Evolutionists, beware the ides of October! If you have read Shakespeare's work Julius Ceasar in high school, I expect your teacher told you the Ides of March refer to March 15. The ides of October refer to refer to October 15. Evolutionists, beware the ides of October!
Before I disclose what is going to occur on October 15, 2012, I will let relay to you a message I received today from the author of the Question Evolution! book for middle school students which is soon coming out.
The message from the Question Evolution! for middle school students author was:
"Hi , I finished the manuscript. I want to read through it tomorrow. Will send it when done...soon."
Evolutionists, October 13, 2012 is going to be BAD day for Darwinism
October 13, 2012 is still going to be a VERY BAD day for Darwinism. We have a good working relationship with an excellent and dedicated Texas creationist group.
We do want to expand our outreach in Texas though. A member of our team is going to be contacting two Texas creationist groups on October 13, 2012. Texas is a key battleground in the creation vs. evolution battle. See: Texas: A key creation vs. evolution battleground
In addition, we will be contacting some creationists in India on October 13, 2012.
The countries of China, India and Brazil are rising powers in the world, while many countries in secular Europe seems to be on the decline. We definitely want to translate the Question Evolution! Campaign into Mandarin Chinese and into Portuguese which is spoken in Brazil. See: Top 10 languages for turbocharging creation evangelism. Our Question Evolution! teams translating goals
Bloomberg reported on October 12, 2012:
The European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, providing a feel-good moment for the economically distressed bloc at a time when its post-national vision is losing traction at home and abroad.Is it curious that while evolution friendly Europe is on the decline, while the upcoming countries of Brazil and China are experiencing an explosive growth of biblical Christianity. See: China and Christianity and Creationism is growing in Brazil and spilling into its neighbors and Decline of global atheism and agnosticism
The accolade comes as the financial crisis threatens the EU’s signal achievement, the euro, and the rise of powers such as China, India and Brazil challenges the European model of rules-based cooperation with nation-states handing sovereign rights to a central authority.
Do you remember question #13 of the 15 questions for evolutionists?
Here it is:
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?
and Video on Question 13
Consider this information from the article Biblical roots of modern science:
As Prof. Harrison explained:Also:
“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada, writes in a similar vein, and also explains the somewhat misleading term “literal interpretation”:
“Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.”
And Prof. Snobelen explains the reason why:
"scientists started to study nature in the same way they studied the Bible. I.e. just as they studied whatthe Bible really said, rather than imposed outside philosophies and traditions upon it, they likewise studied how nature really did work, rather than accept philosophical ideas about how it should work (extending their allegorizing readings of Scripture to the natural world).It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists."
Evolutionists: Beware the Ides of October!
The ides of October is poetic way of saying October 15, 2012. We had a lot of tasks we wanted to accomplish on October 13, 2012, but they are getting delayed to October 15, 2012 due to a cold a member of ours caught. The cold was treated very early, therefore we expect the events planned for October 13, 2012 will happen, God willing, on October 15,. 2012. See: October 13, 2012 is going to be a terrible day for Darwinism
We expect to recruit a lot of Question Evolution! volunteers. One of the members of our team worked for a national executive recruiting firm. He used to make 100 calls a day and he is relentless.
Canadian mounties always get their man. Our volunteer recruiter always gets the best biblical creation believing recruits for our Question Evolution team! The lazy and bad people, we preach the gospel to and if they do not repent, regrettably they cannot join our elite Question Evolution! group!
Bible creation and young people
Parent's Corner
Biblical worldview project for parents and grandparents
Raising godly children
Prescription for raising children
Question Evolution! resources and other resources
Question Evolution! Campaign
15 questions for evolutionists
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15
Refuting evolution
Evidence for Christianity
Graphic credits:
All graphics are public domain and were obtained from http://www.clker.com/
Seriously, you would have a little bit more credibility if you actually provided some feedback on just how all these meetings that are supposed to be happening actually pan out.
ReplyDeleteVague references to unknown people contacting unknown organisations don't exactly instil fear in people - results do.
So, how about (just for once) telling us who these people are, who they're contacting and what the outcome was. Not so hard, is it?
Also, 2 things worth mentioning:
1. Why are you contacting creationists? That's like preaching to the choir. Why aren't you contacting Dawkins, or American Atheists and directly challenging them to a verbal debate?
2. Clearly you know nothing about the Texas Board of Education. You don't have to worry about Texas, they have already flushed their children's future down the toilet, by allowing anti-science creationism to be taught in school.
A few points:
Delete1. The Question Evolution! Campaign is designed to have open minded people question evolution - not to instill fear in people. Yes, we may ad some pizazz to a blog post with some Shakespeare ("Beware the ides"), but the campaign is not designed to instill fear in people.
2. Creationists are perfect volunteers to spread the campaign.
3. People like us. We are personable and willing to work with other people. On the other hand, atheists have a reputation infighting amongst themselves and for hassling the opposition. We will disclose the names of people/organizations who are allies of us when it suits us and not when it suits you.
Plus, we like keeping the opposition guessing and in the dark!
4. Evolutionists and the left have a reputation for ducking debate. See: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm and http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-distaste-for-debate.html
5. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )
via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.
Cpmonitor,
DeleteI wrote "There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate."
I hope you are not under the impression that I read your most recent blog comment as I did not. It was a very prompt DELETE as there was no indication in the beginning of your comment that you accepted our debate offer.
Until you crawl out of you intellectual bunny hole, there will be no further communication between us. And we both know that you are too timorous to agree to the debate which you would spectacularly LOSE!
The decline of atheism/evolutionism and the rise of biblical Christianity/creationism is inevitable at this point (see: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html ). Your responses are largely irrelevant at this point. Feel free to keep running on your atheist/evolutionist hamster wheel though and continue to make blog comments which will never be read!
Why are you challenging random people on the internet to a debate about deep scientific principles?
DeleteYou should be getting people with PhDs to debate that stuff. Get someone with a degree in evolutionary biology to face off against someone with an equivalent degree in creation science. I think that would be an immensely interesting debate! There's always the possibility that it they will end in a draw, which may not be the most exciting conclusion, but whoever won would surely bring some converts!
Remember, the vast majority of proponents--for /both/ sides--are not necessarily qualified to talk about it. We're a specialized society after all, so it's not necessary for everyone to know the details. In most cases a simple consensus from credible sources is more than enough reason to choose one way or the other. That's probably why Creationism is lagging so far behind, really. There aren't /nearly/ enough credible scientists backing the hypothesis for some reason.
Tyler,
DeleteA few things:
1. Please show that the people coming to this blog are random and show no tendency to examine various topics on the internet such as the creation vs. evolution issue.
2. Please show that evolutionism is deep. I don't think you can do it.
3. Evolutionists have a reputation for losing public debates and ducking public debates. See: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm
4. Please address this article on consensus science and origins: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html
5. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )
via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
1. Idek about everyone else but I just stumbled in here from a link and thought I'd check the place out. It seems incredibly... hostile, around here. I checked out the chatroom though and the people in there seem really nice! So it might just be whoever's writing the stuff on the main page? You should probably consider replacing that guy, I certainly didn't feel welcome at all while reading through everything :/
ReplyDelete2. Uh. Evolution is an immensely complex body of laws, observations, phenomena and theory. It's literally a hundred and fifty years of accumulated knowledge about the single most complex system on Earth. I can't... think of any possible... way... that that couldn't be considered deep?
3. Mm, I can't comment one way or the other on that one. I know a lot of evolutionary scientists tend to decline invitations for debate, but I don't think they decline for the reasons you think they decline.
4. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve Not that I'm partial one way or the other, but that /is/ a lot of Steves, you'll have to agree. If you want examples of scientific consensus being proved wrong and overturned by a more correct model, see: Galileo v. Christianity.
5. Oh gosh no! Are you kidding? Regardless of right or wrong, I can guarantee I'd be soundly trumped. I may sound confident and capable in text but I assure you I'm nothing of the sort in person. I think it would be a lot of fun, for sure! But gosh that just seems like opening myself up for ridicule. And the Question Evolution campaign doesn't seem the type to shrink from ridiculing people ; 3;
Tyler,
DeleteA few points:
1. You didn't just stumble to this website. You made a series of conscious choices to visit various websites to arrive to this blog.
2. We do challenge evolutionism at this blog. If you want to choose to call that hostility that is unfortunate.
3. You apparently do not feel confident enough in evolutionism to debate it and have it cross examined. That is not surprising since it is not based on evidence, but merely on gut feelings. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html
4. How carefully did you examine this web page: http://creation.com/15-questions ?
Did you examine the information on the linked pages and the videos?
Uhm. I actually did read over your fifteen questions pretty well. You probably should get them revised? I'm not an expert, like I said, but nearly all of them reflect a poor understanding of the theory of evolution. The very first question regards abiogenesis, not evolution, and even if there is a little disclaimer at the top stating that abiogenesis is included in evolution, it doesn't change the fact that we really don't care (in this context) how life originally arose because evolution explains what happened after self replicating life came to be? The second and third questions are actually similarly flawed... I think you could really build a good case, but you need to weed out the misunderstandings or else people will accuse you of being deceitful :/
ReplyDeleteI actually just had a less-than-pleasant experience in your chat room, which is a shame because up to this point I'd found it a very laid-back, stimulating little corner of the internet, bar the occasional troll. Although this is probably just a problem with one moderator in particular, it still reflects very poorly on your movement, I think.
Tyler,
DeleteAfter all is said and done, you don't feel confident enough in your evolutionism to have it publicly examined via public debate.
I have found that evolutionists tend lack confidence in their evolutionism. Often they hide behind appeals to authority and are insincere as well. Appeals to authority are a form of illogical argumentation. See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Sadly, I believe you fit this profile and regrettably I have no interest in further discussion with you.
Tyler,
DeleteI received your latest comment and you seem very upset that I called you out on using illogical argumentation via the appeal to authority logical fallacy. See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
I suggest you compose yourself and reflect on why you are not willing to publicly debate evolutionism. We are giving you the opportunity to express your evolutionist views to tens of thousands of people. I think you know that your evolutionary views cannot withstand cross-examination and thus you are unwilling to debate.
Would you like to have a debate through text :3
DeleteThank you for the offer.
DeleteHowever, we believe that the debate offer we offered you would serve the public's interest in a greater fashion.
Let us know if you change your mind.