paulmoreland.com

Lately I’ve been “listening”  to what atheists and evolutionists have to say.  Atheists are pretty much stuck with evolution but not all evolutionists are atheists.  Some are agnostic, some are “theistic evolutionists”.  It’s a weird world out there, to say the least.  Anyway, I was reading on Michelle Malkin’s site Hot Air  yesterday.  They posted a couple of videos about people who had converted from “Christianity” to “Islam”.  The fun part was reading the comments.  A lot of agnostics and atheists hang out there and their comments can be quite revealing as to their attitude towards those who have a strong belief in a Creator.  It can be amusing to read their condescending comments about stereotypical ideas they have towards belief in a deity.

JayHaw Phrenzie wrote:

I do not see how these people can believe that Mohammed rode to Heaven on a winged horse when clearly a burning bush wrote the ten commandments and a virgin woman gave birth to gods son who dies for sins that you were responsible for (even though you weren’t even conceived) but later came back to life and apparantly disappeared again right after that so that he could come back just in time for the armageddon that is coming after all good christians rise through the air to join god on Mars or Venus or wherever they rise up to.

It takes an Atheist to truly appreciate how deluded both sides are on this one.

atadOFF added:

my invisible man can beat up your invisible man!

While RushBaby chimed in with

My Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) can beat your invisible man!

Stephen M wrote:

It takes an agnostic to get a snapshot of the entire melee.

 

 JayHaw Phrenzie returned with:

It takes an agnostic to get a snapshot of the entire melee.

I look at agnostics the same way as I do moderates. LAZY!!!Pick a damn side!!!

This knee-jerk reaction of insulting Christianity on a thread is really simplistic, juvenile and completely irrelevant to a topic about why a person’s conversion is considered network-worthy news.

Esthier on July 5, 2007 at 2:27 PM

You can insult my favorite fictional chracter all you want and I won’t get mad.

If I really and truly believe that all religous people are deluded fools that rely on fantasy to gget through their lives (and I do, BTW), then why do I have to show deference for your fantasy?

If you see a deluded person walking down the street talking to his invisible friend, are you required to respect his belief?

I have no respect for any religion and I will not pretend like they deserve any respect.

All religions are shams. Some are more blatant than others (Scientology), some are more toxic (Islam) than others, some have had a few beneficial effects (Christianity), but they all have one thing in common.

They were all invented by mankind as a way controlling people. And they are all bullshit.

Someone converting from Islam to Christianity or vice versa means no more to me than someone deciding to watch Harry Potter instead of the Lord of the Rings.

 

Personally, I find such reading to be educational.  A look at how people think, or don’t, can help one to understand them and the world around us all.  The all too typical atheistic snobbery shown by folks who “have reason on their side” actually shows how deluded they themselves can be.  While looking down their noses at folks “who believe in an invisible man”, they themselves believe in a reasoning, thinking, planning nothingness.  If indeed there is no creator (as atheists allege) then all we are left with is a non-personal, irrational process of evolution by sheer chance.  And yet, the evolutionists refer to the Darwinian alleged process as though it were actually a person with the capability of choosing rationally from a variety of choices to bring about the desired outcome.  In other words, they make the evolutionary process into a form of deity with the ability of rationalization and creation through purposely chosen means.

For example,   Psychology Today published a little blurb that says:

It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.

Note the use “it is no coincidence” and “alternative means”.  So the process wasn’t  by chance (like evolution supposedly teaches) and since the women were covered from neck to toe then the “no coincidence process” purposely chose an “alternative means for women to advertise their youth”.   And they say that belief in a creator is delusional?  Belief in such a reasoning process of a non-personal evolutionary sequence is much more so!

And this is not the only such example.  A prime example of this type of anthropomorphizing  the “evolutionary process” (actually, making the supposedly non-personal process into a thinking, reasoning ‘being’) is found in an article from the New York Times, written by Dr. Patricia Brennan.  Here are some excerpts taken from this article.

Part of the answer, she has discovered, has gone overlooked for decades. Male ducks may have such extreme genitals because the females do too. The birds are locked in an evolutionary struggle for reproductive success.

Somehow, generations of biologists had never noticed this anatomy before. Pondering it, Dr. Brennan came to doubt the conventional explanation for how duck phalluses evolved.

In some species of ducks, a female bonds for a season with a male. But she is also harassed by other males that force her to mate. “It’s nasty business. Females are often killed or injured,” Dr. Brennan said.

Species with more forced mating tend to have longer phalluses. That link led some scientists to argue that the duck phallus was the result of males’ competing with one another to fertilize eggs.

Dr. Brennan realized that scientists had made this argument without looking at the female birds. Perhaps, she wondered, the two sexes were coevolving, with elaborate lower oviducts driving the evolution of long phalluses.

If a male bird had a long phallus, the female tended to have a more elaborate lower oviduct. And if the male had a small phallus, the female tended to have a simple oviduct. “The correlation was incredibly tight,” Dr. Brennan said. “When you dissected one of the birds, it was really easy to predict what the other sex was going to look like.”

Dr. Brennan argues that elaborate female duck anatomy evolves as a countermeasure against aggressive males. “Once they choose a male, they’re making the best possible choice, and that’s the male they want siring their offspring,” she said. “They don’t want the guy flying in from who knows where. It makes sense that they would develop a defense.”

Dr. Brennan suspects that when the females of a species evolved better defenses, they drove the evolution of male phalluses. “The males have to step up to produce a longer or more flexible phallus,” she said.

Other scientists have documented a similar coevolution of genitals in flies and other invertebrates. But Dr. Brennan’s study is the clearest example of this arms race in vertebrates.

Interesting how she refers to an “evolutionary struggle”.  As though the process were fighting against itself.  As though the ducks could choose what characteristics, what set of genes they wanted to be hatched with.  Perhaps she believes in re-incarnation with a twist – you choose what improvements you want “for my next time around”!  At any rate, the alternative to a Creator of the world makes no more sense, in fact it’s full of conjecture and supposition and is not based on fact.  The logical alternative to the Dr.’s reasoning about “co-evolution” is that both the male and the female ducks were created by the same designer.  That is why both the lower oviduct and the phallus are similar in length and design.  Why did the Creator design them this way?  That is a good question, and perhaps some of their ideas are similar to the reasoning behind the design – or maybe not.  But to believe in a reasoning non-reason or chance is at least as hilarious as “believing in an invisible man”.