That debilitating disease - atheist darwinism: What say you?

[BobRyan]

If the "something else they do" is an untruth that hinders our cause, that should be opposed. Blaming everything on atheism as he does is totally false, as all have sinned. Instead of preaching the Gospel that all have sinned, but christ came to redeem all, they are preaching some form of "We're good, those people over there are bad" (whether it's ideological, racial, political, moral, etc)

The idea that atheism inserted into Christianity "should not be pointed out" makes no sense.

The fact that even the FOUNDER of Darwinism ADMITS to this principle -- while some of those inside Christianity seek to infect the body of Christianity with this while telling us to turn a blind eye to it - only compounds the blame for those who seek to aid them in doing it.

Instead of working so hard to cover it up - why not expose it??

Atheists themselves ADMIT to the war between Christianity and atheist darwinism.

DARWIN admits to the fact that THIS caused HIM to turn from Christianity.

A host of Christian leaders admit that this is in fact the case

What more glaring red sign do we need?

As the atheist darwinist devotees state clearly on this thread - they are almost never opposed in this mission -- and when we see an objection raised to their plan -- you "object"???

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry, Eric, if you are not a member of the seventh day adventist cult, you must be an atheist

Pointless vaccuous post after pointless vaccuous post by the devotees to atheist darwinism and even though the post is made here saying to OBSERVE the empty factless positions taken by believers in atheist darwinism when the light is directed toward their compromised purposes -- yet STILL they continue that line of posting.

Even the RC posters on this board do not do that when it comes to some RC unique topic!!

 

[El_Guero]

Bob

I am amazed that you are still at it.

God bless

Wayne

 

[BobRyan]

Well some of the bible believing Christians are convinced that they can turn a blind eye to the inroads of atheism in the Christian community. So I am trying to get them to wake up to not only the presence of atheist principles being added to Christian groups but also the antics of those who choose to become devotees of atheist darwinism.

I agree that the compaign of Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, James Kennedy to expose the intellectual dishonesty and blind vaccuous perfidity of atheist darwinism "in general" is a nobal cause - but not necessarily the concern of all Christians. After all - can't those honest Christians simply cloister their family friends and children in private schools that WILL teach the truth about nature, science AND the Creator of both!!

Kennedy and others are "assuming" that atheist darwinism is not present IN the church pew. They combat its errors, myths and half-truths as if you would only find them in the University.

BUT the inroads of atheism as compromised Christians bring atheist darwinism INTO the Christian church IS a matter for all Christians.

These threads are being posted here so that Bible Believing christians can see the blatant perfidity of the methods used by the devotees to atheist darwinism as they seek to obscure Romans 1 and the clear point God makes about "what is CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE even by UNBELIEVERS".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is another "all Christian" scope for this discussion.

Consider this -- NO Christian denomination has embraced the gay agenda without FIRST embracing atheist evolutionism in the pews and in it's seminaries and in its universities.

That does not mean that all who have swallowed the lies of atheist evolutionism have all already reached the advanced stage of that error that embraces the gay agenda -- but it means that the door to the error of the gay agenda is slammed shut in churches that reject atheist darwinism!

And no church that embraces atheist darwinism - has done so without FIRST rejecting the memorial of creation given to mankind by Chist the Creator in the 10 commandments.

That does not mean that all who reject Christ's memorial of Creation have ALSO embraced atheist darwinism - but it does mean that the door to atheist darwinism is slammed shut in the churhes that still value and uphold Christ's memorial of Creation. (AT LEAST at the level that D.L. Moody did)

 

[Eric B]

The idea that atheism inserted into Christianity "should not be pointed out" makes no sense.

That's not what I said. I said that this person goes too far and blurs the issue by trying to make Darwinism (and other ideologies) the root cause of all evil in this country. Notice I did not say anything about Jonson or Behe.

And no church that embraces atheist darwinism - has done so without FIRST rejecting the memorial of creation given to mankind by Chist the Creator in the 10 commandments.

That is ridiculous. The reason that has not happened is because no sabbathkeeping movement has ever become big and established enough to become a liberal mainliner, which is the majoity of the Churches that accept evolutionism. The SDA, CG7's, Armstrong offshoots, Messianic/Sacred Name are all small closed groups, many of them under tight leadership that controls the doctrine. If they had grown and branched out becoming "mainline", you would have liberal factions the same things going on, just like there is Reform Judaism which is very liberal.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Wow, those atheistic Darwinian folks must sure have lots of power. :laugh:

That a mere scientific theory could be behind all that you give it credit for is beyond credibility.

 

[BobRyan]

Wow, those atheistic Darwinian folks must sure have lots of power. :laugh:

That a mere scientific theory could be behind all that you give it credit for is beyond credibility.

"The Root of the Problem" is where D. James Kennedy highlights the historic sources for this.

Hitler WAS atheist.

Hitler DID hand out evolutionist manifestos to his army.

Hitler's entire concept of the "master race" and eugenics was BASED on atheist darwinism - this is a published fact of history.

I don't blame believers in atheist darwinism for choosing to be blind to this - but IF you are not a follower of that cult - why in the world choose blindness on this point?

 

[BobRyan]

That's not what I said. I said that this person goes too far and blurs the issue by trying to make Darwinism (and other ideologies) the root cause of all evil in this country. Notice I did not say anything about Jonson or Behe.

Johnson, Behe and Kennedy point out the failings of atheist darwinism - in general. But Kennedy goes to historic references to show the influence of atheist darwinists on Hitler's training of his own military machine.

Instead of avoiding the historic references and slandering Kennedy "just because" - why not look them up!?

Do something other than attack the man without actually having any data to back you up.

That is ridiculous. The reason that has not happened is because no sabbathkeeping movement has ever become big and established enough to become a liberal mainliner, which is the majoity of the Churches that accept evolutionism.

Dream on.

But rant less.

Eric just like there is Reform Judaism which is very liberal.

Now that is a good wild card. Equivocate between Seventh-day Baptists and Judaism!!

My point remains - and it remains in the context of Christian groups like the SDB. Feel free to keep maligning them in your defense of the atheist darwinist views being exposed here.

I notice that EVEN though you are not Calvinist - you fail to do anything but post in favor of it!

EVEN though you are not atheist darwinist - you fail to do anything but attack men like D. James Kennedy!

What is it with you Eric?

Are you "practicing" for something?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The problem with atheist darwinism's debilitating effects on reason and acceptance of fact -- is that it facts with stories and myths designed to fit the primary rule of atheist darwinism "there is no God".

That means that you have to toss out Genesis 1, John 1, Col 1, Romans 1, and Rev 14:7 for starters - because all refer to God's active role in creation in away that does not fit atheism's rule "there is NO God".

Atheist darwinists inside the Christian church embrace glaring contradictions such as "God created the world - but not so's you would notice".

The atheist on the OUTSIDE of the church like Richard Dawkins -- would say OBVIOUSLY that is a contradiction being held by the atheist darwinists devotees on the INSIDE of the church..

The Bible believing Christians INSIDE the church would say "Yep - I can see that clearly".

The compromised Christians that must say "Jesus Created all things - but not so's you would notice" says -- "I just can't see the problem".

And so taking that intellectually dishonest starting point - they "continue" to work their way through the Bible throwing out this and that - so that in the end - atheist darwinism's primary rule is fully satisifed.

When God says "unbelieving pagans are WITHOUT EXCUSE due to the invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been made" - the Bible believing Christian AND The unbelieving atheist AGREE that the FIRST and most basic attribute would have to be intelligence - it is prerequisite to all other attributes of God.

But the atheist and the compromised Christian would join in unison saying "And we don't even see ONE example of that being true" - thus preserving the axiomatic rule of atheist darwinism when it comes to things that are "CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE". Which is "It is clearly seen that NOTHING has been MADE".

So the question for Eric is this - why do you find it right to say that we should turn a blind eye to these teachings of atheism that are brought INSIDE the church?

What makes you think that this really has no effect at all on the church when such a dishonest approach is taken to scripture and then used to modify doctrine?

 

[Eric B]

Johnson, Behe and Kennedy point out the failings of atheist darwinism - in general. But Kennedy goes to historic references to show the influence of atheist darwinists on Hitler's training of his own military machine.

Instead of avoiding the historic references and slandering Kennedy "just because" - why not look them up!?

Do something other than attack the man without actually having any data to back you up.

I wasn't questioning his historical references. Just some of his rhetoric, blaming certain movements for all sin (which denies the fall, and makes America of the 19th century practically into Eden).

And if you read Chick literature, you will see that Hitler was set up by the RCC. And I'm sure Mojoala or stan the man can produce some literature blaming him on Lutheranism (particularly Luther's hostile rhetoric against Jews, as well as the whole Augustinian "City of God/City of Man" concept, which made many people go along with it). All three movements (Darwinism, RCC, Lutheranism) were present, and probably had some influence. So there's a whole bunch of claims out there. Everyone focuses on the movements they are most against, and tries to make them the sole cause.

Quote:
That is ridiculous. The reason that has not happened is because no sabbathkeeping movement has ever become big and established enough to become a liberal mainliner, which is the majoity of the Churches that accept evolutionism.
Dream on.

But rant less.

"Dream on"? So sabbathkeeping churches are mainstream, and just keeping the sabbath prevented them from liberalizing? You're the one dreaming!

Now that is a good wild card. Equivocate between Seventh-day Baptists and Judaism!!

Who even said anything about Seventh Day Baptists? (Which is an even smaller/less known or popular group than SDA, and is definitely not "mainstream", if that's what you're getting at).

My point remains - and it remains in the context of Christian groups like the SDB. Feel free to keep maligning them in your defense of the atheist darwinist views being exposed here.

What are you talking about? Who's maligning the SDB (When I didn't even know they were being discussed)? I told you I was not defending atheist Darwinism.

I notice that EVEN though you are not Calvinist - you fail to do anything but post in favor of it!

Again, what are you talking about? What Calvinism? What did I say about, let along in favor of Calvinism?

EVEN though you are not atheist darwinist - you fail to do anything but attack men like D. James Kennedy!

What is it with you Eric?

Are you "practicing" for something?

In Christ,

Bob

What is it with you? You seem to have gone off the deep end, reading stuff that I am not saying? Perhaps the conspiratorial paranoia has finally gotten to you, and now you are hallucinating?
You try to defend this man so much, you have lost your reason, and think just like him. (Even though he is the Calvinist, and a Sunday advocate who would love to see that forced on this country in order to save it from atheism!)
Conspiratorialism is a hindrance to the Gospel and needs to be challenged. It makes us look like fools to everyone, especially when it is not based on the complete truth.

 

[BobRyan]

I wasn't questioning his historical references. Just some of his rhetoric, blaming certain movements for all sin (which denies the fall, and makes America of the 19th century practically into Eden).

You make a sweeping statement about Kennedy denying the fall of mankind in Eden - and then don't back it up with any data IN RESPONSE to my complaint that your falt-finding with kennedy is not actually using "data".

You then ALSO state that his historic sources that SHOW Hitler basing his racist military machine on the doctrine of evolutionism carefully taught to his armies - is correct. But you just "want" to turn a blind eye to it??

You are not making sense OR using data!

And if you read Chick literature, you will see that Hitler was set up by the RCC.

Does Kennedy get the blame for what Chick prints now???!!

All three movements (Darwinism, RCC, Lutheranism) were present, and probably had some influence.

"Probably had some influence" is a non-specific come-back in support of your refusal to even listen to the historic sources -- well known authors that Kennedy is referencing and that you admit as being correct.

HOW do you get a "master race" Without racisim. Hitler's own well published system of eugenics was based on evolutionism?

You don't seem to want to refute this - you just want to "ignore it".

What has convinced you that "atheism can not have such bad consequences"???

Eric
Who even said anything about Seventh Day Baptists? (Which is an even smaller/less known or popular group than SDA, and is definitely not "mainstream", if that's what you're getting at).

Wake up Eric instead of just randomly complaining.

YOU are the one that claimed that the Sabbath keeping groups were not old enough - SDB is older than SDA and were much larger at the time they introduced Adventests to Christ the Creator's memorial of creation.

Certianly something you enjoy bashing about as much as you seem to enjoy bashing Kennedy and telling us how little real damage the atheist evolutionist doctrines did in Nazi Germany.

This seems to be a "pattern" with you.

What's up?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Eric said -
What are you talking about? Who's maligning the SDB (When I didn't even know they were being discussed)? I told you I was not defending atheist Darwinism.

So far - this thread is exposing the inroads of atheist darwinism as it affects the doctrines of the Christian churches that it invades as SEEN here already on this thread!

Your contribution to this point has been to just bash D. James Kennedy -- as if that "Was a good thing".

I on the other hand point out that I am not a Presbyterian but I can certainly admit to the historic points of truth that Kennedy brings out without having to bash him because "He is not an SDA".

Why don't you come around on this one?

I wouldn't have thought that a thread highlighting the dangers of atheist darwinism that is COMPLETE with the bogus posts (proven to be totally factless so far) from devotees to atheist darwinism ON THIS THREAD -- would find you -- only bashing those that expose the dangers of atheist darwinism WHILE CLAIMING (as you did with the Calvinist thread) that you are not a devotee to that false religion.

My point is that your "contribution" seems dubious at best.

Again, what are you talking about? What Calvinism? What did I say about, let along in favor of Calvinism?

There is a "brand" of Calvinism (4 and 5 pointers primarily) that teach the Jonathan Edwards flavor of "Joy in seeing the torment of the wicked". I posted a scenario pointing out that they are doing this EVEN when the context is seeing their own loved ones in torment.

I then contrasted that with the SAME Scenario for Arminians who would see THEIR loved ones being tormented -- but in the Arminian system "God so LOVED THE WORLD" yes really.

Calvinist whined at the sharp contrast that was revealed when both Arminian and Calvinist models were placed side by side.

You whined about that too - on this board.

Funny - huh?!!

When it comes to what you claim to oppose - you complain when that flaw is being detailed.

"er and confuseder said Alice".

Eric said
Perhaps the conspiratorial paranoia has finally gotten to you, and now you are hallucinating?

Pay attention to details - and learn.

Eric said
You try to defend this man so much, you have lost your reason, and think just like him. (Even though he is the Calvinist, and a Sunday advocate who would love to see that forced on this country in order to save it from atheism!)

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to get Eric. I keep pointing out that Kennedy is NOT an SDA and I could certainly find plenty of ground to whine and gripe about him were I to take your path.

INSTEAD I am honest and objective and very happy to highlight points where he is bringing truth to light.

You seem to be stuck whining about everyone!

Why drag that in here?

 

[Eric B]

You make a sweeping statement about Kennedy denying the fall of mankind in Eden - and then don't back it up with any data IN RESPONSE to my complaint that your falt-finding with kennedy is not actually using "data".

You then ALSO state that his historic sources that SHOW Hitler basing his racist military machine on the doctrine of evolutionism carefully taught to his armies - is correct. But you just "want" to turn a blind eye to it??

You are not making sense OR using data!

Once again, whay are you talking about? Why are you making such an issue about "data". I said I wasn't disputing what he said, only his conspiratorial attitude and blaming of everything on atheism only. Why do I need data when I am not even claiming abuthing contrary to what he said?

Does Kennedy get the blame for what Chick prints now???!!

I wasn'y blaming him for Chick, only pointing out that others have a different perspective of Naziism, and tend to put ALL the blame on whichever movement they are most against. Again, you have to twist around everyothign someone says.

"Probably had some influence" is a non-specific come-back in support of your refusal to even listen to the historic sources -- well known authors that Kennedy is referencing and that you admit as being correct.

"Listen to historic sources". What do you want me to do to show that I "listen" to them? I must believe that those evil atheists caused the entire Bazi movement and the Holocaust singlehandedly, while the Christian establishments prevalent on the cultre was completely innocent?

HOW do you get a "master race" Without racisim. Hitler's own well published system of eugenics was based on evolutionism?

You can also get racism from misreading the Bible, such as Canaan being curse, Japheth enlarged, and the Jews supposedly cursed from rejecting Jesus. That was believed inthe Church long before Darwinism came around, and obviously figured in the Catholic and Lutheran culture of Germany in addition to Darwinism which was still relatively new at the time (not even 100 years old).

You don't seem to want to refute this - you just want to "ignore it".

What has convinced you that "atheism can not have such bad consequences"???

Certianly something you enjoy bashing about as much as you seem to enjoy bashing Kennedy and telling us how little real damage the atheist evolutionist doctrines did in Nazi Germany.

This seems to be a "pattern" with you.

What's up?

In Christ,

Bob

I never said that it couldn't have such consequences, or that it did any damage. I only said it was wrong to place all the blame on it when faulty interpretation sof the Bible went even before it in establishing some of the beliefs.

Wake up Eric instead of just randomly complaining.

YOU are the one that claimed that the Sabbath keeping groups were not old enough - SDB is older than SDA and were much larger at the time they introduced Adventests to Christ the Creator's memorial of creation.

Why don't you wake up? I said nothing about "OLDER". You just make up every thing here, just so you can have a silly excuse to go into attack and accuse mode. It may have been bigger than the SDA at that time, but it was certainly not "mainstream", which was my point.

So far - this thread is exposing the inroads of atheist darwinism as it affects the doctrines of the Christian churches that it invades as SEEN here already on this thread!

Your contribution to this point has been to just bash D. James Kennedy -- as if that "Was a good thing".

Not that it was a good thing, but that when we respond with ridiculous conspiracy theories and place all blame on one side and ignore the sins of organized religion, that is worse.
I get tired of hearing from some of these preachers how perfect "Christian America" or "Christian Western Civilization" was until the Darwinists, Marxists, etc ruined it all. What about the African slavery and racism that started in Western Europe, and was so prevalent in the US and continued until racism, by the same people upholding the Bible, and blaming Darwinism for everything while ignoring their errors? Don't you find it hard to believe that one side would be all bad, and US be all good? Since many of these people believe the SDA is an aberrant "cult", some might throw you in there too.

I on the other hand point out that I am not a Presbyterian but I can certainly admit to the historic points of truth that Kennedy brings out without having to bash him because "He is not an SDA".

Why don't you come around on this one?

I'm not bashing him because of what he is or isn't, but because he mixed half-truths and biased conspiratorialism into his "historic points".

I wouldn't have thought that a thread highlighting the dangers of atheist darwinism that is COMPLETE with the bogus posts (proven to be totally factless so far) from devotees to atheist darwinism ON THIS THREAD -- would find you -- only bashing those that expose the dangers of atheist darwinism WHILE CLAIMING (as you did with the Calvinist thread) that you are not a devotee to that false religion.

My point is that your "contribution" seems dubious at best.

There is a "brand" of Calvinism (4 and 5 pointers primarily) that teach the Jonathan Edwards flavor of "Joy in seeing the torment of the wicked". I posted a scenario pointing out that they are doing this EVEN when the context is seeing their own loved ones in torment.

I then contrasted that with the SAME Scenario for Arminians who would see THEIR loved ones being tormented -- but in the Arminian system "God so LOVED THE WORLD" yes really.

Calvinist whined at the sharp contrast that was revealed when both Arminian and Calvinist models were placed side by side.

You whined about that too - on this board.

Funny - huh?!!

When it comes to what you claim to oppose - you complain when that flaw is being detailed.

"er and confuseder said Alice".

Yeah, confused is you, because tou don;t even know what you're talking about. You're all over the place, bringing up completely OT old debates that have nothing to do with this.
You did the same thing over there that you always did, and what Kennedy does sometimes, and use poor argumentation tactics that hurt your case (though you don't see it, because you think repeating the same thing over and over and making insults proves your case).
You want to ttry to argue with Calvinists with an emotive argument on someone seeing their child go to Hell, they you knock yourself out. You were apparently so unaware of the claims the Calvinists made about us: that we only used emotive arguments and not scripture, you didn't realize that you were actually helping their case!
You yourself just said above about sone who have "joy at the torment of the wicked". If they have joy at the torment of the wicked, then how do you think you can persuade them with a scenario of a child perishing in Hell? That's good, according to them, and goes perfectly with their argument that it is God's right to do that!

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to get Eric. I keep pointing out that Kennedy is NOT an SDA and I could certainly find plenty of ground to whine and gripe about him were I to take your path.

INSTEAD I am honest and objective and very happy to highlight points where he is bringing truth to light.

You seem to be stuck whining about everyone!

Why drag that in here?

I'm raising a concern about this person being used as an authority on the issue, and I have the right to do that. Why is that "whining"? Any more than all your incessant complaining about Darwinism.
Don't you have anythign better to do than start silly arguments and accuse and miscontrue people and their statements?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
I wouldn't have thought that a thread highlighting the dangers of atheist darwinism that is COMPLETE with the bogus posts (proven to be totally factless so far) from devotees to atheist darwinism ON THIS THREAD -- would find you -- only bashing those that expose the dangers of atheist darwinism WHILE CLAIMING (as you did with the Calvinist thread) that you are not a devotee to that false religion.

My point is that your "contribution" seems dubious at best.

There is a "brand" of Calvinism (4 and 5 pointers primarily) that teach the Jonathan Edwards flavor of "Joy in seeing the torment of the wicked". I posted a scenario pointing out that they are doing this EVEN when the context is seeing their own loved ones in torment.

I then contrasted that with the SAME Scenario for Arminians who would see THEIR loved ones being tormented -- but in the Arminian system "God so LOVED THE WORLD" yes really.

Calvinist whined at the sharp contrast that was revealed when both Arminian and Calvinist models were placed side by side.

You whined about that too - on this board.

Funny - huh?!!

When it comes to what you claim to oppose - you complain when that flaw is being detailed.

"er and confuseder said Alice".

Eric
... tou don;t even know what you're talking about. You're all over the place, bringing up completely OT old debates that have nothing to do with this.

OT debates??? What in the world are you talking about??!!!!

This was based on the NT statement in Rev 14:10!!!

Get a grip Eric!!

You did the same thing over there that you always did, and what Kennedy does sometimes, ...
You want to ttry to argue with Calvinists with an emotive argument ...
You yourself just said above about sone who have "joy at the torment of the wicked". If they have joy at the torment of the wicked, then how do you think you can persuade them with a scenario of a child perishing in Hell? That's good, according to them, and goes perfectly with their argument that it is God's right to do that!

Jonathan Edwards is the one that details "Their JOY" at seeing the torment of the wicked - and THEY agree with him. HOW in the WORLD can you BLAME ME for that??!!!

I merely point it OUT - while by CONTRAST pointing out the SORROW that would be the response of the loving God and the loving parent in the Arminian scenario with the SAME conditions where "God so LOVES the HE GAVE" !!!

What part of this is difficult for you to grasp in your endless complaining??

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
HOW do you get a "master race" Without racisim. Hitler's own well published system of eugenics was based on evolutionism?

You can also get racism from misreading the Bible, such as Canaan being curse, Japheth enlarged, and the Jews supposedly cursed from rejecting Jesus. That was believed inthe Church long before Darwinism came around, and obviously figured in the Catholic and Lutheran culture of Germany in addition to Darwinism which was still relatively new at the time (not even 100 years old).

Fact A: Nothing is ever negative is ever said about "race" in the Bible as was pointed out in the presentation. The idea that child-A is a "different RACE" than child-B is not something the Bible endorses as was pointed out in the presentation.

Fact B: While we DO have historic sources showing Hitler to link evolutionism to his policies we do NOT HAVE historic sources showing well documented references by Hitler to the argument you made up. So now we have your "story telling" to compare against the actual historic published statements from Hitler and those who wrote of his policies and actions to "contrast".

Why do you keep going down these dark allies each time a point of truth is raised??

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Why is this simple concept so hard for you to get Eric. I keep pointing out that Kennedy is NOT an SDA and I could certainly find plenty of ground to whine and gripe about him were I to take your path.

INSTEAD I am honest and objective and very happy to highlight points where he is bringing truth to light.

You seem to be stuck whining about everyone!

Why drag that in here?

Eric
I'm raising a concern about this person being used as an authority on the issue, and I have the right to do that. Why is that "whining"? Any more than all your incessant complaining about Darwinism.

THAT is a very telling statement on our part Eric!! I can't believe you would post it!

You compare your whining about D. James Kennedy being a well-respected Christian teacher -- with MY whining about atheist Darwinism and its negative impact AS SEEN by the bogus non-truths EVEN posted by the darwinists ON THIS THREAD!!

I have to agree with you on that point - you ARE whining about D. James. Kennedy in that same way AS IF HE is some kind of evil being in the same way Satan would use atheist doctrines inserted into the Christian church.

You bring that in to a thread where I am exposing the damage that Atheism does - BECAUSE (in this case) Kennedy is ALSO shown to highlight the flaws and dangers of atheist Darwinism -- THEN you point out "innexplicably" that though you are simply whining about Dr. Kennedy - if we talked with you longgggggggg enough we would find that you do not fully agree with atheist darwinism -- (just that you apparently like whining about Kennedy more than highlighting the dangers of atheist doctrines inserted into the Christian groups seen here!)

How sad Eric!

 

[BobRyan]

When the atheist darwinist cult member brings in the vaccuous non-factual point -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim1999
Sorry, Eric, if you are not a member of the seventh day adventist cult, you must be an atheist


Eric responds that no mention can be made of the information that Dr D. James Kennedy JUST GAVE out on the impact of atheist darwinism on the history of the 20th century!

How sad!!

 

[BobRyan]

I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest. ~ William Provine

 

[BobRyan]

On page two the unified voice of atheist darwinists was quoted SHOWING how they "clearly see" the primary core value "THERE IS NO GOD" being clearly SEEN in atheist darwinism.

CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN stands among the giants of Western thought because he convinced a majority of his peers that all of life shares a single, if complex, history. He taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine. ~ Niles Eldredge

For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution. ~ Richard Dawkins

I leave the defense of atheist darwinism now to Eric - who does not believe in it - but wants to whine about anyone exposing it or its effects on history in this thread.