gordons’ is one of you aliases (as others have suggested).

    It is so predictable that when I post specifics, as in the email Tim responds to, you react with yet more empty accusations and bluster.

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | July 14, 2013, 3:47 am

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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: