Great response. Much more can be said in response to his email, but in the end he will simply tie us up with an inordinate amount of fallacies and falsehoods requiring volumes to debunk. It's a common strategy.

I get a response via email:

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the link. Looks like it was posted by you, Askegg. I’m glad you found our article stimulating.

It was a good attendance at the Countering Atheism conference and the presentations were very well received. Last weekend I visited Melbourne and we did a number of presentations to different groups showing how the scientific evidence supported creation and the Bible. I also conducted a geology excursion to Phillip Island where we examined the evidence for geological catastrophe and showed how the rocks can be interpreted through a biblical perspective. Of course, that is the way the early geologists looked at the earth.

I can’t understand why someone like yourself would be so passionate about fighting God. I mean, if God doesn’t exist why not do what the atheist bus ads say: “Get on and enjoy your life.” “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.”

I resisted the Lord until my early teens but when I came to know his grace, power and love I have been passionate about Him ever since. He has given me purpose for living and power to overcome my sinful nature, problems and difficulties. He has given me a deep peace within because of the hope that Jesus Christ gives, the fact that he is the Son of God who has saved me from my sin and promised an eternity in a wonderful place (John 14). No worries.

Here at Creation Ministries we have at least four former atheists who now speak and write for us. I will be praying for you Andrew that you will one day join that band, and I hope soon. Drive carefully in the meantime. I suspect that you have had a church upbringing because it seems that kids raised in churches are sometimes the most dedicated atheists.

What would you put as the probability that there is no God? Richard Dawkins said he could not be certain but he was pretty confident. He would not go as low as 49% but he would not go as high as 100%. Have you thought about how you will answer the Lord in the event that you find yourself standing before him? In real life we take out insurance policies to cover us against large losses, even when the probability is very small.

When I was young and before I came to know the love of God and commit myself to him I didn’t want God to spoil my fun. But I was worried about my eternal destiny in case anything happened to me, because I realized that youth was no guarantee of old age. I decided that I would plead that I was too young to know that I needed to repent of my sin and live for the Lord. That was what I thought would be my excuse. I was interested that Richard Dawkins has said he would plead ignorance too.

Such resistance to God is such a pity because God did not spoil my fun. Since I came to the Lord life has been wonderful.

That’s enough from me. Thanks for the link. May the Lord be gracious to you. As John Newton, the atheist slave trader said, “It was grace that taught me how to fear and grace my fears relieved.” My that become your experience, and soon.

All the best,

Tas Walker
Scientist, Editor, Speaker
Creation Ministries International (Australia)
Creation.com

"Drive carefully in the meantime."

Wow, if you can't use reason, use fear.

Lucky you didn't post his email address, or I would email him pulling apart this email.

I was almost going to post the full header information, but decided against it.

That letter, wow… ok a response by paragraph.

1.Ofcourse early geologists interpretted their observations under the presupposition they were witnessing evidence of biblical stories, they were not intellectually free to do otherwise until the evidence was too strong to the contrary. Nevermind the continued advancement of geological dating techniques…

2. Resisting God was futile, the force is weak with this one. More on this later…

3. I guess Creation Ministries only has 4 staff since everyone is an atheist from birth, until they're are told to think otherwise unless ofcourse Tas is referring to 4 individuals who have accepted poor evidence for the existence of a deity. However, that is fine, each individual is entitled to set their own burden of proof threshold. I suspect the motivation for being an atheist may be inextricably linked to the reason they became theists, not too many 'former atheists' have been able to turn around and flop out sound logic and rational for their new found beliefs. Furthermore, the whole 'former atheist' approach is really just a technique to borrow credibility in order to suggest you're not as credulous as an atheist is likely to assume.

4. I'd put the probability of God existence as entirely irrelevant. I take out insurance because I know events happen where my property is damaged (like Monday's storm in Perth which reshaped three quarters of the panels on my car in to something resembling the surface of a golf ball, meanwhile the car with the little fish sticker next to mine was even more damaged). I don't however speculate on the probability unicorns exist, I could but it is inconsequential, so is god. Unless ofcourse god is defined in such a way that his existence is consequential (like offering a spot in heaven) except this will only make his existence less likely because a greater degree of evidence will be required (evidence for heaven in addition to god himself) to accept the claim as true.

5. Oh, we atheists are just resisting God because we just want to have fun… I can hear Wierd Al Yankovic doing a cover of Cindy Lauper's "Girls just want to have fun" except it is about the hethen atheists. Oh, but alas! God didn't spoil your fun he made life wonderful. I think life can be pretty wonderful without God, what exactly is your God offering? An additional knife set for the low low price of $19.95 for any caller in the next 15 minutes? A knife set I could believe (almost) but heaven?

6. Seriously, John Newton? Even if I accept your assertion he was an atheist (unlikely given the scarcity of atheists in the 1700's but certainly a 'sinner' by his own admission), yes, he did experience a conversion which involved an transition towards evangelical christianity and later a preacher himself. The slave trader title seems to indicate an atheist has questionable morals by their very lack of faith. Now, being an atheist does not automatically make you a good person neither does being a theist. To illustrate this with John Newton himself. He was a slave ship captain prior to his conversion but he continued to be one afterwards as well. He only stopped captaining slave ships because of a stroke and continued to invest in the slave trade afterwards. Only until much later on did he renounce the trade and nevermind the overwhelming majority of people involved with the trade at all levels being Christian theists themselves.

However, Newton himself was familiar with these criticisms and decided that during his early years as a Christian and participating in the slavetrade he must not have been a "true Christian". I suggest Tas google's "No True Scotsman Fallacy" because last I checked the bible supports the existence of a slave trade, provides rules for managing your slaves (including punishment) and Jesus has no issue with slavery and no intention of changing the rules from the OT (although he broke some himself) he was just there to update them and close a few loopholes (which at no point included the issue of slavery). In reality, to view slavery as non-christian requires an incredibly selective approach to the bible and an equally arrogant attitude to your own morals because you are taking a position contrary to God's. None of which is relevant if you read the whole bible as a series of metaphors except why would you have an issue with science which contradicts the bible then?

We have seen it all before Tas, you said so yourself in the beginning "that is the way the early geologists looked at the earth", you're using outdated thinking and science in order to prop up outdated myths and social conventions.

I'm glad you replied, after you posted the link on twitter yesterday I read it, wanted to respond, but was so totally gob-smacked I didn't know what to say. I think you said it all.

Thanks mate :)

So the counter-conference was "packed to the rafters" eh?

Where'd they hold it? A fucking phone box?

cranks.

Truth hurts??

Hi guys,

I chanced upon this post purely by accident after trolling the creation.com. I like to occasionally visit their site to see what those monkies are up to.

Regarding Tas' response, I've actually had an online/email debate of sorts with him over the last month. It started after a tongue-in-cheek response to a CMI "article" on the South Australian Board of Education's decision not to allow creationism/Intelligent Design in classrooms.

Anyways, apparently a Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Sciences is enough to call yourself a "scientist" in email signature blocks.

Anyways, great post, and now that I know about you guys I'll be visiting again soon!!

Take care,

James

Thanks James. You can also subscribe to the podcast if you want to hear us rant on the madness of the religious world if you like :)

Truth? What truth?

Actually, Tas Walker has a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering.

I think the implication is that I hurt Tas Walker's feelings by speaking the truth – hence the thinly veiled death threat.

And rants are exactly what you'll get James LOL :)

Granted, John Newton finally stopped being a slave ship captain after what, from the description of the symptoms, may have been a small stroke. However, it is very clear (there are a number of well documented biographies you can refer to, and quite a lot of documentary material) that he had been wanting to get out of the slave trade for some time. He became a Christian in 1748, and finally left the slave trade in 1753 at the age of about 28. You make it sound as though he continued in the slave trade until he was an old man! Being a child of his time, he did not realise at first that slavery was wrong. But it gradually dawned on him as he learned more about the Bible that slavery was wrong. We should be very careful about judging by the standards of 21st Century Britain, 200 years after the abolition of the slave trade, in an era when we have a greater insistence on human rights.

Sorry, apparently, my comment was too long, so I've had to split it up.
During his childhood, John was brought up in a Christian home, and was taken to church, so he certainly had some knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity. He had undoubtedly sat through hundreds of sermons. But he did not become a Christian. This is the experience of many of us who grew up in Christian homes. You do not grow up a Christian because your parents are Christian, or because you get dragged along to church. Like Tas Walker, I too resisted God for a long time. I became convinced at the age of 14 that God existed (ironically, because of discussions on the probability of chemical evolution with a friend who was an evolutionist). But after a while I pushed that to one side and did nothing about it for a very long time. When I first went to university, I ignored God and didn't bother going to church. I was 21 before I finally became a Christian. My sister was in her late 20s before she became a Christian, and my brother in his 30s. Gradually, you realise that although you know quite a lot of facts about God and about Christianity, you are not a Christian.

Just trying to finish what I was saying…
John became an atheist in 1744 at the age of about 19, partly as a result of discussions with James Mitchell, a "freethinker" and the captain's clerk on board one of the ships he sailed on. In fact, John became what would have been termed in those days as a "libertine". He figured that there had been no bolt of lightning on his becoming an atheist, so he might as well have all the fun he could. Gradually, he completely seared his conscience, and is recorded as being so profane in his language that when he was a passenger on a ship the ship's captain (who was well used to hearing some pretty colourful language) reproved him for his blasphmous talk. He raped female slaves.

… Really finishing this time! In short, Newton at this time was not a nice guy. He also became somewhat "evangelistic" about his new atheistic beliefs, seeking to talk others out of their belief in God. He certainly destroyed the faith of a young man called Job Lewis. There is ample evidence that John Newton was an atheist for several years. The account of Newton's conversion makes it very clear that he had not been a Christian before that time. If you want to check facts for yourself, I'd suggest John Pollock's "Amazing Grace" as a very readable shorter account.

in your own words "We have never seen anything created from nothing"…so help me understand your thinking. Where did all this universe come from.

Not to be glib, but what do you mean by "come from"?

If the universe has a natural cause, then there is no room for a supernatural one (unless you push the supernatural to the cause of the cause, etc). If it actually turns out that something from nothing is actually natural (to spite going against all our intuitions), then where does god hide then?

it just seems that both positions end up relying on faith.

Don't be retarded.

Either of the options I have presented would not be accepted on faith, but demonstrated through rigorous experimentation and observation. They would have evidence to support them – NOT faith.

you arguments seem based on slagging someone by calling them names. Both atheism and theism seem to me at the end of the day come down to faith. You have no evidence that all the universe either came into being naturally or has always existed. neither do thes the creationist. Its all down to what you have faith in.

And you seem to take attacks on your ridiculous statements personally.

What does the origins of the universe have to do with the existence of gods? Seriously? Theists makes the claims that a magical sky wizard conjured the universe into being from nothing at all – to spite not seeing this happen, and lacking any evidence for this idea whatsoever. That is faith – belief without evidence.

Sceptics will say "I do not believe your claims unless you can provide evidence supporting them". Those that reject theistic claims are atheists. They demand evidence – the complete opposite of faith!

"You have no evidence that all the universe either came into being naturally or has always existed."

No I don't, but that does not mean I automatically accept any lunatic idea that comes along which seems to answer the question. EVERYTHING must be open to scrutiny.

Your aguments seems based on slagging someone off. At the end of the day both atheism and theism are based on faith. You have no proof how this universe came to be, naturally or not. Nor does the creationist. You belief at the end of the day, seems to me based on faith?

Did you even read what I fucking wrote? Fuck off troll.

What does the origins of the universe have to do with the existence of gods? Seriously?…i'm not saying it does. I am saying at the end of the day, however you believe the universe got here is based on faith, not sceince, not evidence.

Fuck off troll. hmmmm explains a lot.

hmmmm your reply explains a lot!!

Wow you really are either completely ignorant of the facts and the reality of the situation or you have the inability to accept that which to most people needs no further explaination or perhaps you are just fucking stupid.

I am going to go with all three for you sir.

Let me point it out for you to read over and HOPEFULLY read and take in. ATHEISM is NOT a FAITH and does NOT require the BELIEF in something. It is the position of those that do NOT accept the claims of the FAITHFUL and therefore REJECT FAITH and all its claims as NON-VERYFIABLE or lacking in EVIDENCE.

If you can't even remotely grasp the basic meaning of the words themselves, how do you expect anyone at all to take you seriously.

And as for name calling? Well if you didn't come across as a complete fucking tool with seems to be awefully clueless about every word that you utter, then perhaps you wouldn't be such an easy target. On the upside, if you stick around and read some of the articles as well as do a little research yourself, you might actually learn something and then, and here is the big THEN, you might become something more than just a pile of atoms that were unlucky enough to get stuck with each other to live out your current existence.

Then again, maybe this is the best you can do in life?

Did someone mention Tas Walker?

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_dump_on_ai...

He stopped captaining ships in 1754, he continued to invest in slavery beyond this (to a fairly unspecified and debatable time). Specifically he invested in the voyages of his father's friend Joseph Manesty with whom he sailed for from 1748 until his stroke. Ask yourself who the major opposition to the abolitionists were? There were just as many (if not more) pro-slavery proponents who were god-fearing preachers and ordained priests. Surely these individuals pass your criteria for being Christian? Or are we going to stumble over the 'no true scotsman' fallacy?

You and John might claim "it gradually dawned on him as he learned more about the Bible that slavery was wrong" which is common. However what this really means is "we decided to focus on these passages in the bible which pay lip service to treating others with more respect and not those passages which support slavery".

Why? By what authority? This the crux of the matter, moderate Christians, just like the abolitionists of Newton's time, are drawing from external non-biblical sources to inform their moral positions but pretending as if they aren't and pointing to a collection of books from 1500 to 2000 years ago as their source, where they disregard large chunks of it.

Why aren't more Christians advocating the execution of adulters, homosexuals, disobedient children, etc? Because their morality and ethical frameworks have built upon centuries of experience of these attitudes (and the advancement of knowledge through science and philosophy) and have taken the refinement of social norms as their own and credit the bible for what is explicitly contrary to the preachings of the bible.

Almost enough to make you think Christians don't read the bible!

So… by your definition Australia isn't actually a country populated by a majority of Christians.

You see 64% of people ticked the Christian box in the last census (continuing a steady decline from the previous two at least) however the National Church Life Survey (NCLS) found less than 9% of Australians actually, you know, go to church (not including Christmas and Easter where ingrained childhood guilt gets the better of many people).

So I posit that approximately 55% of Australia is 'culturally Christian'. By this I mean, yeah they might have been raised Christian but these individual don't take part in anything explicitly Christian and are basically irreligious (as opposed to the 20% of Australians who explicitly ticked the box for non-religious in the same census).

Now your logic that God existed because of the probability of evolution? I don't know where to begin here…

I'm assuming you mean the probability that humans alone would have specifically evolved (as opposed to any other variety of highly developed life form). Then so what? It is incredibly unlikely person X would win the 1st division lottery but it isn't exactly unlikely that someone would win division 1 with enough people playing, shit it happens almost every week!

There are five or six other ways I can envisage you essentially getting things ass backwards from your statement but I can't be bothered going any further. If you feel up to it post your logic for god existing.

Exactly David.

There is a perception that evolution produces specific results, such as humanity. This is clearly not that case. As you suggest, life will, and has, evolved to produce all kinds of species – this is a given. What is not clear is the product of any one species, just as there is no guarantee of any one individual resulting from the mating of their parents. In one respect we all defy the odds by being here, and in another we are the inevitable result of natural processes.

Just as predicting a specific result of a lottery draw are almost impossible for any one individual, on the whole it's almost certain somebody will win.

It's a common misunderstanding.

"Have you thought about how you will answer the Lord in the event that you find yourself standing before him? "

How's he going to answer to Odin when hes walking all over his arse