Evolietion

Atheism and EvoLIEtion

2011-10-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

One thing Atheists will never admit is that their religion is actually a religion. They are like a blank slate waiting for their preachers (Darwin & Dawkins) to tell them what to believe.

As Dr. William Lane Craig correctly states:

"In order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation."

Atheism will rather believe a lie than not be able to explain God. And they think they're so clever. If they were truly clever, they would see through the lies of their preachers and go direct to the Source: Gen. 1:1

The Fishafrog

2010-10-29T06:44:00.001-07:00

One thing that we Christians know is that 'transitional' is one of those words used all the time by atheistic evolietionists. In line with their situational and relativistical 'morals' and 'ethics' atheists also abuse science by inserting imaginary mumbo-jumbo into the lexicon of biology.

This is unintentionally hilarious for those of us who know the Creator's work. I am grateful every day that I do not have to try hard to ignore it, as do atheists. In their headlong rush to live unencumbered in their sins atheist even forget their own religious beliefs :

'Everything Came From Nothing By Accident' and 'If You Can't See It, Then It Doesn't Exist'.

Whoops.

Let us review one of these imaginary creatures so beloved by God-haters. Here they operate from The University of Chicago with this gigantic alligator-shaped lie:

"In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod' "

Uh huh? Let us examine that. They found the fossil of a fish so decided to call it a 'fishapod' ?

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Not content with finding a fossil of a fish, the atheists/evolietionists of course clamored to hail yet another 'Missing Link' (TM) (lol, how many 'The Missing Links' shall we see (read 'not see') until they finally give up?!!) and label it something else altogether. Hmmm, what could they dream up?

The 'Fishapod'! What next, it's our 'cousin' or somesuch?? lol.

George Lucas could make a film using these guys! Oh look, a Fishapod, must be one of Richard Dawkin's Alien Seeders (TM) sending out a landing party!! We can at least see the funny side of their imaginations.

But seriously, can someone please tell me how old mudskipper bones all of a sudden became 'proof' of:

1. 'when the very first fish ventured out onto land'.
2. '375 million years ago'

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

I rest my case. No-one was there thousands of years ago to see this mudskipper so no atheist can be taken seriously when they start calling mudskippers 'fishapods' or 'fishfrogs' that 'perhaps' 'crawled' out of the water but were previously fish kinds? LIES people. Plain lies. Mudskippers aren't frogs and they aren't dogs. They are a 'kind'. There are NO LINKS between kinds. There weren't when Darwin was alive, and there aren't today. No matter how many atheists go 'waaaaaah', this fact is not changing. Sorry.

Atheists claim to know about things they have never seen, yet they deny the One thing that is all around them (Creation) and they deny The One who can save them (Jesus).

Genesis 6:18 "Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive."

Illustration copyright © 2010 Lyle Tamarind

Absent

2010-03-13T04:34:00.000-08:00

To all our Atheist friends,

Family matters have taken us out of town for a while so please accept my apologies for not posting for a few days.

Thank you for your comments, while I am away I can say that the next post will address (hopefully) many of your claims and questions regarding 'transitional' 'species' or whatever Atheists call such imaginary creatures.

Keith

Image: National Science Foundation

The 'Frogdog' lie.

2010-03-09T03:41:00.001-08:00

Like the misguided princess in the story The Frog Prince, The Atheist hopes and wishes that if it kisses Darwin's 'frog' for long enough then their wish ('evidence') will magically appear. Unfortunately for the evolutheist his theory (clue is in the word 'theory') is built on the following two logical fallacies:

1. Wishful thinking
2. Lies

There has never been one kind of creature turned into another kind. Do I need to repeat such an obvious truth?

The Atheist waits and wishes (and perhaps kisses Darwin's book 'Origin Of Species) for evidence of his magical 'transitional' form , the 'frogdog' (a frog turning into a dog) while the rest of the world waits with bated breath. And all we have is silence from the Atheist. If one Atheist could show a frog fossil turning into a dog fossil then they would have a case to argue. Granted it wouldn't be a watertight case because they discount the work of the deceiver, but they would have at least something better than, well, (lets be honest) nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

Remember, there is no true 'Atheist', or true 'Evolutheist' (evolution = theory), they are only those who either deny the Gospel or make up inventions against God and use their faith in Evolietion in order to justify their sin in their own minds.

So where are all the 'frogdogs'? Short answer - They don't exist, except in the mind of the Atheist.

"He who is faithful in a very little [thing] is faithful also in much, and he who is dishonest and unjust in a very little [thing] is dishonest and unjust also in much."
Luke 16:10 (Amplified Bible)

UPDATE

Anonymous said...: "Can't handle reality, eh Keith?

When called out on garbage, you just erase it. Typical 'honest' fundy.

Lying for Jesus, how noble."

Anonymous, it is not dishonest of me to follow the rules of this blog. If you hadn't resorted to profanity, cursing and insults, then your cursing/comments would not have been erased. You are welcome to comment if you can muster the minimum courtesy and decency required.

All too often the Atheist cries 'foul' when they themselves break the rules and have to answer to their own actions. Calling me a 'liar' for moderating my own blog exactly how I have stated is dishonest of you. And that is the reality. I wanted to give Atheist the benefit of the doubt and not have to moderate comments. We shall see how many more of you wish to call Jesus names and fling insults in place of mature dialogue? Let us hope our friend 'Anonymous' is the exception rather than the rule.

Keith