Life Today Tickets

Life Today Logo

I mentioned last week that I would be a guest on a Christian TV show called Life Today.

I found out that if you are in that area and you’d like to be in the audience, free tickets are available! C’mon and show your support! (And if you don’t live near Dallas, I fully expect you to fly out there and join us.)

The show is filmed at 1801 West Euless Boulevard in Euless, Texas 76040 (near Dallas). Taping will happen on Tuesday, March 6th at 7 pm.

To get tickets, call 817-354-3655 or e-mail

[tags]atheist, atheism, Christianity, Life Today, Dallas[/tags]

  • Dan Marvin

    Let’s use mathematics: Say the population doubled ever 150 years. And we start at Adam and Eve and after 32 doublings at 4800 years we get around 8.6 billion people but we take the “Flood” in account at 4500 years and we get a number around 6.5 billion people. Assuming the conservative growth rate the current population can be reached well within a 6000 year period.

    Now evolutionists say mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Let’s take that same equation and use just 50,000 years. So we extrapolate that out 50,000 doublings every 150 years (332 doublings) and we get one followed by 100 zero’s. That figure is unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater then the number of atoms that are in the entire universe!

    When an Atheist wins an argument, they loose eternity

  • Siamang

    Dan Marvin,

    That doesn’t explain the chimp DNA in almost every cell in your body. It’s not an insult. I share most of my genes with chimps too. It’s all in the family!

    Also, you didn’t account for the black plague.

    The human population growth rate has not been very high until the recent scientific revolution. You know that revolution, don’t you? It’s the one that invented antibiotics, sulfa drugs, brought infant mortality down to under ten percent, brought the number of women who die in childbirth down to virtually nil, cured polio, fought back TB, eliminated most of the worst childhood diseases and wiped smallpox off the face of the planet?

    Without it, we’d still be struggling against the plague that killed almost 2/3rds of Europe’s population in the 1300′s. Think about that. 2/3rds of Europe dead.

    Let’s take that same equation and use just 50,000 years. So we extrapolate that out 50,000 doublings every 150 years (332 doublings) and we get one followed by 100 zero’s. That figure is unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater then the number of atoms that are in the entire universe!

    Your math assumes unlimited resources. It assumes zero struggle for survival. It assumes zero pandemics. It assumes ZERO famines.

    Do you really think that’s a well-constructed mathematical proof?

    When an Atheist wins an argument, they loose eternity

    That’s not very friendly. But we friendly atheists are the forgiving type. Welcome, friend, for as long as you decide to stay.

  • Dan Marvin

    We have the same DNA because we have one designer same reasons hourses have a heart, lungs and hair.

    I think it’s a young earth not an old one. If you take these numbers and extrapolate anything out, even cockroaches, over millions of years it just doesn’t fit. If you take these numbers in the 6000 year time frame it’s a plausible fit. All of it was reset and started over with Noah’s flood 4500 years ago.

    Earth’s oldest living inhabitant “Methuselah” at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree. Everything was destroyed before that, in the flood, nothing is older because of that reason. You want to know when the flood was, just look at that one Bristlecone Pine in California.

    There is an exponential acceleration after a certain point. One can conclude that after a short time there had to be catastrophic events to reset the numbers, along with it being a young earth. Why aren’t we finding trillions of animals before a certain point because of the “millions” of years or any evidence to support it?

    And I submit this from 1925:

    “When an Atheist wins an argument, they loose eternity”, was a saying that I made up when debating an atheist and it was in good fun. He and I liked it, sorry if I offended you. Are you offended or getting convicted?

  • Billy

    I have never understood whyfaith in God necessarily means one has to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that the universe was created in six days.

    To me, Genesis and modern science are answering completely different questions, and hammering science into a theological explanation of our origins is as foolish and futile as putting Genesis under the proverbial microscope.

    We would be well served to understand the intent of both disciplines, rather than bringing issues that are foreign to their respective purposes.

  • Siamang

    You seemed to ignore my post about your bad math, Dan.

    Care to fix the math on your first poor argument before you do the “Gish Gallop” to twenty other assertions?

    In other words, I’m not moved to Young Earth Creationism merely by your ability to repeatedly multiply the number two. Your fundamental assumption of the human population doubling every 150 years bears no resemblence to reality. A reality full of plagues, famines, etc.

    Are you offended or getting convicted?

    Rather, I’m bored. When will you stop with the talking points cut and pasted from bad creationist websites and interact with us as a human being? I can find the bad creationist websites myself and interact with the originators of these arguments personally, but I find them tedious.

    My real question is, why did you come here, to this website of an atheist, Dan? We didn’t seek you out, rather you sought us out. Why? What inner questions do you have? What curiosities? There must be some part of you that is seeking answers here, correct? Or friendship? Fellowship? Dialogue or understanding?

  • Dan Marvin

    Science? 140 ago they used to bleed people to cure them and the bible some 3000 years ago said that blood is life (Leviticus 17:11). Isaiah 40:22 some 2800 years ago said the Earth is round when scientist believed it was flat 200 years ago.

    Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. “In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter)… And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters.”

    Science can not figure what came first the chicken or the egg but the bible says in Genesis 1:21 that the chicken did. Even Quantum Physics uses uncertainty principles. The thing that is uncertain is God. Science only recently found out that all things are made of Atoms and God said that a long time ago in Hebrews 11:3 through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.(atoms)

    But I must admit Billy you make a good point and it made me think of this verse:

    1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

  • Dan Marvin

    Because I actually care, look at that quote I made up, you loose the gift of eternity in heaven and it’s hard to watch you all go down.

    It is like noticing a house on fire and I see a child in the house playing with his toys oblivious to his surroundings and I scream “Get out your going to burn!”

    You are that child (of God’s).

    Do you know the number of hairs on the back of a lark sparrow? You can not know everything as God does. Maybe we do not know everything or it isn’t reviled to us because Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge and we tried to be God like. So God is keeping things from us. The bible says in Luke 12:7; But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

    Go to my blog (, read the bible cover to cover (or at least start with John and then Romans). If we are wrong we are all worm food but if you are wrong then you go to hell for eternity. Make sure.

  • Siamang

    Well, I’m afraid it’ll be a rather one-sided conversation. I can get all the scripture I want from a book. I don’t need to continue reading this thread if that’s all it will be.

    Rather than quote scripture at us, please, tell us about yourself.

  • Dan Marvin

    The evidence I used with bible verses and such, that you hated, is still just that, evidence. The Bible itself provides concrete evidence of my position. I can refer to it on any subject and it will have relevant information that I use for my everyday life and to prove my position. I am sure if the Atheist had a manual that they would do the same also.

  • FriendlyAtheist

    So, just to clarify:

    Dan, you’re saying you want 4 tickets to Life Today?

    Good. Just checking.

    – Hemant

  • Billy


    I sympathise with your love of scripture, but I think you may have misunderstood what I (and some of the others here) have been getting at.

    I believe in the account of the creation as told in Genesis, but I don’t believe it is meant to be read as a scientific text. It explains who God is and how he relates to the world rather than the physical origins of the universe. In short, it answers theological questions rather than scientific ones.

    As for me, I don’t feel the need to cite the bible as science, because my faith doesn’t depend on scientific evidence. I wasn’t rationally “talked into” faith after weighing up the evidence, and I see no reason to try to do the same to others.

    At any rate, I think the science you have cited is pseudo-science at best. I can’t in my wildest fantasies imagine that a scientific mind would be persuaded by what you have cited. Indeed, I cannot imagine that we are even meant to “prove our position” as if in a debate.

    Besides, were we to claim a scientific proof of God, would it be right to call it faith?

  • HappyNat

    “We have the same DNA because we have one designer same reasons hourses have a heart, lungs and hair.”

    Dan, you make my head hurt with statements like this. Does this really make sense to you?

    I have read the bible, cover to cover. In fact, it was my main reason in leaving christianity, it has some nice stories and poetry, but it also has a lot of violence and contradictions. A nice (long) read sure, but a basis for how to live your life?

    If you want to discuss things with us, don’t ignore our comments that address your points (bad math?). Just cutting and pasting from other sites about unrelated points and throwing around bible verses will not do anything except convince us to tune you out. Most of us really do like to discuss ideas, give us a shot.

  • Dan Marvin

    Show me some or any evidence in the human genome that backs up evolution.

    There is a fair amount of evidence of a God. Proof like: If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator.

    Look at an apple or a banana and you see a creator not an explosion (big bang). You are right, it is a mute point to change an atheist’s opinion because they get angry and dig deeper to disprove things and there hearts have been hardened already and there is not much more I can say. I had a great laugh at your comment Hemant I just hate to see you all fall and loose the gift that the lord gave us.

    2 Thessalonians 2 comes to mind, I just don’t want the devil to win any souls. Instead of trying to disprove The Bible use your energy, intellect, and wisdom to prove it and your results may be different. Be Creation Scientist instead but I am dreaming I know. You all want proof and God wants us to have faith and the two are oil and water. Sorry for opening Pandora’s Box I just have great enthusiasm for this subject. By the way Enthusiasm (Greek: enthousiasmos) originally meant inspiration or possession by a divine afflatus or by the presence of God. But I digress and I will stop if you wish.

    We can always continue this at my blog come on over sometime.

  • Siamang

    You still don’t wish to converse with us person to person, I see.

    Enjoy your one-sided conversation.

  • txatheist

    What is the probability you will appear?

  • Hemant

    What is the probability you will appear?

    In this conversation? Not likely. It’s clear nothing I say will do anything to get Dan to listen. I’m just wondering whether to stop this comment thread or not…

  • txatheist

    I was thinking Dallas but I will have to make arrangements to get out of work early to attend the show. I’ll ask for a half day and see if that’s ok with management. Look forward to the show.

  • FriendlyAtheist

    Txatheist– The probability I will appear on the show? Umm… barring any craziness, I’ll definitely be on the show. I’m not certain if I’ll be able to meet you (or other audience people) afterwards, but I’m sure we can find a way!

  • txatheist

    That would be great. Just want to say Hi and thanks. Anything beyond that is at your ability. Don’t forget about the little people now that you are big and famous:)

  • Dan Marvin

    It’s not easy to be an atheist
    An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose. Yes, atheists enjoy many smaller meanings of life– like friendship and love, pleasure and sorrow, Mozart and Plato. But to be consistent with his atheism, he cannot allow for ultimate meaning. Yet, if the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence -something bigger. Someone said, “The blazing evidence for immortality is our dissatisfaction with any other solution.” According to Scripture, God has, “set eternity in the hearts of men” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). To maintain his position, the atheist must suppress the feeling that there is more to life than temporal pleasures. But the atheist encounters many other difficulties.
    The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic. He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia lying in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design. Everything about the book suggests intelligent cause. But, if he accepted such a possibility, he might be forced to conclude that living creatures composed of millions of DNA-controlled cells (each cell containing the amount of information in an encyclopedia) have an intelligent cause. His controlling bias against God will not allow him to accept this.
    Yet, ironically, the atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God. Why? Well, one law that nature seems to obey is this: whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. The atheist knows that the universe began to exist and since the universe is, according to the atheist, all there is, the very existence of the universe seems to be a colossal violation of the laws of nature (i.e., a miracle). It’s hard to believe in miracles without God.
    An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality. He is not able to declare any quality to be morally superior to another. Such admissions require an absolute standard of goodness and duty. Without this, there is no basis for an atheist to declare peace better than war or love better than hate. These are simply alternative choices without moral superiority. The atheist is stuck believing that morality has no claim on you or anyone else.
    In fact, the atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion. For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong. But if the physical universe is all there is, there can be no such standard (How could arrangements of matter and energy make judgments about good and evil true?). So, there are no real evils, just violations of human customs or conventions. How hard it would be to think of murderers as merely having bad manners.
    The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position. Although he realizes that he does not possess total knowledge, his assertion that there is no God requires that he pretend such knowledge. Although he has limited experience, he must convince himself that he has total experience so that he can eliminate the possibility of God. It is not easy to hold the arrogant assertions required by atheism in a society that requires blind tolerance of every ideology.
    The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The account of Jesus’ resurrection is strongly validated by standard rules for judging historical accuracy. The extensive manuscript evidence of eyewitnesses to the resurrection is presented in an unbiased, authentic manner. It is the atheist’s anti-supernatural bias that keeps him from allowing history to prove anything.
    Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals. According to the atheist, we are simply the result of blind chance operating on the primordial ooze, and differing from animals by only a few genes. Yet, the wonders of human achievement and the moral dignity we ascribe to human beings just do not fit with the claim that we are no different than the animals. The realities of human creativity, love, reason, and moral value seem to indicate that humans are creatures uniquely made in the image of God.
    Always remember that the atheist’s problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it. This is what scripture teaches. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:20-22).

    Steven W. Cornell,
    Senior Pastor
    Millersville Bible Church

  • txatheist

    Please don’t copy and paste articles. We are here to understand not preach to each other. We are familiar with Steve Cornell. This article was a topic of discussion a few months back. I’m sure Steve could vouch for it.

  • Eliza

    Hemant, I’d love to be in the audience at your TV show taping, but Dallas is unfortunately too far to come (nothing personal!). TXatheist, hope you can get time off work to go. Let us know what it was like, both of you!

    Dan Marvin, I’d like to offer two comments. First, if your goal is to save atheists (as you seem to indicate it is), you should recognize that being confrontational is not going to be effective. In fact, it’s counterproductive. For example, saying “the atheist must…” when addressing atheists (even if you’re just copying and pasting someone else’s words, that we’ve seen before) is a sure-fire way to get us to tune you out. You are describing us to us using your preconceived notions, & all it does is demonstrate that you don’t know what we think, feel, believe, & want, & don’t seem interested in finding out.

    Second, the rhetorical question: “Do you know the number of hairs on the back of a lark sparrow,” intended to demonstrate how little people can know compared with God’s omniscience, unfortunately falls flat – because it has a simple answer. Zero. The lark sparrow is a bird; it has feathers, not hair.

  • AustinAtheist

    Free tickets?

    Some friends and I have been wanting to drive up to Dallas to see Body Worlds at the Dallas Museum of Nature and Science, you know, the exhibit with all the dead bodies everywhere.

    It’s too bad the show is being taped on a Tuesday, but I’ll see about taking some time off.

  • Siamang

    Wow, Dan’s gone even more impersonal, just cutting and pasting now.

    Dan, is there a human being behind this rude behavior, or are you just a spambot?

    If there is, you aren’t representing Christians very well. What is it you seek here? Are you curious about atheism? Is there anything we can discuss with you to make your time here worthwhile?

  • Billy

    Siamang and the others laying into Dan,

    A great frustration that I find myself dealing with is the fact that someone like Dan can swoop into a forum like this, and all the energy and interest is focussed on him and his message (such as it is.)

    You have all tried on a number of occasions to engage with Dan and hit the proverbial brick wall, so my advice would be to stop trying, especially when there are Christians around who are not “spambots” and who represent a reflective and contemplative Christianity.


  • Siamang


    I hear you. Don’t worry, I don’t read Dan’s posts past the first few words.

    I recognize that you’re here engaging in conversation, and representing a more nuanced look at your faith. I’m enjoying your contributions. I try not to let the Dans of the world color my view of Christianity. I’m learning a much more gracious (in many senses of the word) version of it here and on the off the map discussions.

  • txatheist

    I no longer think every xian is alike. Those that wish to discuss are welcome to it. Spambots will come and go :)

  • Dan Marvin

    I was curious about the thoughts of Hermant selling his soul on Ebay and all. So I started a little dialogue. I wanted to see if anyone tried to reach him. I admit the typo of the hairs of the lark sparrow. I was thinking hairs on head in Luke quote and it just translated that way. I for one am not infallible.

    I apologize if I angered any of you but I saw that “It’s not easy to be an atheist” article and I wanted to hear some of your feedbacks. You are right this is not the place or time to help the lost, to understand. I guess I will just let the child burn in that house I was talking about. Sad though I will pray for all of you

  • Karen

    So I started a little dialogue.

    No, Dan, you didn’t. You started a diatribe, not a dialogue. Here’s the difference: In a dialogue, there’s back and forth communication. One person talks (types, in this forum) and the other person listens (reads). Then they trade places and exchange ideas.

    They may not agree, but each side hears what the other has to say and at least considers it.

    That’s not what you’re doing here. You’re talking AT us, not talking WITH us. Do you understand the distinction? That’s why you’ve been unsuccessful communicating here. You said you “wanted to hear feedbacks” – but you haven’t listened when you get feedback. That’s not a very effective mode of evangelism!

    You’ve been welcomed and invited to dialogue here. It’s sad for all of us that you’ve declined the invitation.

    Oh, one more thing. Your slogan, “When an Atheist wins an argument, they loose eternity,” includes a misspelling that changes what I imagine is its intended meaning. “Lose” – means “let’s go of,” loses out on, vacates. As in “That atheist will lose eternity unless he accepts Jesus.” “Loose” – means that your pants aren’t fitting snugly enough. As in “That atheist’s clothing is too loose, it’s falling off him.”

    So it should be: “When an atheist wins an argument, he (or she) loses eternity.”

  • Dan Marvin

    I stand corrected and I thank you because looking back I have made that mistake many times. So yes it was “lose”. I haven’t made the tee shirts yet so I am ok.

    Only a friend will tell a friend that they stink. Perfect love is a constant confronter.

    “not a dialogue” I feel that is what I have done even though Siamang just kept getting offended because he didn’t believe what I was saying was what I was saying.

    He just stopped every conversation to say:

    Siamang said,
    February 21, 2007 at 6:51 pm
    Dan Marvin,
    That doesn’t explain the chimp DNA in almost every cell in your body. It’s not an insult. I share most of my genes with chimps too. It’s all in the family!
    How is that an answer to my questions? Who is the hypocrite in this equation?

    He said “Rather, I’m bored. When will you stop with the talking points cut and pasted from bad creationist websites” That, being offensive and unproductive, I did just that from another conversation I had with another atheist.

    I would love to hear some talking points to anything I said besides the “I am offended” or “your just copy and pasting”

    The Steven W. Cornell, was a paste hence the article in its entirety. I wanted your opinions on it but no one would.

    You are right this is unproductive and I humbly apologize for any interruptions and I will bow out of the conversation or lack there of.

  • txatheist

    Steve’s article was already here. We disagree with him. Would you like me to explain why? Do you have any questions about atheists? I’m sure Siamang will chime in about what he’s trying to discuss with you beyond his being offended and what not. I would be happy to vouch for Siamang and say he understands evolution pretty well.

  • Dan Marvin

    I have a great debate going on here and I see no need to continue with all of you who are so offended by my mere words. So I humbly decline your invitation but we can continue on Ron’s blog if you must.

  • Karen

    I stand corrected and I thank you because looking back I have made that mistake many times. So yes it was “lose”. I haven’t made the tee shirts yet so I am ok.

    You’re welcome. And as for the t-shirts: Well, thank god for small favors, huh? :-)

    Let me give you one more clue about discussing things with agnostics and atheists. Most of us have been religious in the past (I was an evangelical Christian for 30 years). We’ve heard the arguments from the bible, and from creationist websites, and we’ve investigated them for ourselves and found them to be completely bogus. That’s why when you cut and paste those arguments over here, we find them rather tedious.

    Among the things that matter most to us are a) accuracy and b) honesty. So, you present yourself right off the bat with some strikes on the accuracy scale. You’re making elementary spelling mistakes; you’re talking about hair on birds; and you’re asserting (based on a nearly 100-year-old sermon from a minister?) that human populations have doubled every 150 years.

    You’re not building up a lot of credibility there, Dan. Why should we believe you when you say we’re “going to burn” (like we haven’t heard that before!) when we can easily see that the other things you say are not accurate or well-supported? You know what I mean?

    Siamang pointed out that in your population claim you’ve not accounted for natural disasters, disease epidemics, human migration, and many other variables. This is bad math. Despite that, he welcomed you to the board, called you “friend” and invited you to stick around and talk with us.

    I have a great debate going on here and I see no need to continue with all of you who are so offended by my mere words. So I humbly decline your invitation but we can continue on Ron’s blog if you must.

    I don’t want to hijack Ron’s blog, honestly. If you want to dialogue further, this message board is a site where atheists and Christians have been respectfully (for the most part) conversing for nearly a year now:

    You can bring up any topic you like in the “open discussion” thread, the format is easy to follow (easier than blogger, IMO) and you’ll get lots of conversation. Please join us.

  • Dan Marvin

    You, I am sorry to say, were what we call a false convert and I talk about it at my blog click the link “True and False conversion”

    I am not saying “you will burn” God and The bible are, don’t shoot the messenger.

    Thank you for the link I will consider it. I am an enthusiast (en=with theist=god) with this subject so I love to help all of you with the error of your ways.

    “So, you present yourself right off the bat with some strikes on the accuracy scale. You’re making elementary spelling mistakes” It is like I am screaming “Get out of the building, it is on fires” and you are telling me that “it is fire not fires” you will still burn. That to me is elementary.

  • MTran


    Well, I guess if I hang around here long enough, I may gain some of the patience of Karen and Siamang.

    This quote from Dan, above, is one of my own pet peeves:

    Science can not figure what came first the chicken or the egg

    It is pretty clear that the egg came first! There were eggs long before there were chickens. This issue does not pose any difficulty for science.

    Any believer who is foolish enough to base his or her faith on the scientific provability of the existence of god has already lost the argument for belief. Belief in god is a matter of faith, not science.

  • Karen

    You, I am sorry to say, were what we call a false convert

    Ouch. You know nothing more about me than a few words on a screen – and yet you can see what was in my heart for 30 years? That hurts.

  • Dan Marvin


    Just by your comment of “(I was an evangelical Christian for 30 years). We’ve heard the arguments from the bible, and from creationist websites, and we’ve investigated them for ourselves and found them to be completely bogus.” I can tell.

    I am a quck study and yes you are what is called a False convert prove me wrong watch True and false conversion and tell me if that isn’t you.

    For Him,


  • MTran

    I am a quck study

    No, sad to say, you are not.

    You may want to check this link to understand why you believe you aree though.

  • Dan Marvin

    That was a very interesting article you sent me on Atheism.

    Things like “The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers or anyone else’s, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people’s responses as superior to their own.”

    Keywords self-evaluation; metacognition; self-concept; overconfidence; performance evaluation

    They are so self absorbed and their concept of self is so sure when God judges them they will all be so surprised. Overconfidence and illogical thinking has made all of them feel they know more then a creator and try to reason him out of the universe.

    The following quotes are from some of the most brilliant minds in the world. The Overconfidence of the Atheist in comparison is quite obvious. In summation I present that science and biology proves a God and also proof of illogical thinking of the atheist:

    Charles Darwin said,

    “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

    If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don’t know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

    George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

    “I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”

    Albert Einstein said,

    “Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.” Also “God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.” Or “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

    It is never to late for the Lord to touch their hearts while still here on earth. A forced gift is not a gift at all.

    For Him,


  • Brett Keller

    The two quotes you used are particularly unfortunate. Have you read Darwin’s in context? Directly after the portion you cited, he says,

    “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”

    Also, while Einstein made strong statements such as the one you quoted, he also said things like

    “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.”

    Another lesson for arguing with atheists/agnostics/etc.: Be careful who you quote, we’ve probably heard it before.

  • Dan Marvin

    “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures” that is interesting. I wonder if Einstein had any children. If your child does something right or wrong there are rewards and punishments. Einstein also must, by using these words, must not believe in a country based on laws. How can a scientist say laws are wrong? If I jump out of window and ignore the LAW of gravity, I will be punished. So if that was truly said by him, which I am suspicious of for now, it just means he doesn’t understand the laws of nature and God.

    Tell me this, how can God show his mercy and grace if there is no punishment for evil. Let’s say there is someone that raped your little sister or mom then a week later dies in his sleep, was justice served? If there is no punishment for that type of person in the universe then there is no Just God. That would be a corrupt God to let someone like that go free to heaven or wherever. There are consequences for your action and that is how God set the universe up for humans. We were made in his image and when you lie then you are saying that God is also a liar. That is why he punishes liars because that is not what God is about. We all believe that rapping children is wrong but evolution would allow it because it is survival of the fittest and strongest and it would populate the strongest seed, without morals. But we as a moral and just (made in God’s image) race will not allow it. Young seals get raped all the time, everyday.

    Logic is not in a statement like that, and I thought Einstein was logical. As you all know I am not the most formally educated man out there and I am fallible, like all of you. But to me it is plain common sense we are dealing with here but all of you intellects can not grasp the simplest part of life. Should I dumb it down a little for all of you? lol Atheists are in denial and that is why God will deny them, in my opinion.

    For Him,


  • Brett Keller

    I posted the additional quotes not because I particularly wanted to argue with your propositions, but because your use of quotes out of context was particularly egregious. You said “The following quotes are from some of the most brilliant minds in the world. The Overconfidence of the Atheist in comparison is quite obvious.” and then followed with quotes from two renowned atheists, whom you called brilliant. You may claim these two were not atheists, but their own works certainly show that they did not believe in the sort of God you do- in a personally involved, personal God. Einstein’s “God” was the same as Spinoza’s; Nature itself.

    Obviously Einstein thought the idea of scientific laws was valid, and he certainly did more than many to elucidate underlying laws of nature. I think what he questioned (in his quote) was why a “loving” God would create creatures one way and then make laws that would doom most of them to eternal torment.

    You said: “Tell me this, how can God show his mercy and grace if there is no punishment for evil.”
    Of course, that assumes that I’m in agreement with Einstein (I’m not). However, I think (from my reading of Einstein’s work) that he would say that God is not characterized by mercy, grace, love, justice, etc., because he is not a personal God. Rather, he would say that God is synonymous with the “laws of nature” that both you and Einstein so much celebrate.

    You said: “But to me it is plain common sense we are dealing with here but all of you intellects can not grasp the simplest part of life.”

    Hopefully you will read enough that is written on this website to begin to understand how the views expressed by the many people here of very different conclusions do not necessarily stem from lack of “common sense.” If you can begin to appreciate that those who disagree with you are educated, thoughtful, moral people, then you might actually be able to initiate dialogue. What do I hope to gain from this? I hope that you’ll know not to use those quotes from Einstein and Darwin out of context in the future. Let me close with another quote from Einstein:

    “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

  • Dan Marvin

    “I think what he questioned (in his quote) was why a “loving” God would create creatures one way and then make laws that would doom most of them to eternal torment.”

    I have already answered this so many times but I will try again with common sense. We were made in his image and God gave us the gift of a stress free life in harmony with him and the earth. Then Eve was persuaded by the devil to be “God like” with the “Tree of Knowledge”. He gave us Free Will because as you know a gift that is forced is not a gift.

    Now flash ahead to today where you have an arrogant guy like Darwin here that claims it is easy to make an eye with lasers and a fish bowl.

    Look at the words this guy uses things like “the gullible”, “creationist used to sabotage”. He is biased and not a true scientist. The monkey would never write Shakespeare, 10,000 trillion to one odds I doubt that. Cumulative selection still poses the question: who came up with the “me thinks it is like a weasel” question in the first place for that experiment. Who made the blueprint for the cumulative selection to select “that” set of standards that the conformity required of it. Evolution is blind and can not predict the future. (Blue print) The random monkey typing is just that random (it was funny to hear him say “unless a miracle happens”).

    He said “if I can do it with a gold fish bowl and a laser then it can not be too difficult.” This was the biggest mistake he made for his hypothesis; let him try creating it with nothing at all. First create the molecules to create materials (from nothing) then build the laser without tools, unless you want to create (from nothing) the molecules for the materials of the tools also. Do you understand what I am getting at? Man is trying to create with what God already created. Man is creating thing with created things and YES that is easy but try to start with nothing at all on the table then create an atoms but first somehow give them a guided outline to multiply and adhere to each other. (Blueprint) Give the (Blueprint) for the electrons and protons to orbit each other around the neutron thus creating an atom first. Where did the material come to even make the atoms (electrons, protons, and neutron)? You must start at nothing to mimic God. This in science is called a flawed experiment. To create a solid experimentation of a created item you must start with nothing. Removing all variables and start with building atoms as the start of the experiment. Then and only then you can convince me that man can be a creator instead of a copier.

    “Mimicry has to be perfect to work” he stated. Exactly! How does that fit in evolution? The blue print was laid out perfect the first time. He is arrogant and wrong.

    I can not be convinced that the mind of man is the same as our Lords. We are missing a huge part of the equation. That we are very small and it humbles and honors me to just be in this vast universe being a witness for our Lord. If you want me to stop responding then end the conversation because I am getting emailed on every response.

  • Brett Keller

    I’m not in an immediate rush to end the conversation. I agree that Richard Dawkins (the guy you quoted, who isn’t Darwin) is arrogant at times, but most of the rest of your post was incoherent to me. But rather than rehashing that though, I hope you’ll respond to what I had actually said, instead of bringing up new people and new points.

    I hope you’ll agree that your quotes from Darwin and Einstein were both terribly out of context, and that neither of them really support the point you were making. I think you’ll gain a lot more respect in future conversation if you avoid Darwin’s eye quote without an understanding of the subject (even prominent ID-proponent Behe has agreed that evolution accounts for the development of the eye, IIRC) and conflating Einstein’s statements with theism as traditionally defined.

    Also, do you begin to sense, from your conversations here and elsewhere, that those who disagree with you are not necessarily uneducated, immoral, or lacking “common sense”? If so, I think you should take a different approach to “proving” your points. If not, I wonder why you post here in the first place. Thanks for your time.

  • Dan Marvin

    Thanks for the correction again, yes Dawkins.”If so, I think you should take a different approach to “proving” your points.”

    Try this you are all institutionalized and have been indoctrinated into the religion of Secular Humanism, from public schools to universities here and abroad, and will never get out of it, unless by the grace of God. It is the “holier then thou” attitude that gets most of you in trouble, and you are atheist go figure. God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Most (not all) have a pompous self righteous attitude. Most are worried about how you are saying something then what is being portrayed i.e. “This house be on fire!” The atheist’s response would be “My dear fellow you are mistaken it is, this house ‘is’ on fire” The fact that the house is burning and they may get hurt is irrelevant to them. All, if not most, are very proud people and that just does not cut it with the Lord and that is why they and we are at odds and always will be. Remember I just care too much, I am not angry at all with all of you, but I pity and am frustrated with all atheist because I know (yes for a fact) that all of you will go to eternal damnation because of that pride. Not because I say so but because God says so. It is an incredible waste of good minds. It’s like there is a law against chocolate but every atheist out there just loves it and eats it every day. The rest of us is just screaming “Give up the chocolate already, your going to go to jail and I don’t want that” Then the atheist response is “You are mistaken you meant to say ‘you’re’ going to jail” and then you take another bite of chocolate.

    A true friend will tell a friend that they stink and I must say atheists stink and you all need showers. I love you enough to be honest and forthright to you, now go clean up and stop eating chocolate.

    Proverbs 16:5 “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.” You all speak as one voice against me but you will be punished by our Holy God. Wake up!

    The atheist response would be “it would be better to say ‘he shall be punished”

    Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 2 Corinthians 5:11 comes to mind also. Oh that’s right verses are kryptonite to atheist. I must admit you are all helping me with my hermeneutics and apologetics but it is at a great expense and that is very sad.

    For Him,


  • Brett Keller

    Your response had absolutely nothing to do with the questions in my previous post(s), so I am officially giving up. If you want to learn about “hermeneutics and apologetics” you might first begin by responding to the questions as hand instead of turning to ever more and further afield topics for each reply. If not, it it is impossible for me or others who might be reading to gain anything from what you’re saying, no matter how much Scripture you quote. (My NIV, NASV, and Concordance are all sitting near at hand, so you could just cite the references, not the whole shebang.)

  • MTran

    It is the “holier then thou” attitude that gets most of you in trouble

    And you seem to be the one demonstrating that attitude most beligerently.

    Look, if you are trying to convert anyone, do it elsewhere, because neither the atheists nor the theists who regularly post here aren’t trying to convert anyone. We are trying to understand one another.

    So far you have shown that your only interest is to condescendingly and arrogantly harrangue those whose views you do not accept. Never mind that you do not understand those views, or even much of Christianity outside of your own stunted version.

    Let me be a true friend and tell you that you reek of ignorance and can’t even manage sophistry, try as you may.

  • TXatheist

    I just got notified that it won’t be a problem. I will be at the taping.

  • Dan Marvin

    “Thiests aren’t trying to convert anyone.” They are called false converts.

    Like I said in the previous posts, you are bowing your chests out and acting like proud peacocks. To me this is sad, just sad, lost souls.

    Sophistry! The Devil is the prince of lies, the one who opposes God. You have decided not to follow God and follow the prince of lies. You are responding the exact way that I described in the last post. It is arrogant to say this, when someone that cares enough about you to tell you that God doesn’t like this behavior, you lash at him. The true sophistry master is your master, not min

  • Dan Marvin

    Thanks for the good times,

    1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    2 Timothy 2:16
    But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

    ???? ???? ????? ?????

  • TXatheist

    I keep going to Dan’s blog and leaving simple comments about listening to atheists and not preaching. He deletes them.

  • Dan Marvin


    Because you are trying to just advertise this and your blog on mine and that is not what my blog is for. Plus you are making comments and answering questions pertaining to this atheist blog that are out of context, on my blog. You can comment about my blog on my blog or have a discussion on my blog, on my blog. You are not being slick, just annoying just because you disagree with what I am saying to you. I leave comments on your blog about your blog. I thought you claimed to be smart not just vindictive. He who calls himself a wise man must surely mean he is not. Wasn’t that a song?

    Atheist \A”the*ist\, n.

    1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or
    supreme intelligent Being.
    [1913 Webster]

    2. A godless person. [Obs.]
    [1913 Webster]

    How arrogant to be called this. I will give up, but my conscience is clear and I gave it my all. When our eyes meet and in the afterlife you all will remember that Dan Marvin gave effort to help and love you. I will not try to convert any of you because we all can see by the discussion that there is no point. I hope you will all understand God’s complete nature and character. I am worried about your souls but I guess I am the only one. Peace

  • Mike C

    BTW, I just wanted to say that I agree with Billy. Thanks for representing that particular point of view on the relation of scripture and science. You’ve done it well and I wholeheartedly agree. When understood properly there need be no conflict at all between the two.

  • MTran

    that is not what my blog is for

    And yet you have offensively posted ignorant, offensive, disinformation here, and that is not what this blog is for.

    You are a dreadful representative of your idiomatic and idiotic beliefs. You show no ability to act in a way worthy of anyone claiming to follow Christ. But then, that is what hypocrites such as yourself specialize in.

  • Dan Marvin


    This statement from a self proclaimed oxymoron “postmodern Christian”. If I said God was a green slime that oozes from the bowels of a whale would I be wrong? A real postmodern would say “your reality is yours” and that is not biblical. So tell us postmodern Christian what do you believe?

    For Him,


  • txatheist

    It is now advertising to mention where I came in contact with you? I’m sure you wouldn’t want everyone who visits your blog to come here, that would be a tragedy or something. I didn’t realize your blog at a theme other than for discussions. Out of context? Mentioning that this forum was for learning about atheists and not preaching to them is so outrageous of a concept. Could you come up with better insults than vindictive and slick? I was called that by some other xian like you last week so I’m sure they are preaching new slanderous words this week in your congregation. Your conscience is clear? Good bye Dan. Please come back when you are able and willing to listen, not preach. I can guarantee that my non-existant soul will be just fine :)

  • Siamang

    When our eyes meet and in the afterlife you all will remember that Dan Marvin gave effort to help and love you.

    Well, somebody’s awful full of themselves, aren’t they?

    Why am I reminded of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the farm-hand Hickory (who would later appear as the Tin Woodsman) puts his hand on his heart, points at the sky and says

    “Some day they’re going to erect a statue of me….”

    Aunt Em deflates him instantly with:

    “Well don’t start posing for it now!”

  • Dan Marvin

    You are all right when you blast at me and I am not the best Christian though I want to be. Like I mentioned before I am fallible and a sinner and I need a savior. I will repent for my transgressions and I will try everyday to be more like Christ with the Lord guiding me. Thanks for helping me on my walk. Even atheist help save souls.

  • Mike C

    Hey TX! Now will you guys believe me that conservative Christians don’t like postmoderns like me any more than you rationalist atheists do? ;)

  • MTran

    Dan seems to think he is the voice of god when he is really just infected with some sort of brain and ethics destroying meme. Talk about hubris. If pride is a deadly sin, Dan should be entering the arms and abode of Satan at any moment now.

    When our eyes meet and in the afterlife you all will remember that Dan Marvin gave effort to help and love you.

    This is pathetic. What bothers me is that, when Dan dies, the absence of an afterlife will vindicate my atheism but during this life, he will continue to act in virulently ignorant and hypocritical ways, creating an atmosphere that is toxic to believers and non-believers alike.

  • txatheist

    The differences between you and Dan is obvious, blatantly obvious :)