Tag Archives: new atheists

Roundup

I love polar bears.  My all-time favorite zoo exhibits are those of the polar bears at the Tulsa and Central Park zoos.

But if you’ve ever seen this photo, please know that it was Photo Shopped and used to manipulate you.  Polar bear figures are up, but thanks for your concern.

Ironically, the photo was originally used in a piece preaching about how assaults on climate science are really bad.  Seems to me that their worst assaults have been their self-inflicted frauds.  Hat tip: Red State

P.S. The false-gospel preachers over at Sojourners used a similar picture and won an award for their errors.

Terrific link of responses to (alleged) Bible discrepancies — got this from Lone Wolf Archer — thanks!  I added it to the Apologetics links to the right as well.

Of all the challenges to a Christian’s faith, surely one of the most troubling in this day and age is skepticism’s charge that the Bible is filled with various discrepancies and contradictions. If true, such a charge (which is occurring with increasing frequency) certainly would serve to negate the inerrancy and inspiration of God’s Word. It is a simple matter for an unbeliever to hurl a barrage of alleged discrepancies and/or contradictions at a believer, but it is not always a simple task for the believer to respond quickly and effectively. This is the case because many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered adequately via a “quick wave of the hand,” but instead require in-depth, painstaking research in order to craft a reply that can dismantle each one on a case-by-case basis.

Many people will mention concerns about all the “discrepancies” in the Bible but if you just ask politely, “What are your top 3?,” they’ll glaze over.  They’ve just heard it so many times they take it as truth.

Or they might have a specific objection from the Big Book of Atheist Sound Bites or something that is an authentic concern for them.  The test there is to give a thorough explanation.  If they concede valid points and seem to reconsider their overall stance, then keep engaging them.  If they can’t refute your points and just jump to the next objection, then it is pearl holding / dust shaking time.

William Lane Craig reponds to the arguments of the New Atheists

Some beautiful thoughts on Christian marriage by Stan.

Your organs aren’t really yours — So, are you comfortable letting the government decide when you are done with your organs?

Summary of recent thoughts on Arizona’s illegal immigration law:

  • From the “I can’t believe I have to explain this” category, the law doesn’t discriminate against Hispanics, it discriminates against criminals.  And that is the good kind of discrimination.
  • Most of the critics don’t understand the law at all and make all sorts of false claims about it.
  • It was a brilliant move on Arizona’s part: Both current and future illegal aliens will go to other states whether the law is enforced or not.
  • Hey states boycotting Arizona: Are you volunteering to take all the illegals yourselves?  Arizona would love that.  Let them know where to send them.
  • Challenge for those protesting the law: Go to Mexico (or anywhere else, for that matter) without documentation and demand free food, clothing, education and health care.  I’ll wait here.
  • Hey Los (Phoenix) Suns: Are you offering free admission, t-shirts and concessions to everyone?  Why not, are you Nazis or something?
  • Do Jim Wallis and other false gospel-teaching Sojourners writers care if people plagiarize their work?  After all, it doesn’t really “belong” to the authors, does it?  Shouldn’t they have to share with anyone and everyone who wants it?
  • Amazingly, even with the media distortions about what the bill really says, 49% of Democrats say they’d favor a similar law in their states.  Those racists!

More neo-Darwinian tautologies (“Neo-Darwinian evolution is true, or Neo-Darwinian evolution is true”).  Just more bedtime stories they give until they can think of a better one.

I wish I had a nickel for every statement of evolutionary certainty that later had to be dropped. Carl Zimmer’s recent piece on how eukaryotes are supposed to have evolved quotes Eugene Koonin as stating that “it is certain” that a long time ago, in a warm pond far far away, two cells (an archaea and a bacteria) symbiotically merged to form the first eukaryote. The rest, as they say, was history, as from that humble eukaryote sprung everything from the trilobite to the tyrannosaurus.

This is too easy. Now, less than a year later, evolutionists have switched it round yet again. New ground-breaking research, published in the elite journal Nature, now says the fusion story is out and common descent is in.

For you baseball fans, here is Will Ferrell’s minor league pitching debut.