Apart from a few minor flaws the only real mistake made by Mike Shoesmith in his recent debate was that he used too many big words for the panel of atheists to digest.
The video embedded at the bottom of this article is the two-hour long debate recorded by Mr. Shoesmith wherein he forced himself to endure the same old cliche'd one-liners offered by atheists ever since Darwin uttered them upon the death of his young daughter; the ultimate cause of his delusion finally taking hold. With familiar phrases like "look - a bacterium has speciated therefore evolution MUST be true!" Never mind the fact that speciation is predicted by the Bible. How else could a single pair of dogs (wolves probably) turn into the many breeds we see today? When Noah brought them onto the ark he was likely fully aware of the ability of animals to speciate. However the atheist fails to admit that the observations made confirm that speciation is confined to the "kind" or genus. And it was the "kind" that God created. It was the "kind" that was brought on board the ark. And it is these same "kinds" we see running, swimming, hopping, and whatever else they do on the earth to this very day. Bacteria remain bacteria and people remain people. That's real, observable science.
Another issue brought up by Mr. Shoesmith was that of Christianity being an "Existential Paradox". Without a doubt this concept completely confounded the out-of-their-league a-supernaturalists who had comfortably inserted "christians" into a nice tidy little definition. In fact Christianity can be just as much a religion as anything else be it golf or dentistry. So many people are easily talked out of their faith in college or university because it was, for them, nothing more than fire insurance - something their parents or pastor told them was true. When a more sophisticated, nuanced idea emerges from the lips of a professor who knows the multi-syllable words mom and dad could never wrap their feeble minds around, well, the sarcasm-laced religion of atheism takes root and they simply exchange one religion for another.
There are many who live their days in the closed-minded arena of atheistic belief yet never force it on anyone else. And then there are those who live their lives with a religious conviction to eradicate the belief in transcendental realities altogether. The group who took on Mr. Shoesmith were this type of atheist. They invited him to discuss cannibalism as a ruse to debate their religious tenets - cannibalism, naturalism, liberalism, etc. They, as many others, are no different than the Jehovah's Witness or Mormon who walk the streets knocking on doors trying to convince anyone who dares open their door enough for a foot to get in that their religion is the right one. Atheism is a closed-minded delusion excluding all other possibilities than the natural. You will hear, should you listen to the debate embedded at the end of this video, the atheists say several times that nothing exists outside of nature - a clear violation of the converse fallacy of accident. This is the same fallacious argument which would boldly declare that because one has never seen a black swan no black swans could ever possibly exist. This in spite of the mountains of anecdotal evidence which supports the existence of supernatural realities.
The debate quickly shifted to evolution. Mr Shoesmith was quick to point out that he is not a scientist yet the panel offered their typical and predictable evidences anyway. They are, as they always are, bacteria. Yes - the hero of modern evolution. Nylonse, E-coli, my oh my. The problem with this rather limited evidence is the fact that the Bible happily predicted the speciation we observe in biology. They offered another little piece of recent evidence and asked us to look into it while they ignored Mike's recent evidence in favor of Young Earth Creationism; a tactic of plugging one's ears and pretending they don't hear.
The evidence they proposed involves yeast. We found the research out of McGill University here. But we defer to the interpretation from our peers concerning the science of this discovery.
From Brian Morris M.S. of the Institute for Creation Research we see creation scientists way ahead of the pack on these issues - unafraid to look at all of the evidence with clear heads and open minds. Yet the atheists are comfortable ignoring the evidence which extensively refutes the evolution claims at every turn.
There are many scientific explanations for yeast cell replication which do not invoke deep-time mythology. See creation ministries international for a great deal of education on yeast right here. There is no need to credit the creation myth for modern atheism for speciation among bacteria. Once again another atheist hero goes down in flames. See also our many evolution videos at our youtube channel - youtube.com/ppsimmons - for more fuel for the fire engulfing the dying atheist worldview.
Logically speaking, and Mr. Shoesmith's favorite topic, atheism is indefensible based solely on logic itself. Modern naturalistic atheism is a logical wasteland. It is the very embodiment of the perfect example of the converse fallacy of accident. They have never knowingly experienced the supernatural so therefore they argue that it must not exist. This was the most disturbing aspect of the entire debate - that so much time was spent educating the atheists on their own beliefs. Finally it was agreed upon that modern atheism is the denial of acceptance that transcendental realities exist. Christopher Hitchens once said that the reason he debates theists is because the argument which underlies all arguments involves the belief in the existence of supernatural realities and the repudiation of that belief. And we at PPSIMMONS agree - that may have been the smartest thing that man ever said.
To clarify - Mike was asked by an atheist on the panel if a person develops the ability to climb Everest without supplemental oxygen would that person's children have that ability? He answered "why not?". He was laughed at and told he doesn't understand evolution - obvious straw man. Yet if the climber's child received the same training as the climber - then why WOULDN'T he be able to? Was the panel suggesting the climber's child would be too stupid to do it? You see, they were attempting to drag Mike into agreeing with them that evolution is true. They asked him to define evolution and when he didn't give the atheist version of deep time mythology they launched childish ridicule at him per the doctrine of elitism outlined in Mike's book offered as a PPSIMMONS resource.
Get Mike's book today for a real education on what atheism really is, what Christianity really is, and find out now why The Atheists are Wrong and why atheism ruins everything.
I concur that people like that do not understand big words and deep concepts, having had interactions with some of them myself.
ReplyDelete"Mike was asked by an atheist on the panel if a person develops the ability to climb Everest without supplemental oxygen would that person's children have that ability? He answered "why not?". He was laughed at and told he doesn't understand evolution - obvious straw man."
They were apparently thinking that Mike was advocating Lamarckism. Ironically, one of these same atheists advocated Lamarckism when he called the radio show of CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry), and had to be schooled by host Matt Slick because the atheist did not know what it was.