Origin of Stupidity

Man, I wish I was. It's actually in the Introduction. The link to the .pdf is provided in the drop-down information box (click "more info") on the youtube page linked at the top of this page.

I'm still reading through it. It's some of the funniest stuff I've read in a while.

More:

"Besides, many of God’s creatures have similar hearing (how many different ways can you make an ear that hears sound?). The eyes of many of God’s creatures are very similar. Pigs have skin that is incredibly close to human skin—closer than primates. We both have noses, ears, eyes, liver, kidneys, lungs, teeth, and a brain. Did man evolve from the pig, rather than the primate? It would seem so if we are going to be consistent with the evolutionist’s logic. The pig and man have many features in common." - pg 18

"All this proves is that some scientists are willing to lie in an attempt to prove their pet theories, and they have a huge incentive to lie. A fossil that’s believed to be millions of years old, and an intriguing theory to match it could be a lucrative book deal, high honorarium speaking engagements, and of course a lasting legacy." - pg 22

"Many have zealously embraced Darwinian evolution without question, as if it were the gospel truth. But can evolution stand the test of close examination?" - pg 22

"Here are some interesting questions for the thinking evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood or the heart—and why? Did the heart in all these different species of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals evolve before there were blood vessels throughout their bodies? When did the blood evolve? Was it before the vessels evolved or after they evolved?
If it was before, what was it that carried the blood to the heart, if there were no vessels? Did the heart beat before the blood evolved? Why was it beating if there was no blood to pump? If it wasn’t beating, why did it start when it didn’t know anything about blood?
If the blood vessels evolved before there was blood, why did they evolve if there was no such thing as blood? And if the blood evolved before the heart evolved, what was it that kept it circulating around the body?
The only reasonable answer to these questions is that God made the human body (and the bodies of all the other creatures) with a heart, lungs (to oxygenate the blood), kidneys (to filter wastes from the blood), blood vessels, arteries, blood, skin (to hold it all in), etc., at one moment in time, as the Bible states." - pg 23

"The eye is an example of what is referred to as 'irreducible complexity.' It would be absolutely impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection, to be able to create forty separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the
whole until the very last state of development." - pg 25-6

"Most likely you’ve heard that 'vestigial organs' are proof that we’ve evolved from more primitive forms. Because these organs supposedly have no purpose, evolutionists assume they have outlived their usefulness and are 'leftovers' from
our less advanced ancestors.
But even if an organ were no longer needed, wouldn’t it only prove devolution? This fits well with the Law of Entropy— that all things deteriorate over time. What evolution requires, however, is not the loss but the addition of information, where an organism increases in complexity. So 'vestigial organs' still wouldn’t help the evolutionist’s case." - pg 29

"Still, if you are set on believing that some sort of unknown creative force (made up of chaos and probability) brought all this incredible order into being, you will stay with that belief. You will also be offended by the simplicity of Genesis— that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, and everything therein. You will also more than likely have a
problem with where Cain obtained his wife. But I may have an answer that you could be willing to believe? How about he randomly mutated into a woman, split, and married her?" - pg 31

Page 32 of the Introduction begins a section entitled "His Famous Student". Two Darwin quotes are followed by almost 3 pages of quotes from "Mein Kampf".

The next section, entitled "The Hit LIst" concludes with the following:
"Hitler believed that the German people were the superior race that deserved to rule the world. Here is his 'Hit List' which reveals how he distinguished between the different races (notice his evolutionary progression from human to ape):
Nordic—close to Pure Aryan.
Germanic—predominantly Aryan.
Mediterranean—slightly Aryan.
Slavic—close to half-Aryan, half-Ape.
Oriental—slight Ape preponderance.
Black African—predominantly Ape.
Jewish (fiendish skull)—close to pure Ape." - pg 36

"You will rarely find an atheist who doesn’t embrace
Darwinism with both arms. This is because the theory deals with God and His moral accountability. If Evolution is solely responsible for creation, then there is no Creator and no moral responsibility." - pg. 36

"So the atheist has a problem. If he doesn’t believe (as
Darwin did) that there is a Creator, he is saying that nothing created everything, and that’s a scientific impossibility. He will deny that he believes that through gritted teeth, because it is an intellectual embarrassment. But if he says of his Toyota that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks that nothing made it (it just happened), which (again) is a scientific impossibility. So to remain credible, he falls back on something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what that 'something' was. So he’s not an atheist—he believes in an initial cause.
Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of atheists, can’t claim the title 'atheist,' because he understands that something must have created everything. He said, 'Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose.' ” - pg 37

"Imagine I offered you a choice of four gifts:
-The original Mona Lisa
-The keys to a brand new Lamborghini
-A million dollars in cash
-A parachute

You can pick only one. Which would you choose? Before you decide, here’s some information that will help you to make the wisest choice: You have to jump 10,000 feet out of an airplane.
Does that help you to connect the dots? It should, because you need the parachute. It’s the only one of the four gifts that will help with your dilemma. The others may have some value, but they are useless when it comes to facing the law of gravity in a 10,000-foot fall. The knowledge that you will have to jump should produce a healthy fear in you—and that kind of fear is good because it can save your life. Remember that.
Now think of the four major religions:
-Hinduism
-Buddhism
-Islam
-Christianity

Which one should you choose? Before you decide, here’s some information that will help you determine which one is the wisest choice: All of humanity stands on the edge of eternity." - pg 40-1

"Perhaps the thought of going to Hell doesn’t scare you,
because you don’t believe in it. That’s like standing in the open door of a plane 10,000 feet off the ground and saying, 'I don’t believe there will be any consequences if I jump without a parachute.' " - pg 43

Wow! What a fun read! The Introduction goes on to argue that Christianity is a parachute, while all other religions have irrelevant value. It actually becomes quite preachy towards the end. I found it quite enjoyable, if read as satire; if read as intended, it's a whirlwind of dark, tragic confusion.

I'm not trying to get into an argument here, but exactly how does science prove, or help prove, god's glory? If anything I found science to be a strong tonic in defense of no deities. Just wondering.

Science's strongest theory is the big bang, which i agree with.
But if the big bang happened what construed the matter and spark for the bang? God?

Just throwing out there that so far science hasn't debunked god, it has only shown us that the universe and earth is a lot more complex than we originally thought. So if God, or whatever deity, did this then he wanted us to struggle to find out how and why.

"As a christian I believe that science only further proves gods glory and should not be dismissed or seen as trying to disprove god"

Then you're not a Christian.

If you're making up or belong to a new/different religion than say that.

Don't try to claim and misrepresent an already existing one with its own rules and beliefs that you clearly don't follow or/and understand.