Personal attacks and accusations but no substance
Published: 23 March 2013 (GMT+10)
In response to the author’s road-trip report where creationism was on trial, a skeptic, David Q. (USA) e-mailed us, claiming that one of our associate speakers Phil Robinson is brainwashed and teaching blatantly false information. The e-mail appears first in its entirety, then interspersed with Phil Robinson’s responses:
David Shankbone, Wikipedia
Arguments about God can become very heated.
This is directly to Phil Robinson. If you haven’t spent so much of your life and “education” (I use the term loosely) to brainwashing yourself or teaching yourself blatantly false information, I doubt that you would be as arrogant as you are. I just saw a video claiming that atheists aren’t willing to debate so-called educated theists. I challenge that thought and propose an argument to you. You are the one making the positive claim, so prove to us that your god is true. I won’t accept anything less than vetted, peer-reviewed sources. Your bible is less than a fifth-removed anecdotal tale of some extremely primitive and non-scientific accounts of how people who didn’t even understand the mechanics of child birth trying to understand how the universe works. Alternatively, I can present THOUSANDS of argument that disprove your specific cult, oops I meant sect, of christianity, or whatever the hell you believe in.
Let me state my mission here. I am firmly against the believing in junk science. Actually, let me retract that statement a bit. “id’ or creationism (they don’t deserve to be capitalized) cannot be categorized as junk science. Junk science may actually start off with scientifically viable hypotheses whereas “id” or “creationism” are absolute delusional and idiotic stances. Your stance that the bible (not sure which version you’re referring to) is the true, LITERAL account of how we began is absolutely laughable. I can disprove the story of genesis in my sleep yet you think that you want to debate real educated atheists? If you simply want to argue for god then I present you with a question that is unanswerable to your kind, “Which god?”
Phil Robinson responds:
This is directly to Phil Robinson. If you haven’t spent so much of your life and “education” (I use the term loosely) to brainwashing yourself or teaching yourself blatantly false information, I doubt that you would be as arrogant as you are.
For someone who, as far as I am aware, has never met me, perhaps if wanting to engage in some meaningful dialogue, an insult is not the best way to open? However, if you are trying to equate arrogance with exclusivity, then you are heading down the wrong path. Explaining and defending the truth of biblical creation and in turn the Bible and the Gospel, and presenting it as the truth, is not arrogant, but it is exclusive. Truth by definition is exclusive, as it excludes all falsehood. In the Bible we read that Jesus is truth and that everyone on the side of truth listens to him (John 18:37); so faith in Jesus is exclusive. He himself said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6).
Have you ever studied the Bible’s prophetic accuracy concerning the truth of Jesus? My personal favourite can be found in Isaiah 53 which accurately describes Jesus’ vicarious suffering and death for our sins. Isaiah 53:9 reads, “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death”. In the original, the Hebrew the word for wicked (rashayim) is plural, and the word for rich (ashir) singular. This prophecy concerning Jesus was written more than 700 years before it occurred and yet we know that he was crucified with a thief on either side of him—and thus assigned a grave with the wicked (Matthew 27:38)—and that he was buried in the tomb of a rich man, Joseph of Arithamea—and thus with the rich in his death (Matthew 27:57–60). This is only one of hundreds of examples. For more reasons to believe the truth contained in the Bible see here. The reason I am so concerned about telling people the Good News of Jesus Christ and defending biblical creation is that there are eternal consequences for peoples’ souls. My desire is that they find peace with God now as they turn to him and repent of their sin. Explaining this to people is love, not arrogance.
In my own undergraduate and postgraduate studies I was certainly not brainwashed as my lecturers and professors were definitely not advocating a biblical position on Creation. In fact, some of them were even hostile to Christianity in general. It was because of this that, during my academic years, I read very widely on the issue of Creation/evolution and examined fully what people told me, looking at their biases, presuppositions and the evidence they were presenting. It was through reading the Bible, prayer and critical thinking that I came to the position I now hold. However, on this issue, critical thinking has all but been banned in our secular education system. The brainwashing is occurring in schools and universities not creationist churches. For example, in 2008 evolutionist Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s director of education, had to resign under firm pressure within days of merely suggesting that creationism and ID could be discussed in classrooms! You can also read how the evidence for biblical creation is now being censored in UK schools. To get a fuller grasp you might also want to read Dr Jerry Bergman’s Slaughter of the Dissidents or view the documentary Expelled for further examples of how anyone who questions the evolution mainstream paradigm is treated.
I can only presume that the ‘blatantly false information’ that you are talking about refers to the kind of information that you find on the CMI website. The thing that I have always treasured about CMI is that they use the biblical principle of “as iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens man” (Proverbs 27:17), and thus the information put up on the website is very carefully examined before being published. Perhaps you could have given an example of ‘blatant falsehood’ from one of the fully searchable 8,000+ articles rather than just be vague?
I just saw a video claiming that atheists aren’t willing to debate so-called educated theists. I challenge that thought and propose an argument to you.
While it’s hard to comment on the particular video that you viewed, I am aware of numerous times when atheists have refused to debate both educated theists and creationists; for examples see here. One personal example I can share is when speaking with Professor Donald Prothero in April 2012 at Lipan Point, Grand Canyon. When I asked him if he would speak to a creationist geologist, someone trained in his own particular field, about the Grand Canyon he replied, “I wouldn’t waste my time, I have a life”. This is not a scientific argument, but one of simple ridicule which is seen over and over again, and is hardly credible. The truth of the matter is that atheism, evolution and all that it pretends to be simply does not stand up to scrutiny, as a proper examination of this website and the resources available on it reveal.
You are the one making the positive claim, so prove to us that your god is true. I won’t accept anything less than vetted, peer-reviewed sources.
You ask for proof, but then say you will only accept it on your own terms. Do you really seek the truth or have you already decided what way to live your life? You have set a standard that will prove nothing as you expect the very people who publish in secular journals, who reject the Bible, to prove it to you.
However, in saying that, you will find that the Bible which is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) and every word true (Psalm 119:160), in a very different way, is the most reviewed source that you will find. Millions have testimonies of experiencing the knowledge of salvation through Jesus Christ by reading its pages and seeing the truth contained in it. I heartily recommend it to you. Have you ever studied it for yourself? You will also find that CMI produce their own peer-reviewed Journal of Creation and, as explained earlier, all web articles are carefully checked and pass through an editorial process before being published. For arguments on the existence of God see here and for understanding that you cannot disprove God see Probably no God?
Your bible is less than a fifth-removed anecdotal tale of some extremely primitive and non-scientific accounts of how people who didn’t even understand the mechanics of child birth trying to understand how the universe works.
I can clearly tell that you are indeed quoting peer reviewed sources yourself with an argument like that! I missed the references though—did you forget to include them? In regard to the Bible being less than a fifth removed anecdotal tale, Dr Clark Pinnock sums up rather nicely what is actually the case: “There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest man cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon irrational fear”.1 The historical accuracy of the Bible has been proven time and time again, showing that it is not “less than a fifth removed-anecdotal tale”. For example, in the 1800s, critics of the Bible argued that the Hittite empire, known only from the Bible, never existed. While this was an argument from silence, it was nevertheless hurled at Christians. In the late 1800s a range of ancient documents were found in Egypt and Turkey with references to the Hittites and, in 1906, the ruins of the Hittite empire were discovered, silencing the critics. Evidence for long-forgotten empires, historical events and persons in history contained within the Bible are frequently shown to be accurate, even in respect of persons only receiving the briefest of mentions; an example is one of Nebuchadnezzar’s court officials, Nebo-Sarsekim mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3, found to be mentioned in a recently deciphered clay tablet in the British museum. For further examples you may wish to read a very interesting interview with archaeologist Dr Clifford Wilson.
In regard to the mechanics of child birth the Bible appears to be quite clear. For example, right in the beginning, in Genesis, in respect of Eve and her first born Cain, Genesis 4:1 states, “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant.” That childbirth would involve pain (Genesis 3:16) and, while pain is a spectrum, from being present during child birth and having talked with a range of women who have been through it, I have never come across one who described it as totally pain free. Lastly after becoming pregnant, she then, “gave birth to Cain” (Genesis 4:1). Adam and Eve understood perfectly what was going on as they fulfilled God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). Instead the truth is that you have failed to present even a syllable of evidence that the Bible writers did not understand the mechanics of childbirth! This is an accusation with no substance and, to be fair, you wrote to us, so you should really have taken the time to explain why you chose to state this.
Regarding the cosmos, the Bible was able to record more than 4000 years ago that God, “Hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7), literally “it floats in space” which we now know to be the case.
Alternatively, I can present THOUSANDS of argument that disprove your specific cult, oops I meant sect, of christianity, or whatever the hell you believe in.
And yet you have presented none. You have simply used a tactic called elephant hurling, throwing out the statement “I can present thousands of arguments” to give the impression that you have weighty arguments, but in actual fact you have presented nothing but fact-free assertions. In regard to what we at CMI believe, our statement of faith may be found here, which you could have taken the time to read, outlining the core tenets of the Christian faith as they always have been. For examples of Church Fathers who believed in biblical creation see here and here; an example of one of the great leaders of the 16th Century Reformation, John Calvin, is given here, and you can also read here what Jesus taught in regard to the age of the earth.
Let me state my mission here. I am firmly against the believing in junk science. Actually, let me retract that statement a bit. "id" or creationism (they don’t deserve to be capitalized) cannot be categorized as junk science.
A mission? Sounds like a religious zeal? Well we actually have two things in common here: I too am firmly against believing in junk science. That’s why I try to educate people in regard to the fallacy of evolution. I would also agree that biblical creationism and the concepts behind ID2 cannot be categorized as junk science. Like evolutionary belief, biblical creation is a world-view, but one which is supported by true science as the many well documented articles throughout this website testify. There are plenty of examples of evolutionary junk science though, such as the continuing belief that life came from non-living matter, despite this contradicting the known laws of science. Or slightly further on in the story, how did sex originate? This is a question that evolutionists never seem to address. Just how did useful male and female sexual organs evolve just at the right time? A part evolved sex organ would be useless and selected against. For more questions that the junk science of evolution cannot answer see Question Evolution!
Junk science may actually start off with scientifically viable hypotheses whereas “id” or “creationism” are absolute delusional and idiotic stances. Your stance that the bible (not sure which version you’re referring to) is the true, LITERAL account of how we began is absolutely laughable.
I presume by further mocking you now hope to a score a point. Do you realise that you have actually said nothing of any substance but simply made derogatory statements? Genesis is written as a historical narrative and not as a scientific text book; however the scientific statements that it does make are accurate in all respects. While Genesis can never be scientifically proven, it is demonstrably consistent with the evidence around us. For example the evolutionary model would not have predicted that everyone on the planet would be traced back to one woman, Mitochondrial Eve, and that there would be three main mitochondrial DNA sublineages. However, this is fully concordant with the Bible which states that we all came from Eve, the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20), and then from the three wives of the sons of Noah (Genesis 9:18,19).
We also know that sedimentary rocks, laid down in processes that we do not see today, i.e. sometimes over many hundreds of kilometres over the earth’s crust, contain marine fossils even on the highest mountain tops, such as Mt Everest. Many of the fossils contained in these rock layers are exquisitely preserved and soft bodied indicating that they were formed very quickly. This fits very well with what we would expect to find after a catastrophic world-wide flood, which the Bible teaches occurred in the time of Noah. It does not fit well with the secular uniformitarian view that the rocks were built up by slow and gradual processes over millions of years. It is also impossible for evolutionists to explain how dinosaur soft tissue can exist in bones which they say date to 65MYA+. The existence of well-preserved dinosaur tissue, however, is easily explained within a biblical creationist framework, as this would be understood to be just a few thousand years old.
I can disprove the story of genesis in my sleep yet you think that you want to debate real educated atheists?
And yet you have not.
If you simply want to argue for god then I present you with a question that is unanswerable to your kind, “Which god?”
Rather than being unanswerable this is actually one of my favourite questions and one that I ask people all the time when I am out evangelising. You see there is only one true God (Isaiah 44:6). He makes himself known to us through His Word, the Bible. However a lot of people have created their own gods which exist only in their imaginations—gods that allow them to live how they want, and they still get to a heaven in the end; gods who will look favourable upon them and their families and not punish their sin; gods who are not personal to them, but distant, and who don’t really bother much with them or affect their daily lives. However these ‘god’s are not real and have no power.
Rather the Bible presents the one true God who, in His omnipotence, formed the universe by His command (Hebrews 11:3). He has no equal (Isaiah 40:21–31), and cannot be deceived or mocked as He knows all your ways (Galatians 6:7). He who wants to interact with the mind that he has given you in a fully intelligent way (Isaiah 1:18), and knowing that we could not save ourselves from our sin, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the price for our sins (John 3:16). I hope that you, “Stop trusting man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?” (Isaiah 2:22), “take refuge in the Lord” (Psalm 118:8) and come to true repentance and knowledge of saving faith through Jesus Christ.
References and notes
- Pinnock, C., Set Forth Your Case, Moody, Chicago, p. 85, 1971. Return to text.
- The concept behind intelligent design, i.e. that there is an Intelligent Designer behind the universe and life, I agree with; however I do not agree with all tenets of the Intelligent Design movement, primarily as they fail to name the creator as Jesus. For more see CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement. Return to text.
Beautifully written, Mr Robinson. God bless you.
Thank you for such a Spirit led answer to a very hostile attack. I now have a role model to follow when encounter with other non-believers.
Back in October, Dr. Randy Guiluzza and Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson of ICR came to speak at our church, and the worship leader brought his long-time atheist friend to the first meeting. The meeting talked about the irreducible complexity of the reproductive system as evidence against molecules-to-man evolution.
Afterward, there was a question/answer session, and the atheist got up second. He asked something like "how do you explain the fact that human embryos have tails?" He thought he had a knock-down question that could not be answered. Dr. Guiluzza, a medical doctor, then answered him and told him how that what were thought to be "tails" in the human embryo are actually the coccyx, and that we never have tails when we are being developed. He said that the idea of us starting with tails is "misinformation". The atheist then yelled, "NO IT'S NOT!" Dr. Guiluzza kindly responded, "I'm just reporting the facts." The atheist kept yelling back something like, "THOSE ARE NOT THE FACTS!" When the atheist failed to shake Dr. Guiluzza's confident stance against evolution, he eventually gave up.
The worship leader who is friends with him told me that the atheist was yelling because he was being convicted. I guess he was irritated at the messenger for reporting something that shattered his excuse for unbelief.
The Truth salted with Grace: Simply Awesome. Keep it up
I did some google searching on the Mt. Everest fossil thing, and a rebuttal I found for your claim is as follows.
"Mountains form due to plate tectonics. They are literally the result of the earth being pushed upwards and together, like creases in the earth's surface. Take a piece of cloth, grab either side of it lengthwise and start pushing them together -- now imagine that same process happening in the earth's plates. Fossils that were buried on the ocean floor were shifted along with the rock, and locked in place when the mud from the floor of the ocean condensed into rock.
Once again, this is not proof of a global flood. Fossils couldn't find their way into solid rock unless they've been there for millions of years, not several thousand. The fossils were already present before Everest came to its full size and position. There is absolutely no way that they could have have been embedded in the rock after it formed, even if there had been a global flood."
I searched your website for "Mount Everest fossils" but could not find any articles that matched the search criteria. Would you be so kind as to provide me with an answer for this?
I’ve heard this argument from evolutionists a number of times before. As you say, they try to explain the presence of fossils in areas (and mountains) high above sea level by gradual uplift over millions of years. However, this does not fit the facts very well. Rates of erosion are such that, if the continents/mountains had been around for millions of years, the sedimentary rocks, along with their fossils, would have been eroded and washed away by now. See http://creation.com/eroding-ages.
I believe the marine creatures found in the limestone rocks on top of Mt Everest were buried in sediments laid down during the Genesis Flood. These sediments then rapidly hardened and the marine creatures were fossilised. (See http://creation.com/rapid-rock.) At the end of the Flood, as stated in Psalm 104:8, “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that [God] appointed for them.” This happened rapidly, not over millions of years, which is why the sedimentary rocks are still there.
I thank the Lord for your ability to articulate a response to this tirade, yet still show the love of Christ when often the urge is to take an unloving stance in response to hurt feelings. This is a skill I pray the Holy Spirit teaches me.
God bless CMI and it's staff and members!
One personal example I can share is when speaking with Professor Donald Prothero in April 2012 at Lipan Point, Grand Canyon. When I asked him if he would speak to a creationist geologist, someone trained in his own particular field, about the Grand Canyon he replied, “I wouldn’t waste my time, I have a life”.
1 John 5:12 "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."
What a wonderful privilege and great joy to be abused, reviled and taunted for the gospel of Jesus Christ and standing for the truth of God's word. Please be assured you do not stand alone in this.
God bless you my brother.
I think when he said "people who didn’t even understand the mechanics of child birth" he was referring to the virgin birth, but that is adequately refuted elsewhere on Creation.com.
Shalom! Thank you for your gracious response to this angry man who has been lead astray by lies and fallacy! I pray that he will read your letter, take heed and seek truth wherever it leads him. I know that all who seek the truth with sincerity will find God and his Son Jesus/Yeshua!
Very excellent article. Concise, powerful, direct, scriptural,evangelical, kind while displaying tough love. Good job!!!!
Praise the Lord for men and women of courage and substance, such as yourselves. If we are not for God, we are against God. Your Ministry is very encouraging to many, many Christians, and others, I'm sure. May God continue to richly Bless you all, Amen.
Very good response! But as another one has pointed, the e-mail was unreasonable and abusive. It is evident that he hates God and isn't really seeking for the truth. A few weeks ago, I debated on the web with an atheist who told me: "If ONE fossil, just ONE, were found out of place (based on evolutionary models) the entire theory would collapse. And yet that hasn't happened. And if one day that fossil is found and evolution is disproven I, as well as many others, will reject evolution". When I pointed to the article by Michael Oard "Are fossils ever found in a wrong place?", he didn't abandon evolution as he promised, but rather came to lengths to still justify evolution...it reminded me of Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9 about the antichrist's signs and lying wonders. People will be deceived "because they received not THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, that they might be saved".
All I can say is Amen to your well written response to this deluded man. I pray that he will find salvation in Christ before it is too late for him.
Excellent response. I have numerous unbelieving friends and relatives who like to throw big insults at my beliefs, but the never offer any "real" arguments of their own. They just don't like the fact that Creation makes a lot more sense and all of the real evidence points to Creation and not Evolution.
Thank you for your response to such an ignorant attack. You not only replied graciously but wished him your blessing. I have so much to learn about apologetics and would just have decided not to bother sending any reply. But you dealt with it admirably. May the LORD bless you in abundance.
God Bless you, and so true!! Truth has a way of vindicating itself and you have just done a great job in demonstrating that !!
I am just glad that there are 8,000+ articles of this standard Phil, it is a very rich source of thinking and study. It can be hard to stay patient when people are like this but I think a good, clean and logically measured case is the right way to go. With people like this, it's easy to think they are not worth the effort, when they harden themselves so strongly, but at least you have done your best and it is almost certain that they do see the truth in your words because this is why they respond so defensively. If our case was so hopeless then why are they acting as we expect them to if they are wrong?
Believe it or not, not all people are this hardened to us. My brother is an atheist and he does not believe in evolution. He is not intellectual but even he can see that either a designer, or extraterrestrials seem plausible. He at least accepts the clear design of the creatures. We must remember there are the extreme New-Atheists but there are also people who are less extreme. Yes, my brother does not accept God's existence, but he acknowledges that a creation fits the facts better than evolution and he scorns evolution.
As Socrates once said, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Thanks for providing these wonderful articles and refutations!
Thanks for your fantastic work - very inspiring! May God richly bless you and open the eyes of those that read your responses...
Well, that was a rather vitriolic communication.
Actually at one time I was a mocking blasphemous atheist. I approached CMI with a doubtful but open mind, thereafter. I must say I find CMI's ideas much more compelling than those of the Evolution faith cohort. In arguing Creation with a now former "friend" I was pretty mauled verbally too.
You people are doing a fabulous job in your ministry.
"If the world hates you, just remember that it has hated me first. If you belonged to the world, then the world would love you as its own. But I chose you from this world, and you do not belong to it; that is why the world hates you." John 15:18
God bless you and God bless your detractor.
"I can disprove Genisis in my sleep!"
So.....why haven't you?
If you're going to argue something, argue something, don't say how well you can argue and not do it.
I sincerely look forward to the RE to this message.
What a wonderful response to such and awful email. In the first line of your response you refer to David Q. as 'a skeptic'. Surely a genuine skeptic would be armed with reasoned arguments, proofs and references to uphold his/her viewpoint. Clearly, this chap is full of hate for whatever reason and must be prayed for, for his enlightenment.
Well done CMI and as has been said, the response by Phil is worth keeping to hand and using in appropriate circumstances - that seem to occur frequently. God bless you all. Soli Deo gloria.
Great article !!! It's because of articles like this one that I have learned to pay attention to the general content of the other person's argument and have noticed that the majority of the time they don't really offer anything of substance, but only intimidation. Thanks very much !!!
Great job Phil, so thankful for a kind response... Truly we fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities... May God be glorified in all we do. Thanks again.
Haha, good one.
Mr. David Q. must be very old knowing those people who didn't understand the mechanics (?) of child birth.
Evolutionists don't understand how the universe works, they are still searching; even less they know where it came from.
At least he knows about hell, a chosen destiny?
No capitalizing of 'id' or 'creation': I have seen 'evolutio'n only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence.
And disproof the Bible in your sleep.....yea, there where the dreams are; from which fish did this ability evolve....dreaming I mean?
And his expression:"Your Bible......and Your God...." sounds like a little jealous boy having not the 'mates' others have.
It's very simple and short Mr. Q.:
The Bible is the truth anything else is not.
Jesus is the truth anyone else not.
Hell is the truth anything else is heaven.
Try this: The first two sentence of the Bible describe where all there is came from.
Now the Bible laughs at you.
Have peace in your heart and know that God is waiting for you.
I will be teaching a class on evolution vs. creation this Sunday, part of a series on evangelism. I'm so impressed with Phil Robinson's answer to the typical evolutionist taunting that I am going to use it in that presentation. We need to learn to be gracious to those who are in danger of eternal judgment. Not weak -- but speaking the truth in love. We have answers, and they have nothing but vituperation, slander and lies. We should be confident. If we have been properly trained, we will be... God be with you always!
I was enormously impressed by Phil Robinson's response to a highly emotional rant. But therein lies the problem: on one side there is pure emotion, and on the other reasoned intellect. As has been pointed out many times in the past, emotion-based ideas cannot be swayed by logic.
When the real explanation for combustion came along, believers in the Phlogiston theory (widely held across Europe by most of the leading intellectuals of the day) did not say, "Ah, here is a better explanation. All the evidence supports it and we can all do experiments that prove it. Let us abandon our previous beliefs and take up the correct one." No, I am afraid that it took about 50 years for the Phlogiston theory of combustion to die out - literally. Adherents could not let go of their emotional faith in a false explanation, and so had to die off.
David Q. is one such. He is constitutionally incapable of a fair approach to the issues, due to the emotional nature of the brainwashing he himself has undergone. Some people might say I am being unfair about the nature of evolutionary belief; perhaps to call it emotional is a distortion. Howerver, consider the nature of evolutionary theory. It is based on no discernable evidence, merely a collection of rationalist "just-so" stories, originaly formulated to attack the Christian faith, as the private correspondences of Huxley, Lyell and Darwin show.
What can we then expect? The response of a Prothero is typical. All we can do is preach the Gospel and carry out our ministries. See 2 Timothy 3:1-5.
I firmly believe CMI has been rasied up by God to provide the resources to preach the Gospel in this evolutionary age. CMI requires our full and unremitting support.
"Commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim 2:2
Excellent response. The attack letter is all too familiar to those of us who present creation science on the Internet. Interestingly, these people claim to believe in "reason", yet their letters are saturated with logical fallacies. As Phil Robinson noted, this is motivated by religious zeal.
What a great response Phil. Whenever Atheists are cornered, they always resort to throwing insults i.e. they have run out of ammo. I pray that the writer reads this response and that God touches his heart and hopefully one day comes to know and accept the Lord as his saviour.
I am surprised that David Q. did not offer any scientific evidence or even cite any. In a University Debate, he would be disqualified the first round for lack of substance.
An excellent response by Phil Robinson. The sad fact is, similar offensive comments are made by people who claim to be Christians. It would make a nice change if both skeptics and theistic evolutionists would take the time to study what CMI has to say and then respond in a polite and dignified way.
Good thoughtful answer. You did not respond to him in his folly but rather a well thought out biblical response. I pondered over your responses and wondered if this man is sincere. A sincere, seeking person will find God always!
I hope David takes the time to examine some of the links presented in this response, to obtain greater understanding on his own journey through this life.
Phil - I have received strength & benefit from your response also, Thank you !
An excellent reply by Phil to such a foolish, but sadly typical message from a man who clearly hates God. My prayers go out to him, and also to your ministry. Keep up the good work. May the scales fall from the eyes of David, and others like him. Amen.
Regarding Donald Prothero: 'When I asked him if he would speak to a creationist geologist ... about the Grand Canyon he replied, "I wouldn't waste my time, I have a life".'
This response sadly smacks of condescending ridicule, arrogance and ignorance. It also points to someone trapped in the complex web of convoluted fabrications, categorisations and fudge factors which is spun by the general theory of evolution.
He should try to reason the issues. It may open his eyes to the neat answers of creation, which explain the issues in a realistic way. And it would free his time so that he could have a good life.
Jesus said: "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free... If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." - John 8:31-32 & 36
Several times while reading derogatory and elephant-hurling tirades such as this, I have been reminded of experiences on the mission field in dealing with evil spirits. They will tell the most vicious and cunning lies as if they were absolutely true. I got the same impression in 2004 when debating with Martin Hadley by email on the creation vs. evolution issue. In one letter he made 16 claims, every one of which was demonstrably wrong, and I couldn't help feeling that he was under the control of a lying spirit when he wrote it. Just one example: I quoted C.S. Lewis on, "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord." The response was that "Jesus was obviously a lunatic. The incident on the pinnacle of the temple showed that." Huh? We are in a spiritual war, not just a debate, and clearly CMI is hitting hard and in the right places. Keep up the good work!
Just for interest I decided to grab an A4 sheet of paper, draw a line vertically down the middle and keep score of how many times each side of this debate gave sources for their claims. Without spoiling the punch-line, I can suggest that by the end of the discussion, one of those two columns was glaringly vacant. I really admire your patience Phil. And for the record, I'd give "ID" and "CMI" a capital too now after doing my due diligence.
One has to doubt if the apparantly negative intellectual capacity of your complainant would permit him to even read, much less fully comprehend and follow through, your most excellent, meaningful and absolutely correct response. May our Lord bless your continuing efforts to save such people from their dangerous (for them), bigoted and erroneous beliefs. For his sake, and others he possibly infects, I pray, together no doubt with many more of your enlightened readers, that he will open his mind, understand and accept.
This was simply beautiful to read. All he did was write one big insult riddled with fallacies, and you answered so tactfully. I have to admit, I am not scientifically minded, so I rely on you guys heavily. I am glad I can rely on you guys to be so composed, It just proves to me that you are genuine followers of Christ.
Good job Phil at answering this guy in truth and love. I must admit when I'm debating friends about Christianity and creation in particular the personal attacks sometimes tempt me into responding in kind and it is good to see you have not done this.
Regarding the comment:
If you simply want to argue for god then I present you with a question that is unanswerable to your kind, "Which god?"
Anything outside of Christ (God was manifested in the flesh. 1Timothy 3:16) is idolatry.
Idolatry could be defined as putting anything that is in and part of God’s creation, above and before God. That is, to hold something in greater affection and higher esteem than that in which we hold the Creator.
"…and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…" Romans 1:25
This includes work, studies, nature, science, technology, ideas, theories, family (Matthew 10:37), friends, relationships, money, houses, lands, investments, businesses, possessions, politics, culture, country, traditions and history… anything and everything that is part of the creation becomes an idol or a ‘god’ when it is held in higher regard and given more attention than the Creator.
The believers of evolution have put faith in the universe as their 'creator' and are therefore "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator." As in old pagan religions of the past, the creation itself has become their ‘god’ or idol.
Idolatry is so deeply rooted in, and is so pleasing to human nature, that, except for God’s word...
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
…it would remain hidden out of sight within us.
The Creator, Jesus himself (John 1:1-14) is the true, one, and only God.
The email consisted of 279 words of which 99% were the same logical fallacies repeated. Fallacies such as:
Ad Hominem: “brainwashing yourself”
Appeal to Emotion: “blatantly false information”
Faulty Appeal to majority; “I won’t accept anything less than vetted, peer-reviewed sources”
Genetic fallacy: “bible is less than a fifth-removed anecdotal tale”
Question-begging epithet: “disprove your specific cult, oops I meant sect, of Christianity”
Straw man fallacy: “whereas “id” or “creationism” are absolute delusional and idiotic stances.”
No true Scotsman fallacy: “you want to debate real educated atheists”
The only fact he got right was "Phil Robinson"
And the answer to the unanswerable question “Which god?” is "I Am" the God of the bible.
It's a sad email because it illustrates an irrational angry lost soul. Let's pray that the Holy Spirit works on this persons hardened heart.
Very nicely stated Phil. Keep up the great work.
God bless all those at CMI,
Masterful response Phil and with an abundant side-serving of grace! I think I will be referring back to this on many occasions. Well done.
I am a senior professional mechanical engineer, a teacher of the Good News of Jesus Christ and a Gideon. It is so good to read such a considered and loving response to what is so plainly irrational criticism. Your consistent example of Christ-led responses is an inspiration and great encouragement to me. Thank you. And you didn't even mention the personal Spirit of God or how He counsels us. God has indeed blessed me today. Thanks. Excellent work.
This is another reasoned and gracious response to another unreasonable and abusive email. I hope the writer reads Phil's responses carefully (but I doubt it). It never ceases to amaze me the way in which people who cling to such an illogical absurdity as the evolutionaly hypothesis, like to take the intellectual (and moral)high ground in such a derisive and mocking way. Well done to Phil who took the time to answer this man with gentleness and truth.