Did anyone catch last Saturday’s Herald an article ‘When extinction becomes a heresy’? It was an edited extract from an essay titled ‘Empathy for the enemy’, which, as I’ll soon explain, is manifestly ironic.
The article was jam-packed with the usual maudlin and irrational animal “rights” rhetoric that is endlessly promoted nowadays in mainstream media. More outrageous was its attempt to compare the necessary elimination of rabbits and foxes from Australia with the barbarism of Auschwitz. This elevation of animal rights, I may add, is entirely consistent with Nazi practices and their obsession with all things green.
Notwithstanding this attempt to muddy the clear line of separation between man and animal, attention needs to be called to the only theoretical basis on which such a move can be reasonably postulated, that being the “truth” of evolution. In other words, all life has common ancestry, and this was clearly reiterated in the article.
As a related aside, the Evangelical Union of Sydney University recently had their perennial compromising science/religion lunchtime talk. One of the scientists on the panel of “experts”, when asked about evolution, gave it an unqualified thumbs up. I couldn’t help but notice the confused look on the atheist’s face who asked the question. Quite rightly she instantly realised the incommensurability and the procrustean explanation of a putative marriage between Christian theism and this materialistic worldview.
One last jibe at the essay’s author Clive Marks. Marks is blissfully and philosophically unaware that just because something is the case (i.e. rabbits suffer when exposed to Myxomatosis), that this is sufficient epistemic justification to derive moral condemnation concerning this fact (i.e. it’s morally reprehensible to expose rabbits to Myxomatosis because rabbits suffer). And certainly, on an evolutionary epistemic in which the fit win and the weak are removed, I can’t see how a reversal of nature’s norm is at all warranted.
Now to the real comment I wish to make.
What grabbed my attention was the article’s opening sentence: “Time and evolution have been detached creators”
This blog has endlessly pointed out that the heretics over in that other world of Sydney Anglicanism have robbed Christ of his glory and office by substituting another creator for Him. These wolves neither read the Bible properly nor listen to commonsense and advice and thus, in chasing after the world’s wisdom, they “are deluded by specious arguments…and fall prey to hollow and misleading philosophy.” Rather than wholeheartedly upholding Paul’s statement that “everything was created through him”, these rascals have deceived others that the gods of time and evolution can act as a surrogate for Christ. Not content with their own evil thoughts, they pour scorn on and try to silence any who oppose their ideas.
That atheists openly worship time and evolution as the “gods” of materialism only makes the SADs enlisting of these very same “gods” inexcusable.
Showing posts with label Cheng. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cheng. Show all posts
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Sydney Anglican, Gordon Cheng, Runs Hard .... Into a Ditch!
Gordon Cheng has previously attempted to negate the argument of YEC's by alleging a faulty design of the koala pouch.
In so doing, he was levelling an insult at God's creative activity at the beginning of creation.
This insult prompted an earlier rebuke from John of this blogspot and John,only a few days ago, had cause to remind us of Gordon Cheng's insult to the Lord.
As I recall, John had previously observed the need for the koala to have rear-opening pouch to protect the pouch and possible infant inside from bark, spiders and other insects falling into the pouch while the mother koala crawled about trees. Such a requirement is not similarly required for kangaroos which have a forward-opening pouch.
Further testament to Gordon Cheng's ignorance of the subject is contained in a worthy article by scientist, Dr David Catchpoole, in the latest Creation magazine (this writer is a subscriber).
I quote part of what Dr Catchpoole said in his article:
"And now the discovery of a most amazing feature of the koala's pouch makes it even harder for evolutionists. While kangaroo mothers lick their pouch clean in preparation for a new joey, it's physically impossible for koala mothers, with their rear-opening pouch, to do that. But it turns out that prior to the birth of a koala, a remarkable self-cleansing mechanism kicks in. The crusty 'wads of brown stuff' evident in the non-breeding season disappear as the 'pouch becomes a completely different place', according to Professor Elizabeth Deane of Macquarie University, Australia.¹
'It becomes glistening, pristine and almost translucent. You can go in and the back of it is almost see-through and you can see droplets of clear material on the pouch,' she said. The secret to the pouch becoming squeaky-clean is in these clear droplets oozing into the pouch - the liquid contains powerful proteins that kill microbes."²
Gordo, stop insulting God!
Neil Moore
1. Salleh, A., Koala pouch may have its own bug buster. ABC Science Online,, 31 July 2006
2. Deane's team of researchers is analysing koala pouch secretions prior to birth to identify which of the proteins are responsible for the antimicrobial action. Bobek, G., and Deane, E., Possible antimicrobial compounds from the pouch of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, Letters in Peptide Science 8 (3-5): 133-137, 2001.
In so doing, he was levelling an insult at God's creative activity at the beginning of creation.
This insult prompted an earlier rebuke from John of this blogspot and John,only a few days ago, had cause to remind us of Gordon Cheng's insult to the Lord.
As I recall, John had previously observed the need for the koala to have rear-opening pouch to protect the pouch and possible infant inside from bark, spiders and other insects falling into the pouch while the mother koala crawled about trees. Such a requirement is not similarly required for kangaroos which have a forward-opening pouch.
Further testament to Gordon Cheng's ignorance of the subject is contained in a worthy article by scientist, Dr David Catchpoole, in the latest Creation magazine (this writer is a subscriber).
I quote part of what Dr Catchpoole said in his article:
"And now the discovery of a most amazing feature of the koala's pouch makes it even harder for evolutionists. While kangaroo mothers lick their pouch clean in preparation for a new joey, it's physically impossible for koala mothers, with their rear-opening pouch, to do that. But it turns out that prior to the birth of a koala, a remarkable self-cleansing mechanism kicks in. The crusty 'wads of brown stuff' evident in the non-breeding season disappear as the 'pouch becomes a completely different place', according to Professor Elizabeth Deane of Macquarie University, Australia.¹
'It becomes glistening, pristine and almost translucent. You can go in and the back of it is almost see-through and you can see droplets of clear material on the pouch,' she said. The secret to the pouch becoming squeaky-clean is in these clear droplets oozing into the pouch - the liquid contains powerful proteins that kill microbes."²
Gordo, stop insulting God!
Neil Moore
1. Salleh, A., Koala pouch may have its own bug buster. ABC Science Online,
2. Deane's team of researchers is analysing koala pouch secretions prior to birth to identify which of the proteins are responsible for the antimicrobial action. Bobek, G., and Deane, E., Possible antimicrobial compounds from the pouch of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, Letters in Peptide Science 8 (3-5): 133-137, 2001.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Cheng an Embarrassment
Gordon, our old sparring partner, wrote somewhat recently in praise of Michael Ruse (see 'Dawkins an Embarrassment', Media Watch, The Briefing, 7th June 2007). Gordon reports that Ruse is convinced that many evolutionists are just as “religiously ridiculous in their zeal as the most swivel-eyed creationist could ever be.” Whether these are Ruse’s or Gordon’s exact words is irrelevant because Gordon obviously sympathises fully with the sentiment behind them. Nothing new here.
What should be embarrassing and cause for concern for the Sydney Diocese is that one of their ministers would then go on to misrepresent his supposed brothers and sisters in Christ by manufacturing an outright lie against them. If this isn’t in itself a travesty of what it means to be a leader in the Church then think about the flow-on effect for those who, as a result of reading his mendacious piffle, are drawn away from the historically orthodox truth. (Hopefully, Gordon has become so obnoxious that very few people would bother and that it’s only the sycophantic tare of the diocese who champion his miscreant ravings. Maybe little or no harm done!) What did our Lord say about a millstone, brother?
The offending paragraph is the following:
“Most creationists and evolutionists tend to distract themselves away from considering the man Jesus Christ, the only son of God, by turning to debate minutiae of sub-amoebic proportions. Small things are not unimportant, but when they stop us thinking about the gospel, they start to matter out of proportion to their size.”
First thing that needs pointing out is Gordon’s hyper-hubristic and omnisciently use of “most”. Well, even I, a now very much long-in-the-tooth creationist, have not met or read “most creationists”, and so I cannot conclude that Gordon would have super-humanly managed the impossible.
But what makes Gordon’s words so foolish is that every – let me repeat – every, creationist I’ve met or read, at some time, somewhere, will over and over again raise the absolute importance of the Gospel and the world’s need for Christ.
London to a brick, Gordon would never have heard of A.E. Wilder-Smith’s pioneering work, let alone read any of it. Wilder-Smith was quite arguably more instrumental for putting the creationist project on firm footing than any other person before or after. Contrary to Gordon’s insane libel, this triple awarded PhD scientist (sorry, Gordon, how many scientific PhDs have you earned?) never stopped talking or writing about the need for all men and women to know about the redemptive work of Christ’s death on the cross and his resurrection.
But if Gordon were an honest man and had wanted to know what creationists actually believed he would have at least browsed the world’s leading creationist magazine (published here in Oz!) and seen that creationists do raise the issue of the Gospel even in an ostensibly scientific publication.
Gordon is manifestly a liar or a fool, but not both. His own article clearly demonstrates this.
What should be embarrassing and cause for concern for the Sydney Diocese is that one of their ministers would then go on to misrepresent his supposed brothers and sisters in Christ by manufacturing an outright lie against them. If this isn’t in itself a travesty of what it means to be a leader in the Church then think about the flow-on effect for those who, as a result of reading his mendacious piffle, are drawn away from the historically orthodox truth. (Hopefully, Gordon has become so obnoxious that very few people would bother and that it’s only the sycophantic tare of the diocese who champion his miscreant ravings. Maybe little or no harm done!) What did our Lord say about a millstone, brother?
The offending paragraph is the following:
“Most creationists and evolutionists tend to distract themselves away from considering the man Jesus Christ, the only son of God, by turning to debate minutiae of sub-amoebic proportions. Small things are not unimportant, but when they stop us thinking about the gospel, they start to matter out of proportion to their size.”
First thing that needs pointing out is Gordon’s hyper-hubristic and omnisciently use of “most”. Well, even I, a now very much long-in-the-tooth creationist, have not met or read “most creationists”, and so I cannot conclude that Gordon would have super-humanly managed the impossible.
But what makes Gordon’s words so foolish is that every – let me repeat – every, creationist I’ve met or read, at some time, somewhere, will over and over again raise the absolute importance of the Gospel and the world’s need for Christ.
London to a brick, Gordon would never have heard of A.E. Wilder-Smith’s pioneering work, let alone read any of it. Wilder-Smith was quite arguably more instrumental for putting the creationist project on firm footing than any other person before or after. Contrary to Gordon’s insane libel, this triple awarded PhD scientist (sorry, Gordon, how many scientific PhDs have you earned?) never stopped talking or writing about the need for all men and women to know about the redemptive work of Christ’s death on the cross and his resurrection.
But if Gordon were an honest man and had wanted to know what creationists actually believed he would have at least browsed the world’s leading creationist magazine (published here in Oz!) and seen that creationists do raise the issue of the Gospel even in an ostensibly scientific publication.
Gordon is manifestly a liar or a fool, but not both. His own article clearly demonstrates this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
