Apologetics 315 has the full MP3 Audio available for download of the September 26, 2009 debate between Dr. James White and Dan Barker on the topic Was Jesus a Myth? The audio’s sound quality could be better but it is definitely much better than were the soundness and quality of the arguments offered by Dan Barker.
During the debate, Mr. Barker misused quotes from Justin Martyr’s First Apology even though he admitted to having never read the work. Dr. White addressed this during the debate and recently added this video on You Tube providing more complete details about the misuse, abuse, and distortions of Justin Martyr’s writings.
Creepy Change: A chronicle of America’s continued descent into idolatry in the era of Barack Obama.
Number of Days in the Whitehouse: 138
“Obama is, we are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something. I mean in a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he’s sort of god. He’s going to bring all different sides together.” (Newsweek editor Evan Thomas on MSNBC, emphasis added)
(Note: Although Mr. Thomas’ use of the word God implied a capitol letter “G”, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.)
If the “customer reviews” at amazon.com about Ray Comfort’s new book were written by people who actually read the book, it appears that Mr. Comfort’s biggest fans are primarily of the ‘angry skeptics’ variety. You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics has been tagged by them (as of the writing of this post) with such terms as strawman (72 times), illogical (73 times), lies (66 times), and my personal favorite: breathtaking inanity (83 times).
Logically, one would reason that if the book is really filled with “tiresome” and “sad arguments and lies” as some of the angry skeptics have written in their comments, they wouldn’t be snapping it up en mass as they claim. Of course, Ray’s new book may not be as popular among the angry skeptics as their comments seem to suggest. If that’s the case, most of the ‘customer comments’ were actually posted by people who really didn’t read the book. A fact that, if true, would make them a bunch of narrow minded bigots who are evidently more threatened by what they perceive as a challenge to their faith than by the actual content of the book.
Creepy Change: A chronicle of America’s continued descent into idolatry in the era of Barack Obama.
Number of Days in the Whitehouse: 25
Picture reportedly taken in the Children’s section of a Borders Bookstore in Dallas, Texas. Photo shopped? Display altered? Employee forgot to change the sign? Picture of things to come? Who knows but whatever the reason or motivation it seems to be an apt depiction of the new American era of religious confusion.
“[Ernst] Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany…. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science – all contributed to the rise of Nazism.” (Stephen J. Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977).
“Thus there results the subjection of a number of people under the will, often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it is founded on reason.”(Adolf Hitler)
“The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” (Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947).
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Richard Dawkins)
Quote:
Darwin’s theory is a friend to atheism. Instead of a purposeful Creator as the explanation of life on earth, atheists argue we are the product of blind, physical, evolutionary processes. There are two choices. We are here on purpose or on accident. But isn’t one of these beliefs going to lead to entirely different actions than the other? Absolutely. Make no mistake, ideas have consequences.
Have you heard of Jeffrey Dahmer? He was a brutal serial killer who murdered 17 men and boys from 1978 to 1991, sometimes cannibalizing his victims. In a prison interview with Stone Phillips of Dateline NBC, Dahmer was asked why he did what he did:
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…”
After hearing Dahmer’s words, no one can claim evolution doesn’t matter.
According to this article, the “theory of evolution itself is evolving”. Which, when you think about it for more than a half second, makes one wonder why Darwinists insist that evolution “isn’t just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence”. After all, a theory that is still evolving is also one that is less than settled. This probably accounts for the willingness of the Darwinian hegemony to be increasingly dependent on court rulings, rather than scientific consensus, to validate and enforce its increasingly untenable claims within the scientific and educational communities. Considering that the major tenants of Darwinian evolution are now being abandoned quickerthan a jackrabbit running from the nose of a shotgun, it’s surprising that any credible scientist would make the statement that "we understand evolution pretty well”.
The truth is that aside from court enforced obeisance to evolutionary theory and Darwinian hegemony in the scientific community, evolutionary theory is still little more than speculation and it is certainly not understood. Consider, for example, the abandonment of Darwin’s Tree of Life which roots, branches, and limbs are as still unconnected today as they were in 1859 even after more than a hundred and fifty years of frenetic research. On the other hand, the newer “web or bush” model now favored by evolutionists eliminates the pesky need to link evolution to something resembling proof because, as the article points out, it allows for a blurring of the “sharp lines between species”. In other words, the need to demonstrate descent by small incremental changes occurring continuously over long periods of time is, under the new model, unnecessary. Evolution is so because it is said to be so, not because it is scientific, intelligent, or rational.
“The fossil remains found at Piltdown by Mr. Dawson set students of man’s evolution the most difficult task that has confronted them hitherto. In his characterization, Piltdown Man was quite unlike any fossil type known to us. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward was impressed by his simian similarities; I, on the other hand, was impressed by those features which, as I thought then, were eminently human and modern. Hence arose those discrepancies between us–discrepancies of a quarter of a century ago.
Since then, much has happened. Discoveries are being made which help to throw Piltdown man into his proper place in the crowded throng of evolving human forms. We now know that when the Piltdown type was being evolved in England–or at the western end of the Old World–a totally different type had come into being in the Eastern lands of the Old World. The Eastern types had low receding foreheads, modelled as in the gorilla and chimpanzee. The Western or Piltdown type differed; it had a relatively upright and high forehead modelled not on gorilla lines but rather on those of the organg. While the Eastern forms retained in their shape of head the low squat type of the chimpanzee and gorilla, the Western or Piltdown type tended to assume the higher vaulted skull seen in modern races. There is no denying that in many of his features Piltdown man foreshadowed some of the structural modifications we find in modern races of mankind. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, I know, will agree with me as to how Piltdown man came by such features; he came by them independently, for discoveries of recent years have proved that diverse races of mankind have undergone the same structural change quite independently of each other. And there is also no denying that through all his known parts there runs a simian vein in Piltdown man, in his skull and brain as well as is in his mandible.”
Excerpt (emphasis added) from the 1938 speech by noted evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith on the occasion of the unveiling of a memorial in honor of Charles Dawson on the spot where Piltdown Man was “discovered”.
Piltdown Man, you may recall, was one of the most famous paleontological hoaxes of history. It only took the combined brain power of leading evolutionists 40 years to conclude that the Piltdown “fossil” was actually a composite of a human skull, the jaw of an orangutan, and the filed down teeth of a chimpanzee. As events turned out, Sir Keith was partially right though, its just that it took until 1958 for Piltdown Man to take its proper place along side all the other imaginary proofs of human evolution.
Posted by jerryk 
Benison Blog 
