There are also people involved in the grassroots "Question Evolution Day", started by yours truly in 2012. It was inspired by the "Question Evolution!" campaign. One part of "Question Evolution Day" includes the use of the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" aspect of the "Question Evolution!" campaign. (I was honored that they liked my video and included it in their "15 Questions" page.)
As I've said for a while now, hate stupidifies. (For the atheopath readers, that's stupid-i-fies, it makes people stupid.) Their emotions cloud their reasoning abilities.
I am not a reader of the "Huffington Post", even though it is widely known as a bastion of objective, intelligent journalism. (Can you believe that I typed that with a straight face? Those leftists are biased and have a reputation...).
There were some interesting things in an article from Zimmerman that ran last year. (OK, so I'm late on this, I don't read the thing, remember? I blundered across it a while back, forgot it, found it again.) He was busy demonizing Ken Ham and portraying him as someone who is only in it for the money. Zimmerman must be assuming that Ken Ham is like the other atheists. In fact, I'd like to see a comparison of who gets more money, Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins. Yeah, that'll shut you up!
This was really interesting:
Third, and perhaps most tellingly, every year creationist organizations spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to disparage Evolution Weekend. If Evolution Weekend were not an important event, creationist groups would ignore the celebration. Instead, they attack it -- and use it as a way to raise money from supporters.Seriously? I see an Affirming the Consequent fallacy as well as Appeal to Motive. You might even get a Fallacy of Exclusion here. But the next paragraph was quite interesting:
This year was no different. Indeed, as The Christian Post pointed out, something called "Question Evolution Day" was created this year to combat the efforts of The Clergy Letter Project. Given all of the T-shirts, bumper stickers and related paraphernalia that sponsors were hawking, "Question Evolution Day" might well have been a boon to the economy, but there was no evidence that it promoted meaningful dialogue.Again, seriously? If Zimmerman had any desire to do actual research, he took said desire, tied it to a chair and threw it in the East River. I have some bad news for you, Sunshine: I am the one who started "Question Evolution Day", which was inspired by Creation Ministries International. Not only does it have nothing to do with Answers in Genesis, the article I'm quoting demonizes AiG and Ken Ham, but I did not market any merchandise (I'm just a guy doing this after work and on days off, not a part of an organization), and am not aware of anyone else who did.
Also, "Question Evolution Day" was not started in response to your "Clergy Letter Project" call to apostasy. The fact is, I had never heard of it, or him, until after QED was happening. Zimmerman needs to get over himself. Now, I can see where he might get the idea that QED was started because of his "let's get liberal churches whoring with atheists" initiative, since The Christian Post (which he linked) said:
As many churches observed "Evolution Weekend," some congregations and other groups decided to celebrate a different perspective on the origins debate with "Question Evolution Day."
The Feb. 12 observance was meant to encourage people to skeptically approach Darwin's theory of evolution. It was coordinated by multiple groups including the Traditional Values Coalition, Creation Ministries International, and the website Piltdownsuperman.com.
So I can see where someone who read hastily and did not bother to do research might get the idea that it's in response to his "get the liberal Christians to compromise more" project."This is not designed to teach Genesis per se, nor is it a platform for debating the age of the Earth; there are plenty of other places for that," said Bob Sorensen of Piltdownsuperman.com, to The Christian Post.
The number of churches that Zimmerman has recruited is misleading (and fewer than in previous years). He lists churches that are so liberal, their doctrines cannot even be recognized as Christian any longer. Adding Unitarians, "New Age" groups, Buddhists (!) and others that would rather align themselves with atheists than actual Bible-believing churches is disingenuous at best. Still, whatever it takes for an evolutionist atheist to look good, huh?
I can lower my standards and use the same fallacies that Zimmerman used. It is obvious that education systems will crank out a doctorate for anyone with enough money to pay for it (especially atheists), because he does not show the ability to do decent research, and indulges in selective citing. But I won't indulge myself in that fallacy. I will say that his "research" was very sloppy.
Here's a message for the apostate groups that want to further their apostasy:
“Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
—Joshua 24.14-15, NASB