panelarrow

Thank You to Thunderf00t, the Atheist!

| 24 Comments

Because of an atheist’s video I was able to be interviewed on a secular radio station in St. Paul, Minnesota about the “Origin of Species” book give-away on college campuses.

You can listen here to Patrick Reusse and Co. at am15000 KSTP. It’s at the very start of the show. (Just you wait, the evolutionists will say that I misrepresented their case.)

Because of an atheist’s video, my blog doubled, tripled, even quadrupled in visits last week! And they continue….

Because of an atheist’s video, over 260,000 people saw a few portions of my interview with Ray Comfort, further promoting the special 150th anniversary edition of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” with an introduction that includes the Law and Gospel.

So, just who is this atheist that I’m thankful for?

His name is Thunderf00t.

He saw my interview with Ray, cut it up, ridiculed it, posted it on YouTube and… furthered the Gospel message!

Who woulda guessed?

Thank you for all your efforts! And welcome to all the evolutionist/atheists who have visited so far. I appreciate you all! XXXXXOOOOOXXXO!

24 Comments

  1. Any publicity is good publicity, right?

  2. You bet!

    Except my obituary…

  3. Thunderf00t is awesome!

  4. “Just you wait, the evolutionists will say that I misrepresented their case.”

    Well, Steve… what’s your opinion? Do *you* think that you misrepresented their case? If you did, does that matter to you?

    Steve, are you aware that “evolutionists” think that you have *no idea whatsoever* what their case is? Does that matter to you?

    These are not “gotcha” questions; I don’t have any particular response planned if you reply. I’m just curious.

    As an aside, since you appreciate jokes:

    Regarding your statement, in the interview, that the 50-page intro is for students to “intellectually” examine “both sides”…

    You first, Steve. You first.

    🙂

  5. No I don’t think I misrepresented their case. The problem lies with our respective worldviews. No matter what I come up with (and as a layman in evolutionary thought I would consider one of my sources “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel) there would always be a counter argument from your side, because “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:21)

    Yes, I refer to the Bible because I see that it is indeed the truth. I don’t need to prove it at all.

    Where I’m coming from, I see that everything was created in a literal 6 days, therefore, I know that evolution cannot be true.

    I know what you’re thinking: Foolish creationist. Or naive Bible-thumper. I’m okay with that.

    And by the way, I am not trying to be funny or insulting to you, Nohm, but just laying out the truth as I see it is written in the bible.

  6. Steve, I think you misunderstood my question.

    When I ask, “Do you think you misrepresented their case”, it has nothing to do with *your* worldview.

    If I said that you believe that saying a few magic words allows you to enter heaven, would you agree that I just misrepresented your case?

    So, again, it has nothing to do with whether or not the evolutionists are correct. You can completely believe, even KNOW, that they’re incorrect, but they have a particular viewpoint, right? And if you were to horribly misrepesent that, because you have no idea whatsoever what their actual viewpoint is, how would you feel about that?

    Would you care?

    Do you care?

    Because what you presented on that radio show is the same thing that someone who has no idea whatsoever of the actual claims of evolution would present.

    Again, I cannot make this clear enough: let’s say for the sake of discussion that evolution is a scam, a myth, a con. Saying that evolutionists claim “random chance” is STILL misrepresentation, in the same way that saying, “Smurfs are orange and most are female” is a misrepresentation of The Smurfs, even though we can both agree that Smurfs don’t actually exist.

    Do you understand now? We don’t care that you think evolution is bunk. We just find it fascinating that you, someone who makes it abundantly clear that he knows nothing of the claims of evolution, finds no shame in constantly misrepresenting it… even if it was completely bunk/false/mythological/whatever.

    Steve, you called yourself a “layman in evolutionary thought”. Please understand, and I mean no offense by this, but you’re not even close to that. It has nothing to do with counter arguments, or my futile thinking, or my foolish darkened heart.

    It has to do with you proclaiming that we think that Smurfs are orange and that we think most Smurfs are female.

    Does my previous post make sense, now?

  7. Btw, you said:

    “I know what you’re thinking: Foolish creationist. Or naive Bible-thumper. ”

    Which only goes to show that you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER (sorry, I know that I write that a lot) what I’m thinking, Steve.

    What I’m thinking is something more like this:

    “Why would someone do this to himself? Why would someone choose to speak on an issue that he HAS TO KNOW that he’s completely ignorant about? Why would someone open themselves up to scorn and ridicule like this? Would I try to correct my plumber by suggesting that he use a hammer on the faucet to fix the clog in the drain? No, because that would make me look arrogantly ignorant and any further claims I would make would be mocked, right?”

    I don’t understand people like yourself, Steve, and it has little to do with you being a creationist or a bible-thumper. It has to do with you talking authoritatively about other people’s viewpoints that you know nothing about, without shame. It’s a psychology that is foreign to me, so I’m incredibly fascinated by it.

  8. I appreciate your gracious responses. Here is a short definition I looked up that I would think you find satisfactory. Please check it out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

    I have no problem with what I would call “micro-evolution.”

    But how would you explain, in a nutshell, where I came from, based on your theory?

    Is it over-simplification to say that you believe we came, somehow, given enough time and chance, in some way, from some single cell in the distant past, perhaps billions and billions of years ago?

    How do you explain, in a simple manner, so that I, a Creationist, will not represent you in the future?

    Thanks!

  9. Steve, I think you answered your own question, albeit accidentally:

    “How do you explain, in a simple manner, so that I, a Creationist, will not represent you in the future?”

    Exactly, Steve. Don’t represent me in the future, because you have shown no ability to do it accurately. Note that at no point have I tried to represent your opinions, thoughts, or beliefs. I only speak on my own.

    Regarding “chance”:

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    As for where you came from, in a nutshell: your parents loved each other very very much. 🙂

    Your questions seem to show that you think that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, but I could be wrong.

    Steve, did you read that link that you just posted? Again, I’m not at all asking you to agree with it, but it will help in understanding our current point of view on how life has diversified, but NOT IN HOW LIFE BEGAN. Or HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN.

    For more of that info, please research the following concepts: emergence and determinism. If you ever understand the concept of determinism, you will then hopefully understand how it appears every time you use the word “chance”. Also, if you are unaware of how probability calculations are obtained, I encourage you to research that also.

  10. Oh, and while you’re at it, please look up the scientific definition of the word “theory”, because you used the word incorrectly multiple times in the radio interview.

  11. I actually meant to write: “How do you explain, in a simple manner, so that I, a Creationist, will not MIS-represent you in the future?”

    You wrote: Again, I’m not at all asking you to agree with it, but it will help in understanding our current point of view on how life has diversified, but NOT IN HOW LIFE BEGAN. Or HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN.

    Me: But those are the issues that matter!

    At some point in time, you’d have to say that we came (evolved? No?) from something, or many somethings from some point in the distant past? Maybe the terms I use aren’t as precise, as you, would like.

    Did we evolve from something? Me, as a human being? How? In simple terms, so I can understand. 🙂

  12. Steve,

    1. Evolution does not, in any way, deal with how life began (which is abiogenesis) or how the universe began (which is cosmogenesis).

    If you feel that those are the issues that matter, then why talk about evolution in the first place? Evolution only deals with how life diversifies, once we have life.

    2. As for your other questions, here’s the problem: I am not your science tutor and, if I was, I would expect to get paid an honest wage for it. It is up to you to educate yourself, or find a biology/cosmology/chemistry/physics/whatever-you-like tutor that you can pay to help you learn.

    Because your understandings of this issue are so far off from the reality of the science, I have no idea where to start with you “in simple terms, so [you] can understand.” As a former tutor myself (of math), I learned that I had to get to know the person first before I could teach them, so that I would know what method would work best.

    If you’ve ever coached sports, you’ve probably dealt with kids who have never played the game before, and other kids who have played the game, but have built up bad habits. The first group of kids is easier to teach because they don’t have to “un-learn” their bad habits.

    It’s the same way here. You have many “bad habits” when it comes to an understanding of evolution, such as (it appears) equating “evolved” with “came from”.

    Lastly, as for how you can avoid misrepresenting me in the future, I stand by my previous answer: Don’t represent me. I’m glad to see that you’re now asking questions, and I think that talkorigins is a great site to go for to get answers. Again, I don’t ask that you accept anything there as fact; just to understand what our points of view are, so that you will avoid misrepresenting them.

    Lastly lastly lastly: emergence and determinism.

  13. Nohm: Understood!

    Thank you!

  14. Steve,

    You’re welcome and thank you.

  15. Nohm explained the main reason for why ‘evolutionists’ get so riled up, and did it justice, in my humble opinion. I would expect Creationists to be similarly annoyed if I went around claiming “Creationists think the first Harry Potter book explains the origins of life on Earth. How ridiculous!”

    It’s not that I’d have failed to understand Creationism – it’s that I’d be talking as if I *did* understand it.

    How the universe began is the domain of cosmology. How life began on earth isn’t understood well; abiogenesis is the study of that question. What happened to that life once it got started is where evolution steps in.

    So you see, all of this talk about Evolutionists believing that nothing created everything is, to be honest, profoundly and willfully ignorant.

  16. Steve,

    I appreciate our conversation.

    Disclaimer: I have no desire to judge you, because that doesn’t gain me anything. Trying to understand you, on the other hand, does gain me knowledge.

    Having said that, and getting back to my original questions:

    1. Do you still feel that you didn’t misrepresent evolutionists?

    2. Do you care if you did?

    3. Do you agree with me that you say that other people think things that they don’t think?

    4. Do you care if you did?

    For the record: I do not believe that “nothing created everything”. I do not believe that we are an “accident” or the product of “random chance”. I think that emergence and determinism (outside of quantum physics) are the best explanation for our reality. I do not claim that there is no God/Creator/Designer. I don’t know if there is. It just doesn’t look like that’s the best answer for our reality, and I don’t believe the claims of people who claim to have communicated with or experienced Him.

    I don’t know what started “everything”, or if it even has a start. I think that no human knows.

    I can be wrong about all of the above, and I will adapt and accept. I don’t have a strong emotional connection to these matters, but I do have a strong intellectual interest in them.

    I go with what *works*.

  17. I’ll get back to this comment a little later. Be patient, please.

  18. No problem, Steve, but I hope that you will be able to get back to it.

    Thank you.

  19. Because my fellow SMRTie, Nohm, asked for it:

    If
    (by Weemaryanne)

    If truth-or-dare is neither here nor there, and if any fool’s a teacher —
    If ignorant sass in science class may reasonably feature —
    If that’s the case, then slap my face and welcome Stone The Preacher.

  20. Hi Steve,

    Not trying to nag here, but I hope you’ll be able to get to these questions of mine soon, along with a fifth (that I asked earlier):

    5. On a scale of 1 to 100, what would you rate for “Steve’s understanding of atheists is based on Lee Strobel’s books.”

    • Can you give me the 4 questions again? If they’re at this post, I’ll find them. You’re not nagging me at all, it’s just that i want to be thoughtful with my answers to all of you. And it’s a very busy season. Thanks for continuing the dialogue!

  21. Hi Steve,

    The previous four questions are listed six comments above this current one, right here.

  22. My answers to Nohm:

    1. Do you still feel that you didn’t misrepresent evolutionists?

    I think I misrepresented them in confusing biogenesis and comology with evolution. After all, an evolutionist doesn’t know how life started, it’s just that after it did start, somehow I became me. (I hope that is close?)

    2. Do you care if you did?

    I do care.

    I am always eager to learn more.

    3. Do you agree with me that you say that other people think things that they don’t think?

    Yes.

    4. Do you care if you did?

    Yes.

    5. On a scale of 1 to 100, what would you rate for “Steve’s understanding of atheists is based on Lee Strobel’s books.”

    A “1”.

    Strobel’s books aren’t about understanding atheists, they are about understanding God. Strobel spends just a small amount of time on his life as an atheist.

  23. Thank you Steve.

    If I may ask a couple of follow up questions:

    1. Where did you get most of your info about atheists, and what they tend to think?

    2. If you agree that you say people think things that they don’t think, and you say that you care if you did, then why did you do it? I’m not trying to get on your case here; I’m honestly confused about this because it seems to me that doing this only opens one’s self to easy criticism.

    If I’m going to be criticized, I don’t want to make it easy on anyone. 😉

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.