The Atheist Blogger » debunking atheists

Christian Blogs

Adrian Hayter — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:34:02 +0000

My Feeds

I subscribe to quite a few blogs; some technical, some webcomics, most atheist-based. However I do subscribe to a few Christian blogs for various reasons:

“Atheist Central” by Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort’s blog is a great place if you want to have a laugh, or simply want to watch a load of bigoted hatred emerge out of the “love” theists have for our souls. Whether he is busy redefining science or claiming that light is invisible, Ray Comfort always manages to bring a smile to the face of any atheist. Heck, he even has his own bunch of debunkers.

Stuff Christians Like by Prodigal John

This blog is rather atheist-friendly since atheists aren’t actually mentioned, so it is a nice look into the minds of Christians when they aren’t all riled up over our “atheist faith”.

Debunking Atheists by Dan

Debunking Atheists has a special place not only in my feed reader but also in my blog’s blogroll because the author challenged me to put him there after he wrote answers to the Atheist Thirteen for me. Dan (the author in question) has a current series trying to “Debunk Evolution” which is hilarious to read, mainly because he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of the science and simply repeats well-known lies.

Uncommon Descent by William Dembski (originally)

A blog about Intelligent Design, which of course spouts the same rubbish and regurgitated debunked “facts” they’ve been talking about for years. The site logo is still the I.D mascot, the bacterial flagellum, which of course has various explanations for its existence through Evolutionary theory. Still, it’s great fun to read on all the “controversy” surrounding these issues.

So what Christian blogs do you peruse? Why do you do it? Do you actively take part in discussions or just sit in the sidelines?

Possibly Related Posts:

Evolution Is Not A Fraud!

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:36:13 +0000

This is a general response to the “Debunking Atheists” blog post entitled “Evolution is a fraud!“. As with all posts made by Creationists, it contains a gross misunderstanding of basic Evolutionary theory, and whilst I’m no Evolutionary Biologist, I know the basics enough to correct Dan on it.

From the article:

1. It’s not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

WRONG. It certainly is science, and it has been observed^[1] and is being experimented on^[2] as we speak. In fact, Richard Lenskis experiment^[3] has frozen instances of E-coli every 500 generations, meaning he can replay the Evolution of past generations to see if the same things happen. If anything, the “ever-changing ideas” prove it is a science. since science is always updated with new evidence coming in. Evolutionary theory has changed much since the days of Darwin, but the core observation that species have evolved has remained and is unchallenged (successfully) to this day. If you really think ever-changing ideas cannot be science, then the theory of gravity is not a science, neither is our understanding of particle physics, or any chemistry subject. We can never really know everything about any subject since the infinite variations we could test under are just too many.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don’t have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

WRONG. Firstly it should be pointed out that Evolution is a part of biology, so you are contradicting yourself by saying that biology is a real science and Evolution is not. As I have explained in the previous paragraph, Evolution is a real science and if you actually looked for the evidence you would find it. There are no so-called “problems of legitimacy” in Evolution. Everything we can explain has been explained, and if something comes along that isn’t compatible with current Evolutionary theory, the reason will be found and the theory changed to fit the evidence. Likewise, if evidence is found that contradicts Evolution and can be proved, Evolution would be finished. Unfortunately, this would leave us stuck because we would have to explain all the evidence we currently have for Evolution and change / variation using another theory. No current alternatives have even come close.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself ‘Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that’s what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

WRONG. It would be criminal of me not to point out your obvious misconception of natural selection as “random chance”. It is nothing of the sort. As the name suggests, instead of some external influence choosing which way Evolution goes, it is nature “selecting” the path. Random chance only occurs when mutations appear “randomly” but this is only the primary phase of Evolution and has no relation to any of the other phases. Natural selection is the process of mutations being passed on through generations, forming the new variation of the species once it breeds across the entire population. Since you include a link to the bacterial flagellum, it seems only appropriate that I inform you that the Evolution of flagellum has been explained at EvolutionWiki^[4] and even Wikipedia.^[5]

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that’s for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via ‘natural selection,’ aka random chance.

WRONG. DNA and Genetics is not “infinitely complex”. If it were then it wouldn’t exist because we live in a finitely sized universe (it is referred to as infinite due to its continual expansion and therefore failure to ever tell how large it is at any given point). Genetics is complex, but not infinitely complex. However, as previously stated complex states can evolve through natural selection, which isn’t random chance. Complexity evolves, it has been observed.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

WRONG. Yes, if it were purely up to random chance then the likelihood of things evolving into complex organisms would be incredibly small. However, as previously stated (and repeated) natural selection is not random chance. That said, you still make a vast misconception of Evolutionary theory by saying that “a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man”. This never happened. The Evolution of humanity from “primordial ooze” happened over billions of years and through countless trillions of generations of bacteria so simple organisms, to more complex organisms. You mention Borel and Hoyle, but they had very distinct flaws in their arguments. Namely that they ignored natural selection, and that they tried to calculate the overall probability instead of focusing on the individual processes of Evolution. The probability of a new gene surfacing and being kept in the population, etc. Their arguments have been debunked many times.^[6]^[7]

6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you’ve conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

WRONG. Evolution is not a religion. A religion is defined as a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Evolution is not an answer to any of these, although it is itself part of the “nature” of the universe. There are plenty of Christian evolutionists that see natural selection as God’s hand and the genesis accounts as a cute but illogical story of the origins of life.

7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don’t want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton’s work was relatively harmless, Hitler’s work — to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people — was not. (evofraud.com)

Also, Hitler even tried to breed apes and humans to make a superior race because of the belief of evolution. Please tell me honestly does evolution really sound logical to you personally? Really? Is this a great example of mass hysteria?

WRONG. Darwin was a racist. So what? At the time being racist was a normality in his society. Creationists at the time were likewise racist and sexist, but I don’t use that as an arguing point against Creationism because I understand the historical context. Yes, Darwinian Evolution was highly biased against people of different colours and they were thought to be an inferior race. This is why nobody follows Darwinian Evolution anymore. The theory has changed because we discovered this was wrong and all people are equal. Not to mention, the original human race is now thought to have evolved in Africa. ^[8]

Eugenics as you mention is not harmful. It goes by the premise that since Evolution relies on natural selection, certain beings with free will can override such selection and build a better species. In some ways, this already happens as we choose who we want to reproduce with based on various factors. Eugenics through genetic manipulation is a current thinking which has great potential. Instead of forbidding people with genetic abnormalities to reproduce, we use genetic engineering to remove the abnormalities in the unborn child.

As for Hitler trying to breed a superior race through mixing humans and apes, it shows an almost laughable understanding of Evolutionary theory. Such a race would take millenia to emerge, and why choose an ape? Why not breed a lion with a human, or a cheetah? Even if this kind of Evolution was possible (which it isn’t), the idea falls flat on its face. So yes, Hitlers flawed view of Evolution is indeed an example of hysteria, so thank goodness we don’t have the same problems today.

Conclusively, I should remark on how your view of Evolution is so corrupted by Creationist teachings. Your arguments go against even what most Christians believe. My advice would be to take an Evolution 101 course, ask questions, get answers. Don’t try to sit at home with an internet connection and attempt to ridicule something you know nothing about.

Possibly Related Posts:

A Real Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen!

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:58:59 +0000

I got some negative feedback after I jokingly filled in the atheist thirteen meme as if written by a fundamentalist Christian. People said I was taking the easy way out, and that it wouldn’t have cost me anything to ask a fundie to do the thing for me. I took the criticism, responding only that I had once been a Christian and so I knew what it was like to believe etc. However, I’ve recently been reading the blog “Debunking Atheists” for amusement, and decided to ask the main contributor “Dan” if he would answer the meme for me. I modified a few questions to better suit a theist answering them.

Here is his response.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”? A branch or another name of the religion, Secular Humanism.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition? I was raised in an atheist’s/atheistic home.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word? “vague”, I prefer ‘Biblical Creation’

Q4. What scientific [endeavor] really excites you? Discovery of any kind, without the subjectivity of scientists that are atheists.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why? Their belief of no God. Why, because of the end result on Judgment Day.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response? I would ask to be more specific. A bishop or minister? If his soul couldn’t live without anything else then he would have my blessings. If he means priesthood in the RCC (Roman Catholic), I would ask why he would want to be a part of the largest pedophilia group/society in the world. I would ask why does he wants to help people into hell. I would rather him be an atheist.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument? Anything Jesus said, like the sermon on the mount. He is the pro!

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” viewpoint? That a building or Church isn’t necessary for Salvation and/or denominations are man made.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favorite, and why? Dawkins, putting his foot in his mouth in Expelled. The Movie was hilarious. Why, because Dick makes me laugh.

Q10. If you could convince just one atheistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be? My Dad

I also posed three extra questions that were more suited to his theism:

How would you define theism? a polytheistic way of claiming a belief in god(s). Christianity, on the other hand is the more accurate description of a belief in our Creator (Monotheistic)

How would you describe Evolution? George Simpson described it best when he wrote “…On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the descendant of any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous (cowardly) if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.” Formerly Professor of Paleontology at Harvard university. “The world into which Darwin led us,” Science, 131:405:966

Why don’t you believe in it? Because it’s false and will probably be mankind’s biggest blunder/mistake of all time. Hitler even tried to breed apes and humans to make a superior race because of evolution. Give me a break!

Make of it what you will. I personally think it shows a great insight into the workings of the theist mind. Blind ignorance would be another word…

However, Dan respectfully adhered to my wishes, and asked:

Now since I answered everything and played along nicely, I believe now you owe me and should place me in your atheist blogroll. I have earned it.

I think he did earn a place in my blogroll because his blog is about atheism, however wrong it is. Theists who come to this site will click through to his and remain convinced of their delusions. Atheists who come to this site will click through and have a jolly good laugh.

Welcome to my blogroll Dan, and thanks again for answering the questions!