More Historical Facts Atheists Avoid Like the Plague

100 Famous
Bible-Believing Scientists

http://unmaskingevolution.com/29-100_scientists.htm

The Evolutionary Advantage of Christianity

I'm in the middle of reading an article titled Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins by Madeleine Bunting of The Guardian news magazine and have come across various statements in it:

"Dennett cites those who argue that faith improves cooperation within groups (though not between them). This argument raises the crucial question of whether, in an era of globalisation and limited resources, religion has outrun its evolutionary advantage."

Christians successfully persuade people of hostile life-destroying groups such as the atheist group to be cooperative all the time, and help millions from various anti-Christian groups (to varying degrees) each year to become saved Christians or for a while, outwardly peaceful Christians. Since when have atheists spontaneously decided to become Christians? Since when as any non-Christian? They don't, they become Christians because of either the Bible, penned by Christians under God's control, and / or because of recorded or in person persuasions made by Christians after the Bible was written. It is false to claim Christians only improve cooperation between their groups. Furthermore Christians helped invent or nearly entirely some historians believe the modern scientific methods. And many Christians are scientists or inventors who have helped improve living standards for people all over the world. Some are doctors and nurses who help non Christians and often free of charge. So none of that improves cooperation outside of Christians? Wow. Now that is major historical ignorance and ignorance of the common place things that happen around you. Talk about opinion-obsessed and bigotry.

Also from the article:

"No one argues that it's a useful project for year 10s to research flat-earth theories, so why intelligent design?"

Why doesn't the deliberate history and science ignorant find out instead of asking a question that has been repeatedly answered by the Bible for 6000 years? Why doesn't he read the scientific evidence from anti-creationists and creationists which has been put out for the past 100 years or 6000? And is the type of ignoramus who thinks asking a sarcastic question = scientific evidence? And is the type of bigot who believes only "scientific evidence" counts as evidence? There is no scientific evidence for micro evolution. He would know that if the ranter bothered to read more than his own ancient parroted myths of walking fish with toes interested in sex and eating popping out of magical puddles from an imaginary billions of years old magical bomb from no where.

Also from the article:

"All protagonists in a debate have a moral responsibility to ensure that the hot air they are expending generates light, not just heat. It's a point that escapes Dawkins."

It's a point that escapes you too Miss Bunting.

"Neanderthals" Art vs. Modern Atheists Art

Check out this beautiful artwork produced by the ancients, it's far better than what most atheists, even those supposedly educated ones can produce. Isn't it amazing that these "stupid cave men" who lived "30,000" years ago (at least so claim many atheists, Buddhists, pagans and Muslisms and Bible-hating Christians) were able to paint better then most modern people who claim that these painters were stupid primitive less-evolved-then-them cave men?

More about this painting and others found in the same cave with it from the Answers In Genesis website:

"Art finds rock evolutionists

To understand why two recent rock-art finds have upset evolutionary theories, we need to look at them through evolutionary eyes (i.e. assume the dating methods to be valid for the moment).

First, the pigment in some paintings in the Chauvet cave in France carbon-dated at around 30,000 years, making them ‘the world’s oldest rock paintings’. According to standard theory, the first art was ‘simple and crudely drawn, and only later evolved into more sophisticated images’. However, these Chauvet works of art are regarded as ‘exquisitely rendered’ and ‘stunning’, utilizing the natural contours of the cave to give perspective.

Second, Aboriginal paintings allegedly thousands of years older than the rise of agriculture have been discovered in Australia’s Northern Territory, showing what appear to be scenes of ‘organized warfare’. This upsets the standard theory that ‘warfare began only after the rise of agriculture, when there were boundaries and people had land to fight over’.

New Scientist, 17 June 1995 (p. 5).
TIME Australia, 19 June 1995 (p. 49), and 14 August 1995 (pp. 92-94).

Note how comfortably these finds sit with Genesis history. The Chauvet paintings now force evolutionists to conclude that a crudely drawn cave painting does not mean the artist’s ability was ‘partly evolved’; it probably happened to be drawn by someone ‘without talent’. The Australian battle-scenes destroy the ‘noble, peaceful hunter-gatherer’ myth. Human society has always experienced conflict since the Fall; being fully human from the beginning, there is no reason why people should not have been able to organize major battles at any time in post-Babel history."