An Honest Atheist –Ray Comfort<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Despite what many atheists have said about the brilliant mind of Steven J., he's not good for the cause of evolution. He is way too honest. Recently, he let a really big cat out of the bag. "Carl" asked him the same question that I asked myself, about the age of "Ardi." When I watched a documentary on the discovery of the famous fossil, I was amazed that they didn't date the bones at 4.4 million years old. They instead dated the soil in which they were found. My immediate thought was, "How do they know that Ardi's age was the same as what they perceive as the soil's age, and how do we know that the dating system is accurate?" Let's say I died next week and I'm buried in soil that geologists say is 2.6 million years old. One hundred thousand years pass and new geologists dig up my bones. They want to know how old my bones are, but instead of testing them, they test the compacted now rock strata in which I was buried, and conclude that they are 2.6 million years old. So Carl asked Steven J. "How do we know Ardi is 4.4 million years old? I tried looking up the details regarding Ardi's age of 4.4 million years and all I could find was that they looked at the volcanic layer above and below. This makes me skeptical because I know that in dating Lucy, they had to drive miles away from the site to even find anything they could measure, dating wise. Was the dating done at the site where Ardi was found? If not, or if we don't know, are we just taking their word for it?"Then, thanks to honest-Steven, out comes the cat. He said, "Strictly speaking, you'd be taking geologists' word for it." And therein he revealed the blind unquestioning faith of the average believer in evolution

The Frog That Never Was

A Christian wrote: Atheist Challenge: 1. Put frog in blender, 2. Blend frog, 3. Put blender on kitchen table, 4. Wait for frog to hop back out. Should be a no brainer for evolution -- given that we know for sure everything required to make a living frog is present. Don't hold your breath!An atheist responded. "That frog is dead. It took billions of years for complex life to evolve on earth. I suppose, theoretically, if I took the frog's remains and placed them on an alien world with conditions similar to early earth something might arise after another few billion years, but I can't say for sure." The atheist obviously doesn't know what atheistic evolution believes. It believes that in the beginning there was no frog "remains," and no "conditions" for life. There was no dried frog skin, frog bones, no blood, kidneys, liver, eyes, ears, nervous system, and heart. In the beginning there was no frog nor genes or DNA. No frog. There was nothing. Nothing at all. There was no air, no water, no sunlight. Nothing. That's what atheistic evolution believers believe. Now pull back and give such a thought some objective thought. Forget about the hypocrisy and established religion and those dumb old Christians with their unscientific beliefs and their 6,000 years old earth. Just think about how the atheist believes that for some reason nothing created everything--frogs (male and female), water (with a perfect consistency to maintain life), air (with its perfect mixture of gases to maintain life), sunlight (to maintain life), oxygen-giving trees, beautiful flowers, masses of birds, succulent fruits, the seasons, etc., etc., etc. There were no atoms, no molecules, no genes, no bacteria. There was nothing. As if that's not insane enough, when an atheist wants to hold onto his belief that nothing caused all this to happened billions of years ago, he then predictably says, "Then who made God, if He was the initial Cause?" In his unthinking mind, his unbelievable belief then becomes rational because he refuses to accept the eternality of God.

A Justified Cold Shudder

A famous geneticist once said: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution." Explain to me how 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together, in our lifetime. Nothing we have in creation is half-evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don't find a half evolved cow or bee. None of the 1.4 million species on the earth has half an eye. All have the necessary functioning equipment, from the brain, to the teeth, to the eye, to limbs, to reproductive necessities. Everything that we see in creation is in full working order--from the sun, to the mixture of the air, to the seasons, to fruit trees and vegetables, to the animal kingdom--from the tiny ant right up to the massive elephant. But, not only do we see this mature completion in creation, we see it displayed in the fossil record. It reveals that each animal was complete. Historical and present creation stand as a stark testimony to the folly of Darwinian evolution. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Darwin was certainly on to something when he said, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."[1] Someone wrote and said, "There are more specimens of 'Ardi' (the newly described Ardipithecus ramidus) than there are of Tyrannosaurus . . . We and modern chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of years ago..." But, that's another evolutionary "Oops!" if you believe the learned scientists on the Discovery Channel. In a recent two-hour documentary about "Ardi," they said, "Ever since Darwin, we have bought into the idea that humans evolved from ancient chimp-like creatures. That's because modern chimps seemed to share a lot of anatomy and modern behavior with humans. So the idea that we evolved from something like chimps seemed to make sense. But now, the discovery of Ardipithecus shows that this idea is totally and completely wrong."[2] Did you hear what they said? This idea that we evolved from ancient chimp-like creatures is totally and completely wrong. I am aware that it is the learning process of evolutionary "science" to continually discover itself to be wrong. So there can never be a time when believers can claim they have the truth. This is just as well, because each believed hypothesis, like the fashions of a teenager, is in time discarded in favor of the new. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1] Charles Darwin, Life and Letters (London: John Murray: 1887), Vol. 2, p. 229[2] "Discovering Ardi."

www.LivingWaters.com