“You obviously believe you have a monopoly on the truth Stewart but its just a tad self centered to use other peoples sites rather than your own to evangelise it .”

What do you mean, Steve? Why do Creationists /Christians ‘force their beliefs down people’s throats’ blah, blah (not your quote), when 99% of what the public hears is about evolution and atheism? Who is doing the shoving down throats? Is it because some people are so shocked at being confronted with new information and a different paradigm that their knee-jerk reaction is to recoil in horror at becoming intellectually challenged?

I have plugged my own meagre Creation website before here anyway.

HHGttG – I’m far more interested in science fact than fiction. Perhaps my aversion to a lot of the sci-fi genre has enabled me to see reality in a more objective way, largely unpolluted by Helliwood films, etc., which, by definition, push the godless, atheistic agenda. I don’t remember any film trying to explain where and how the little green men (and of course, ladies) came to exist. I assume that it was assumed that the audience believed in evolution theory and so no explanation was required.

Talking about intolerance in science, the population geneticist, inventor of the gene gun and co-creator of ‘Mendel’s Accountant’, John Sanford, is now a Creationist speaker. I have some of his DVDs and he is very humble now, but he explains that when he was an atheist (and evolutionist, naturally!) he was extremely proud and arrogant.

He says that he and his fellow scientists thought of the general public as ‘naked apes’ and that they (the scientists) were on a pedestal, which gave them a ‘god complex’.

It’s clear to see why most doctors seem to be like this.

Sanford became a Christian but still believed in long ages and evolution theory, so he considers that he was a compromised Christian. It was when he accepted Creationism that he became more excited than ever about science.

He seems far more intelligent than Prof. Dawkins, probably because he is far more intelligent than Prof. Dawkins.

@Steve – As you might be aware I have an interest in the ‘truth’ and the truth is not Darwinian evolution, of that I am sure, however I never claim a monopoly on the truth. Please explain this comment you don’t want to explain.

That’s a); b) is about being “self centered to use other peoples sites rather than your own.” Doesn’t everyone link to other websites…? Is everything contentious in some way?

c) “…. to evangelise it.”

This is about science, mainly. Do you consider that Prof. Dawkins evangelises? Does everyone who makes a point about anything ‘evangelise’ or is it just a word you generally use out of context?

Clearing these points up might give me a better idea as to what concerns you about my being here.

@Steve – It is comforting to know that there is life after death and the chance of a glorious resurrection, but I guess that’s obvious. Where does the faith for this come from? I think there are several ways, but for someone in your position, you might have to allow the grain of mustard seed to grow into a flourishing tree of faith; it starts with that grain of seed.

I submit that the matters I have raised do address the landlady’s post, which was about a leftist’s view of worshipping the Creation rather than the Creator. This raised questions about genetics (e.g. the bar graph suggests that grapes are more intelligent than humans, which I haven’t even mentioned until now).

Creationism is a dogma for some …..and dogma is just that ….not something that is amenable to questioning or debate.

I am dogmatic about Creationism, but I think that I have earned the right to be after so much study. Not many ‘lay’ people take the time and many couldn’t care less, which I find astounding (eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die).

I see a very great number of people who are dogmatic about evolution theory, but a few initial questions usually bring out their lack of even the most basic scientific understanding (and hence personal attacks result as a replacement for debate – Dawkins’ own blog and Facebook page provide the prime evidence for this, probably because the majority of his adherents are far more interested in attacks on faith than about anything remotely scientific).

If I was here defending naturalistic explanations for origins and in trying to explain godless Guardianistas without referring to the Creator, you might have overlooked the content of those comments as being a reasonable part of this debate – after all, Dawkins believes people of his persuasion have a monopoly on ‘reason’ even though, if their brains are made from reorganised pond scum, there is no reason to believe that the motion of atoms in those brains produced by the fixed laws of chemistry result in reason, especially, as Dawkins wrote:

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (River Out of Eden, 1995)

How can anyone make a rational judgment on *anything* with such a worldview, never mind expecting to monopolise rationality? When viewed with a rational mind (the Creator being rational, gave man the ability to be rational also) Professor Dawkins proves time and again that he is irrational.

If there is no evil and no good, as he asserts, why is he constantly judging other people, namely the 7/8ths of the world’s people who have faith? He has absolutely no rational basis, according to his own worldview which he has set out, to either condone or condemn any action by anyone.

But that is off topic, but, nevertheless, vitally important, as atheism is destroying our culture and leaving our young people without hope.

I am certainly too poor an advocate to change your mind…

Why would you want to change my mind? Are you so stuck in your material-is-all-there-is conditioning that you feel the need to change me into the image of Modern Man, compliant with the prevailing national belief system?

You couldn’t change my mind, because I have heard the arguments and found them to be lacking or, in a great many cases, downright lies or misunderstandings. What passes for debate from evolutionists is often copy-and-paste refutations of Creationism and Christianity doing the rounds, which might sound good to the copier/paster, but which are tired old erroneous excuses and easily debunked.

I hope you will permit me to seek guidance from someone of my own choosing rather than yourself. No doubt you are the best of evangelists for some but please respect my free will ….if for no other reason that if there is a God it was surely his gift to me and so not something for you to presume upon.

You could do worse than me; that’s not a judgmental statement about anyone else’s merit as a human being, to avoid any confusion or accusations of self-delusion!

Under the evolutionary view, and accepted by honest evolution scientists, there can be no such thing as ‘free will’ if all our thoughts are the result of the laws of physics and chemistry. We only have free will – the will to sin, to repent, to deny oneself, to seek redemption – because it was given to us when man first sinned and our eyes were opened to a reality which no other creature was afforded.

And the same Creator who opened our eyes and gave us free will came to earth as a man and told us to convert people so that they could be saved from the curse of the Fall by being washed in the blood of the Lamb as the only way to be redeemed to the Almighty who, being perfect, cannot have His people redeemed to Himself without their sins being erased.

Of course, we are also expected to kick off the dust from our shoes and move on if people don’t want to hear.

That’s your prerogative, Steve. Just remember that on the Day of Judgment you will be without excuse.