Did Darwin Inadvertently Endorse Murder? | Creation Today

Our Websites

Did Darwin Inadvertently Endorse Murder?

Let’s talk facts. In 1859, Charles Darwin claimed that if his evolution theory were true, there would be lots of evidence. A decade after his bold statement in writing, no evidence had been found. In 1869, Ernst Haeckel introduced a series of drawings that showed a human embryo going through the stages of evolution. Evolutionists relied heavily on this single work as proof of their theory. Darwin himself considered this to be one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution at the time.

False Evidence to Justify a Grievous Wrong

The problem is that Haeckel faked all his evidence. He was even convicted of fraud at his own university, the University of Jenna, in 1875. Yet today the drawings that Haeckel made are still in science textbooks as evidence of evolution. After 120 years of being proven wrong, you would have to wonder, “Why is this lie still in the books?” The answer: It is the only way to scientifically justify an ABORTION! You see, if you take the life of a “fetus” (child) while they are still in developmental stages, then it is not yet a “human,” so therefore cannot be considered “murder.”

Staggering Statistics

Today abortion is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. A staggering 14 percent of the abortions performed today are funded by American taxpayers. More than one million abortions have been performed in the United States, and more than one billion abortions have been performed worldwide.

Please watch the following video carefully. In it, you’ll see the staggering truth about abortion, including a gripping video from our friends at You Can Run International.

Please look for the documentary, “My War,” being released soon.

,

53 Responses to Did Darwin Inadvertently Endorse Murder?

  1. Dennis October 15, 2010 at 6:31 am #

    Then there’s just the problem that 99% of all those who get an abortion doesn’t consider it murder.

  2. Stephen Holshouser October 15, 2010 at 7:32 am #

    Jay L,

    You said, “Steven H replied to me yesterday with: “It amazes me to see the effort you put in to this debate that ultimately doesn’t matter, according to your world view…” (actually, I wasn’t replying to you; it was to the atheists in general, but that’s beside the point)

    Then you replied by saying “…I believe education is the best tool we have in combating bigotry, famine, disease and suffering… …I want to help fix the ills of society, and I think the type of miss-education and fear mongering that the Hovinds utilize is on the whole, damaging to that society. I want my posterity to live a better life than I have, so it indeed matters a great deal to me.”

    You can’t be serious, can you? You are an excellent example of those that call good, evil and evil good (Is 5:20). The Bible says that there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Prov 16:25)… You want to “fix the ills of society,” do you? Just keep voting democrat. LOL! When people kill thousands of unborn children each day, is that an ill of society? When people refuse to work and live off government money, is that an ill of society? When people make grandparents and foster parents raise their children because they would rather do drugs and alcohol, is that an ill of society? When parents put their kids in day-care for 9 hours just because they want 2 incomes to buy more things, is that an ill of society? When the majority of TV glorifies sex, violence, and pornography, is that an ill of society, Jay? When our leaders spit on the Constitution that made our country great and then inact the same policies that drive countries into poverty and slavery, is that an ill of society?

    How much time have you focused on these ills of society?? Probably none… Instead you rail on those who strive to follow the Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Not to mention these things and more echoed by the Apostles, who gave their lives serving God and mankind as Jesus did. Rejecting Christ is precisely what brings “ills” into society… look at history.

    Jay, stop and examine your life and then behold the Lamb of God, and open your eyes to His beauty and grace. I beseech you by all that is good and right, look to Jesus Christ. His life and payment is absolutely sufficient for any sinner that comes to God by Him for forgiveness. YOU will be righteous in the sight of God Almighty if you hold to Him nothing but the perfect, finished work of His Son, Jesus. I would love to have you as my brother in Christ!

  3. Mike Ayala October 15, 2010 at 7:44 am #

    Hi Eric,

    The Lord’s heart breaks over abortion. He judged Israel for killing its own babies. He judged the heathen for killing their own babies. He will also judge our land for killing our own babies.

    Please pray for the grace of God to change the hearts of mothers and fathers who are considering killing their own babies, that they would have a change of heart, and that they would love their own children.

    God bless you all.

    Mike Ayala

  4. Mike Ayala October 15, 2010 at 8:21 am #

    James Burke October 8th at 7:11 pm
    20101005 Two new Dinosaur Species Discovered In Utah

    “The interesting part of that is that in order for there to be guided probability, there needs to be a guide, and in this case it is the Creator of heaven and earth. ”

    “With all due respect, that is a non sequitur.”

    ———-

    Hi James,

    Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.

    Thanks for the Latin lesson. It’s all new to me.

    I’m not sure, but it seems to me that it is only a non-sequitur if it is not true. However, if I had ended that sentence with a colon and did not have a paragraph break, then you would have had the necessary explanation all in one sentence.

    It may be only my limited understanding, but it seems to me that “according to cosmologists” current understanding, space, time and matter are the result of the “Big Bang”… is a huge non sequitur. Be advised, not all cosmologists believe that. Moreover, it takes a lot of blind faith to believe that story line especially since that is an highly speculative unverifiable hypothesis about an unrecorded and unobserved event supported by extremely limited equivocal disputed evidence in isolation from abundant evidence that reveals that this scenario is not true.

    I suspect there would be no honest dispute that if there is “guided probability” that it then follows there must be some sort of mechanism, whatever form it may take, providing the observed “guidance”. The rest of my answer was a declaration of what causes the appearance of “guided probability” per the word of God. This declaration was merely a condensation of that which is revealed in the word of God. Please allow me to explain again the connective tissue of substantiation between the logic through the declaration to the conclusion.

    The “Laws of Nature” are not typical laws in the way we understand laws in our daily lives. The laws we experience in our daily lives are established by decree of the governing authority. My declaration is that the laws of nature are also established by a decree of the Governing Authority of creation in contrast to the popular evolutionary dogma that the laws of nature spontaneously arose by random processes.

    The guidance you suggest the laws of physics provide by governing what particle and forces can exist is not an active intelligent force or vectored or directed power. The laws of physics have no legislative statutes to which one can point nor any long arm enforcement capability to penalize anyone or anything that would violate those laws.

    We must better and more precisely define just exactly what the “laws” of the laws of physics are. Doing so will reveal that your suggestion is kind of an undefined black box which if not scrutinized can be used to appeal to them as an authority where no true authority exists.

    We can only observe what we can observe. That may sound silly, but it puts a fence around what we can know through the agency of our senses and any tool we may employ to enhance our senses.

    We also have divine revelation from God. The phenomenon of the word of God cannot be ignored in all intellectual honesty. That which cannot be observed by us can be revealed to us by divine revelation.

    One whose spirit is dead to God is at a severe disadvantage. However, the Bible says “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.”

    The Bible reveals in Hebrews Chapter 11:1-3,

    “Now faith is the evidence of things not seen.”

    “For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.”

    “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”

    Long before there was ever a scanning electron microscope, the Lord revealed to the world through His word “that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Has this little bit of Scripture that was penned over 1900 years ago been adequately proven to your satisfaction to be worthy of your trust?

    The faith of Scripture is not the blind faith the world thinks it is. The Lord gives us the necessary evidence to have the faith He seeks:

    “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”

    The faith of Scripture is simply and merely evidence of trusting the Lord at His word. Romans 10:17 teaches us,

    “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

    The Bible teaches us in Hebrews 3:4,

    “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.”
    .

    Scripture declares in Genesis 1:1-3,

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

    “And the earth was without form and void. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

    “And God said, “Let there be light”: and there was light.”
    .

    John 1:1-3,

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.”

    “He was in the beginning with God.”

    “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
    .

    And finally, Colossians 1:16-17 speaking of Jesus teaches,

    “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were crated through Him and for Him.”

    “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”

    That “in Him all things consist” means all things are held together, held in place and bound together as in the holding together phenomena of gravity and nuclear forces. Jesus is involved in the maintenance of creation. One day He will “let go” and “make all things new”.

    Jesus is the Creator of heaven and earth. Jesus is the Designer of Creation.

    Ultimately, it boils down to the authority of the word of God: Is the word of God truly God’s word to this lost and dying world? Does it really have any authority?

    That is why some folks who post here devote so much effort trying to discredit the word of God. Many through the centuries have gone before them. They would save themselves a lot of wasted time and effort if they just examined the history of folks who tried to prove the Bible not to be the word of God, what their arguments were, and the conclusion born out of their challenge.

    The word of God has ample internal evidences to validate itself as God’s divine revelation to us so that we might know Him and know that His word is above all a love letter to each of us declaring His grace, love, and kindness through the offering of His Son, Jesus, on the cross.

    You want me to believe the conclusion of some human cosmologists that space, time and matter and the laws of nature and the laws of physics and all the complexity of life all spontaneously arose by purely materialistic random processes, and the “guided probability” is nothing more than the natural outcome of random processes that spontaneously arose out of nothing – no time, no space, no matter, and no explanation. Now, that’s a non sequitur!

    My declaration per the word of God is that Jesus, God the Son, created all things, and all things are held together by Him.

    Which sounds more plausible?

    Grace and blessing to you.

    Mike Ayala

  5. Duane October 15, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    Eric,

    Prove any of this. Show us the text books and show us that the drawings are presented uncritically.

    Prove Haeckel was ever convicted of scientific fraud.

    And Abortion? Reaching, aren’t we?

    “The Bible was used to justify killing Jews in the Holocaust.”

    Matthew 27:25 (King James Version)

    25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

    See how easy that is.

  6. Bethany Willis October 15, 2010 at 8:18 am #

    I had already seen this amazing young woman speaking. I just hope that her message of life not death touches ppl they way it touches and did touch me. I have for a very long time been pro-life probaby whatever you want to call it. Babies are supposed to be protected and loved even in utero. I am so thankful God gave me the chance to carry 2 babies to term and I get to thank God again and again for the little miracles that they are. Yes one of them is “special needs” but even if I would have known he would struggle and his life wouldn’t be a cake walk I still would have wanted him and kept him and protected him within my womb because he is precious and he is important! I told my husband when we first got together and decided to have children that if it came down to the life of me or the unborn child I carried I told him you fight for that little life growing inside me it is much more important than I am! That baby deserves a chance at life I have already had mine! God loves my children and HE protects them how dare I not do the same!

  7. Alfred Russell Wallace October 15, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    To sum up your article:

    1. There is an overabundance of evidence for Darwinian Evolution, you creationists just don’t visit real museums or understand real science.

    2. Yes, Haekel’s drawings are a fraud, Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel’s theory.

    What do his drawings have to do with Darwin?

    ** Darwin’s more sophisticated view that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of related species, but not to the adult stages of these species, has been confirmed by modern evolutionary developmental biology. **

    Looks like even though Haekel was a fraud, Darwin was still right all along.

  8. andrew Ryan October 15, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    Could you cite your source for the claim that he was convicted of fraud?

  9. Jim Wirth October 15, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    This woman has said what I have seen in my dreams for years. I am so glad she is a “Survivor” and encourage her to continue to live and get her word out. My prayers will be with her as long as I live.

  10. Jim Wirth October 15, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    @Alfred Russell Wallace

    Oh yea’ of no faith.

    Alfred, I believe in science, I love science, we need science just not twisted science. I or anyone else is not going to convience(sp) you of God’s Science, you are sold on your science. If you want to really learn, go to God, ask him with your heart to show you the truth. He will. Argue with him. I doubt your going to do that though, because, much like the thief, murderer, or any sort of criminal, they generally do not seek out the Police, but rather they avoid the Police because they are aware of what the price they will pay for seeking the Police. Folks who discuss this topic rarely seek out Jesus Christ for the same reasons. Seek him, he will not punish you, he will show his love and teach you and release you.

  11. Jennifer Preston October 15, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    I don’t think abortion is all black and white. I personally don’t agree with it.

    But what if you’re raped and end up pregnant. I know about all that what if you kill a child when it’s five, is it murder? and going down to pregnancy. But let’s say that you didn’t have an abortion. You could a) keep the child, b) give it up for adoption. Given that it would be an incredibly emotional and stressful pregnancy, the mother might miscarry anyway. Given that everyday the pregnancy changed her body in ways she didn’t want at that time, it would be almost unbearable to live with. I know I would find it incredibly awful. The stretch marks, the getting fat, all that unwanted baby weight. Someone would’ve conflicted that on you and you would have to go through it.

    So say you give it up for adoption. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to do that. It can be incredibly difficult to give up a baby. But what if, later down the line, the baby comes looking for you? Plus you would still have to remember that you went through that pregnancy.
    So say you kept it. What if you never learn to love the baby because the place it came from caused you so much stress. What if when the child got to the age of five, you couldn’t take it anymore and killed the child. Then it’s just a case of When is the best time to murder your child? No question of IF you are going to murder your child.

    But what would happen if during the pregnancy you couldn’t take it anymore and killed yourself. Then it’s two lives for the price of one. But the mother is not sacrificing herself to save her child. She’s not even thinking of the baby. She’s not in the right emotional state of mind. What if the mother kills herself after the baby is born. Then it’s a question of Does the mother die or does the baby die?

    What if you know you’re going to have a severly disabled child with an awful quality of life. What if you knew you’d never be able to give up a baby. Besides, why should you give up a baby just because it is disabled. But what if you also knew that you yourslef couldn’t cope with having a severly disabled child, emotionally and/or finacially? What if down the line you wouldn’t be able to cope and again either kill yourself or your child? What if you just knew you couldn’t cope?

    I don’t think abortion should be banned. If abortion is banned what will happen is you will get a lot of people having it done illegally in the back streets. More of the mothers will die in the process of having the abortion. It might be very expensive and crime levels might rise when mothers try to raise the money to have one of these “illegal abortions”. Mothers might try deliberate “natural” ways to miscarry i.e. falling onto their stomach, taking overdoses.

    Like I said, I personally do not think abortion is right, but there is a lot in the middle of simple “Yes” and “No”. It’s not Black and White. It’s not a simple Yes or No. There is a lot of stuff in the middle. It’s a complicated issue with many things to think about. I hope in this discussion there isn’t just Yes or No answers. I hope people consider all options and not just the ones involving God and what the Bible says. You have to look at this from societies point of view, not a personal point of view. It’s dangerous to think that everybody will have the same opinion as you just because you think they should. The fact is you cannot force people to beleive what you believe and there are some people that will never come round to your way of thinking.
    You have to look at this from both a christian view and a non-christian view. And that’s not about what they believe, but about how not having an abortion will affect the non-christian mother. Or the mother who doesn’t believe in God. Or the ones that don’t find comfort in God.

  12. Jay Liemowitz October 15, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    Steven, David M, and others who responded to my post from yesterday,

    I never advocated any of those things you just defined as ills of society nor did I encourage anyone to vote democrat. I didn’t claim that I like abortion, didn’t claim that we don’t need morals, never advocated hedonism, and in point of fact, never advocated atheism or godlessness.

    The only statement I made was that education is a good thing and fear mongering is not. I hardly believe you could possibly disagree with that.

    We can discuss solutions to the problems you expressed Steven, and perhaps Jesus is the answer, as you suggest. I would welcome a thorough examination of that claim.

    My point is that spreading misinformation through quote mines, discouraging critical thinking through threats of perceived punishment, and castigating entire subgroups of the population as evil and dishonest, is not helping fix any of those problems. Surely you would agree, in principle, that what I describe in this paragraph isn’t helpful? So I ask that you examine yourself, and honestly ask if this is what you’re doing.

    Continue following Jesus Christ if you choose. The passage you quote is a beautiful piece of literature, containing wisdom that all humanity could learn from. I’ve never once stated that I wish to rid this world of Christianity. I simply wish to rid it of ignorance, discrimination, dogmatism and brainwashing.

    Jay

  13. Bruce and Marion Curtis October 15, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    There are several sources affirming Haeckel’s fraud at antievolution.org.

    Now, how about the enemies of Creationism admitting they were wrong about this, that Darwinism is partly built on this lie, and therefore rests on rotten underpinnings…still waiting…

  14. Mark Aho October 15, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    I always think of Bro. Hovinds’ statement…”In the beginning… God” vs. “In the beginning…Dirt” (Evolutionists). And then the other one of his quotes…”How can nothing become something”(In reference to The big bang). I have nothing further your honor
    In Him,
    Bro. Mark Aho

  15. Eric Newcomer October 15, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    Dennis said,
    “Then there’s just the problem that 99% of all those who get an abortion doesn’t consider it murder.”

    Absolutely, Dennis, that is a problem – a major problem. We cannot appeal to a majority rule in matters of ethics. A quick review of history will reveal that the majority can be wrong. At various times and places, majorities within societal groups have considered slavery, murder, genocide, child abandonment and even infanticide acceptable. But those are all things that are clearly wrong! How did it ever happen? Easily. Those societies had no objective authoritative standard for what is right or wrong (or at least they were not listening to it).

    As western culture drifts further away from the biblical standard, these problems will become worse. Today it’s abortion and sexual promiscuity that are accepted by many; tomorrow it will be pedophilia and euthanasia.

    Did you notice that the conversation around abortion is WHERE we should draw the line? When it comes to any ethical debate, the question is ‘WHERE should we draw the line?’ but never ‘Should there BE a line?’ Everybody has ethical standards of some kind. Even a death row inmate will tell you how wrong it is that his friend betrayed him for a plea bargain. How could ethics have evolved? Or could this be an example of God’s Law being written on our hearts? (Rom. 2:14-15) Perhaps our sin that has separated us from God has caused our differences in opinion. It would seem then that reconciliation to God would be the answer!

  16. Eric Newcomer October 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    Alfred,
    You’re right, Haekel’s drawings have been rejected by true scientists, and they don’t have much to do with Darwin’s work because his work came prior.

    My training is in practical science – engineering. I know from experience that the scientific method is an excellent way to discover many great facts and to solve real problems.

    For this reason, I want to clarify your claim that, “There is an overabundance of evidence for Darwinian Evolution.” If you mean that there is scientific evidence to support that living things undergo NATURAL SELECTION, I am inclined to agree. Many observations and experiments have confirmed that the ‘more fit’ varieties within a species will thrive in an environment while other varieties wane. This is much of what Darwin spoke of.

    Unfortunately, Darwin’s observations and ideas quickly blossomed into conjecture over origins. For any area of evolutionary teachings outside of natural selection, there is a profound lack of direct observations and almost no possibility of experimentation.
    Examples:
    The Big Bang (something becoming nothing has never been observed or reproduced by experiment)
    The formation of a living cell (Countless observations and many experiments actually show that only life begets life)
    The evolution from a single-celled organism to a multi-cellular organism (no observations or experiments)
    The changing of one kind of an organism into another kind (no observation or experiments)

    Not only is there a lack of evidence for all of these areas of evolutionary thought (which are mostly post-Darwinian), there are significant observations and experiments that prove the contrary.

    I do not expect to prove Creationism to you. My belief in a Creator God is taken by faith, not by science (although science has never contradicted it). My only wish is that Evolutionists would come to that same place: A confession of faith. Since the Big Bang, the spontaneous generation of life, and the changing of one kind of living organism into another cannot be observed or experimented upon, they must be accepted by faith. Since they must be accepted by faith, they are not science.

    Now we are on level ground: My faith is in the Creator God of the Bible, an evolutionists faith is in the theory of evolution. Now, rather than wrangle over science, LET’S COMPARE FAITHS.

    Eric

    , there iMany people The scientific method relies on observation and experimentation.
    However, the conjecture that these species over time become a different kind of animal or develop

  17. David McCrea October 15, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

    There was a point in my life when I too thought nothing about murdering unborn innocents. Then my older brother, at the age of 15, got his 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant. As I learned much later, there was serious talk of having an abortion. This was in 1974, just one year after Roe v. Wade. The families ultimately decided against it and seven months later my niece was born.

    She is now 36 years old, married with three beautiful daughters of her own.

    I can’t imagine life without her.

    If you are reading this and have had an abortion, you can still be saved by the awesome power, mercy and grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Then be sure to forgive yourself and go out and serve the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. God bless you.

    David

  18. Carl M October 15, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    Eric Hovind said

    The problem is that Haeckel faked all his evidence. He was even convicted of fraud at his own university, the University of Jenna, in 1875. Yet today the drawings that Haeckel made are still in science textbooks as evidence of evolution. After 120 years of being proven wrong, you would have to wonder, “Why is this lie still in the books?”

    What Hovind wrote here is a perpetuation of verifiable lie told by his father. In order to understand this lie it is necessary to establish two important definitions;

    Recapitulation Theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) – States that stages in the evolution of the species are reproduced during the developmental stages of the individual (Chambers 1990). For example, a human embryo would start out as a “fish” embryo then work it’s way through its evolutionary ancestry till reaching a full human stage. Promoted by Ernst Haeckel in the late 19th century. This idea has been debunked for decades and is no longer in use.

    Embryo homology (comparative embryology, developmental homology) – closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development (Campbell 1993). Embryonic structures can be adapted to different ultimate uses, for example, pharyngeal arches (“gill slits”). Or structures may be removed, for example, the tail of a human embryo.

    The difference between these two ideas is subtle but very significant. However, Kent Hovind has never recognized the difference. He always mixes embryo homology with Recapitulation Theory.

    Perhaps Hovind has never been exposed to the difference and is simply blissfully unaware? Unfortunately this is not the case. During a debate at Winona State University with Dr Robyn Richardson the following exchange took place [1].

    Dr Richardson: The ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny [Recapitulation Theory] has been disproven. We do not pass through our ancestral stages but this has nothing to do with our continuing to show these vestigial organs because we are not subject to natural selection as strongly in the womb as when we come out of the womb @1:10:45

    Hovind: Dr Richardson, in her opening comments, was giving the sciences that support Evolution and she said, “Developmental biology supports Evolution because of vestigial organs including gill slits and tails while the baby is in the mother’s womb.” So she is using ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny [Recapitulation Theory]. We’ve got it on tape. @1:14:00

    What we have on tape is Dr Richardson denying Recapitulation and attempting to explain homology. In the time it takes to cook an egg Hovind still confused the concepts of Recapitulation and homology. To top it off, Hovind misrepresents his opponent’s position. Is this exchange simply from an obscure debate long forgotten in history? No, ten years later you can download the entire debate or buy the DVD for $9.95 from Hovind’s website [August 2003]

    Let’s give Hovind the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he simply made an error but later updated his material? Again, this is not the case. Hovind has continued to mix his definitions. In fact, I have never heard or read Hovind mention embryo homology (by any name). It’s Recapitulation Theory all the way according to Hovind;

    But guess what? Haeckel’s fake drawings are still used today in textbooks – in your town – as evidence for Evolution. You bring me your biology textbook and I’ll show it to you. They’re still teaching the kids, “We’ve got evidence for Evolution from embryology.” Even though its proven wrong in 1874. Here’s a textbook […..] – a ’98 textbook – the class of ’99 was taught, “Evidence for Evolution comes from embryos.” That was only proven wrong 125 years ago. [2]

    Did you notice the subtle deception? Kent Hovind has even had the nerve to write (circa 2000);

    If your textbook shows the so-called “gill-slits” on various embryos as evidence for evolution, you can be sure the author is either ignorant or deliberately lying to promote his religion of evolution. (Hovind)

    From the early ’90’s to at least 2003 Kent Hovind has consistently misrepresented the science behind the issue. Apparently nothing, not even a public explanation, has had any effect on this misrepresentation.

    And now in 2010, Eric Hovind is continuing in his father’s footsteps. Dishonesty wins no converts.

    References:
    [1] Debate 06 – Winona State University (early ’90s) [August 2003]

    [2] MP3 Audio – Lies in the Textbooks Part 2 [August 2003]

    Campbell, Neil A. (1993) Biology 3rd Edition The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. Redwood City, California

    Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary (1991) W & R Chambers Ltd, Edinburgh.

    Hovind, K. (circa 2000) Are you Being Brainwashed? Propaganda in Science Textbooks Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, Florida.

  19. David McCrea October 15, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    Dennis,

    Your callous and erroneous remark about 99% of those who have an abortion not considering it murder goes to prove the point that evolutionists could care less about humanity and human life.

    What THEY call it, what YOU call it, matters not one bit. It’s what GOD calls it that counts.

    I’d wish you a good day, but I think I’ll save that one for someone a little more deserving.

  20. David McCrea October 15, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    Alfred,

    There is an overabundant amount of evidence that proves the birth, life, ministry, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. There were dozens of fullfilled prophecies, tens of thousands of eye witnesses and they even wrote a book about Him so you could learn what He wants for and from all of us.

    You choose Darwin, I choose Jesus Christ. That’s what free will is all about. We both live with our choices and their respective consequences.

    God bless.

    David

  21. Jack Napper October 15, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Let’s talk facts.

    Promise?

    In 1859, Charles Darwin claimed that if his evolution theory were true, there would be lots of evidence. A decade after his bold statement in writing, no evidence had been found.

    FACEPALM. I’m not going to bother mentioning that Creationists don’t know how to use a dictionary to look up the slightly differing definitions between EVIDENCE and PROOF. Here’s just one example:

    Archaeopteryx
    Initial discovery…1860
    London Specimen (BMNH 37001)…1861 near Langenaltheim, Germany
    Berlin Specimen (HMN 1880)…1876 near near Eichstutt, Germany

    In 1869, Ernst Haeckel introduced a series of drawings that showed a human embryo going through the stages of evolution.

    Well now, isn’t this a nice change of pace from claiming that Darwin’s work was based on Haeckel’s.

    Evolutionists relied heavily on this single work as proof of their theory.

    FACEPALM

    Darwin himself considered this to be one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution at the time.

    I thought we were going to talk facts.

    The problem is that Haeckel faked all his evidence.

    No, he over exaggerated features and misrepresented them. The only people who use the word FAKED are modern Creationists.

    Yet today the drawings that Haeckel made are still in science textbooks as evidence of evolution.

    Yet the documentary “Flock of dodos” could not find a single instance of the drawings in modern textbooks outside of historical reference. what you find today are actual photos of embryos. Creationists apparently think they are just really really really good drawings.

    After 120 years of being proven wrong, you would have to wonder, “Why is this lie still in the books?”

    No what they should be asking is “why are we looking at textbooks from the 19th century?” or “why can’t we read things in context?”

    The answer: It is the only way to scientifically justify an ABORTION!

    Ladies and gentlemen. I give you today’s logical fallacy. I smell fish.

    Staggering Statistics

    Cute heart but we know the timelines for these wars. What are your timelines for your abortion statistics? And 1 billion isn’t 1/6th of the global population and hasn’t been for some time.

    I’ll be waiting for the quote mined responses and assumptions about what my beliefs are towards abortion.

  22. Charles Terry October 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Mr. Wallace,

    I need answers to these questions. No theories please. Theories are not science.

    If we evolved from prehistoric soup. Then evolved into advanced life as we know it today. Why are there full growen trees that pass threw 10 or more layers of sedimant, and each layer represents millions of years. Wouldn’t a tree rot in just a few years? The moon is moving away at about 4 inches per year. So then 4 inches multiplied by 10 billion years would put the moon a lot closer to the earth. I guess that would explain what happened to the long necked dinosaurs. They got mooned!! Every few years they have to add time to the clock. If the earths rotation is slowing down and it is billions of years old how fast was the earth rotating at the begining? The days and nights would be so short you would have to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner at the same time. How come the earth…s core is still hot after billions of years, and why is there still lava around? If it was a big bang like the evolutionist want you to believe, all the galaxies, Moons and planets should be turning the same direction,(Natural Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum) Why arne’t they? Why are there whales passing threw millions of years of sediment without rotting? Why is the Geologic column stacked only in order in the text books?. No where on earth is it stacked like they want you to believe. If evolution is true why is it when you cross a dog and a dog you get a dog? You can cross a big dog and a little dog but you get a dog every time. You can’t cross a dog and a cat. You can’t cross any two unlike type of animals to get another kind of creature. You can cross a dog and a wolf, or a horse and a Zebra, but even a second grader knows they are the same type of animal. If evolution is true why do scientist have to lie to make thier point. Remember Lucy one of our so called ancestors. They found her parcial body and crushed skill one place and her femuers about one mile away, then they gave her human feet and hands even though they never found these parts of her body (Lucy was a Chimpanzee). Then with some imagination and a whole bunch of guess work they made one of our ancesters. How about Nebraska Man, they found ONE TOOTH, Just one tooth!!!!! and made him and his wife, it was a pigs tooth they found by the way. And then there was Piltdown man, he was a complete hoax. They found a monkey skull and a human jaw filed them down to make them fit. (COOL HUH) I want to know how life originated from non living chemicals? I want to know in the begining of evolution how 92 elements came from hydrogen? If life came from non living chemicals why does this one well known law of biogenensis not work for evolutionists?. The law states simply life always comes from life. Organisms reproduce other organisms after their own kind. This law is universal with no known exceptions. I want to know how time, space and matter came from NOTHING (Scientific American May 1994 Page 128) in the big bang? I might have the answer I am looking for (JUST ADD MORE TIME RIGHT), like millions or billions of years, if you add enouph time everything will work out? These people want you to believe your great-great-great grandpa was soup which came from a big bang, where NOTHING exploded into everything!! This is the evolutionist doctrine- religion, because you have to have faith to believe it. There is apsolutely NO evidence to support thier theory. Science is something observed over time, something tested and touched, THEORY IS NOT SCIENCE. These are just a few of the questions I have, and I have a bunch more!!!

  23. Charles Terry October 15, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    Dear Mr. Eric Hovind,

    You and your dad are right on. Please keep the truth going, love you all and the truth shall continue to march on.

  24. Carl M October 16, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    Did Darwin Inadvertently Endorse Murder?

    No

    Charles Darwin is not responsible for the actions of Haeckel.

    Recapitulation is dead.

    What is found in textbooks is embryo homology

    Embryo homology has nothing to do with the issue of abortion.

  25. ant bourdon October 16, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    Alfred,
    Don’t ridicule the subject here. The article is not pushing on the fact that Darwin was wrong by supporting evolution, but the fact that it is wrong to say that humans are just animals so that it is OK to kill our own children.
    If we go farther, we should say that it is OK to kill our neighbour because he is just an animal. His family might try to kill you, but if you are strong enough to resist to them, you can do it. Alfred, this is precisely wrong. Darwin was wrong just because the consequences of his theory don’t make any sense. I’m making a moral statement here (something you can’t believe in because that doesn’t arise by chance), but it is still true and I don’t give this argument for the strong people, but for the weak people. Weak people should be afraid of the time when there will be a majority of Atheists in the world. Without God to give the morality, they will create their own which they will change as they wish. Without real moral authority, ignorant people will kill others without remorse. I’m begging you, stop teaching evolution for the sake of your own children.

  26. Jaap Maat October 16, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    Let’s talk facts. REAL facts. In 1859, Charles Darwin after years of deliberation, discussions with specialists of that time, and trying to find holes in his theory, published On The Origin of Species. It is a very readable book, even now, so I suggest you take a few hours to actually read it. You will see that it is quite different than you portrayed.

    Charles Darwin set up the theory of evolution, and ever since scientists have been testing it and only had to made modifications. For instance he had no idea how the inheritance actually worked. Now we know in detail. So even if Darwin was a murderer, that does not change the facts, Eric. So quit attacking the messenger and show you actually know what you are talking about.

    You claim: “Evolutionists relied heavily on this (Haeckels embryo’s) single work as proof of their theory.”
    Those are your words. What about Darwin’s finches, embryo’s in general, the chapters on breeding, and the eye?

    Haeckel experimented with the theory. Yes he made a mistake by drawing the embryo’s more similar than they actually are. He thought embryos went through every step of the evolution, which turned out to be wrong.
    However, the central point still stands like a Rock of Truth: animals in the same branch of the Tree of Life have very similar bones and organs. The further apart they stand, the more different they are but they share the same basic structure and if you look at genes and development, you clearly see that coming together. So the wing of a bat is not that different from the front leg of a mouse, more different from a horse leg or a whale fin. Yet they are all coming from the same hox gene.

    Then your link to abortion, which is quite weird. You seem to say that one should not accept that everything in biology and related sciences points to evolution, because of the moral consequences. Which is abortion, you say.

    Then you come up with
    “You see, if you take the life of a “fetus” (child) while they are still in developmental stages, then it is not yet a “human,” so therefore cannot be considered “murder”.”
    This is not really related to evolution. Evolution is about speciation. Embryos are about development from egg and sperm to a born baby.

    Actually you seem to be repeating Haeckels mistake! I.e. the idea that an embryo is following the evolution from single celled organisms, through multicellular morula and blastula, to some sort of ‘fish’, tetrapod, and finally human.

    Of course now we know that egg and sperm contain human dna, so it is just growing, developing as a human, first the basic layers, then the basic shape with bobs for legs and a sketch of the head, then bones, viscerals etcetera, and quite late the nervous system.
    Knowing this allows people to form an informed decision on what the consequences are of an abortion. The decision is theirs though, I don’t want to mix science and ethics like you do.

  27. Richard Donaghan October 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    Not to touch on abortion just yet, but I’d like to say that “series of drawings that showed a human embryo going through the stages of evolution” is wrong. A single individual does not undergo the stages of evolution as defined by those who believe in evolution.

    Instead, it is noted that embryos in their early forms superficially resemble embryos of other creatures: It is hard to separate the early-stage blastocysts aesthetically when they are composed of only something like 70 cells arranged in a sphere. This does not mean to say that in the early stages, a human embryo cannot be classified as “human.” as the cells still contain human chromosomes as opposed to those of other animals.

    You are extrapolating this superficial resemblance for the reasoning why people justify abortion: but this is not the case. The reasoning behind abortion is in the definition of where life begins in the embryo: Does a 70 cell arrangement referred to as a blastocyst count as life? If so, is a single sperm and a single egg count as life? If so, is this because the resulting egg has the full set of chromosomes required to support life? By this definition, couldn’t you consider the very sexual relationship as the beginning of life, since a sexual relationship is required to support life?

    Arguing that “abortion is murder” requires a deeper statement than the destruction of human cells. If this and only this is the case, it would follow that destroying cancerous cells would also count as murder. Instead, we need to define the very instant that life begins in the embryonic or fetal development. If you cannot define where this process begins, you cannot define where it ends.

    Seeing as how society already has an operating definition of the beginning of life (occurring at the very instant of birth), we can already define death (the date of the cessation of functioning of brain activity). You are arguing against this definition of life which shows that you have a certain technicality that you feel needs answered. Death is defined basically as the cessation of life: if you throw out the concept that life begins at birth, you need to define another definition for the beginning of life before you can argue that murder exists at all.

  28. Richard Donaghan October 16, 2010 at 5:56 pm #

    I’m with Andrew Ryan: It seems that a lot of creationists state that Haeckel’s drawings were fraudulent, but there are no sources proving conclusively in this regard.

    Haeckel’s drawings aren’t even necessary to prove evolution, and are in fact a complete red herring. Like I have previously stated, the stages of evolution do not occur in individuals. Evolution is comprised of changes across many generations of a society of organisms.

    Haeckel’s drawings instead support the observation that in the early development of embryos, organisms superficially resemble each other. It is impossible to state that a sperm and an egg from any animal does not superficially resemble a sperm and an egg from any other animal. At that stage, there are no obvious differences between species. It is after the embryo starts to develop away from its original blastocyst form that distinguishing characteristics occur that allow a person to discover the difference between species by visual inspection alone.

    This is like saying that men or women as children do not have a strong character at first: It is through learning about the world around them that they develop this character. Can it not be said that the characters of children resemble each other until a little down the road, where distinguishing characteristics develop and can be seen?

  29. ant bourdon October 16, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

    Richard,
    you are mistaking. You should have said: Haeckel’s drawings aren’t even necessary to DIS-prove evolution. It is true that Haeckel wanted to show that embryos in their early stages were similar superficially, but what you forgot to say is that he thought that this could be counted as proof for evolution. Knowing this, it is pretty obvious that he was not working for science, but for his religion since he fabricated the evidence to support his claim. So, he was a deceiver. You say that evolution is a change through many generations of a society of organisms; I’m asking you then: “by which process?” If Dawkins wasn’t able to answer that even if he is a biologist, how are you going to find an answer? I’m asking for real facts, not another dream of yours.

  30. andrew Ryan October 17, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    Charles Terry: ” If evolution is true why is it when you cross a dog and a dog you get a dog? You can cross a big dog and a little dog but you get a dog every time. You can’t cross a dog and a cat.”

    Why would you expect cats and dogs to be able to breed? Evolution predicts no such thing. In fact such a chimera would be a blow to evolution, not a confirmation. As for ‘theories are not science’, sorry but what is your background in science? Have you not heard of Einstein’s theory of relativity?

  31. Carl M October 17, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    @ Charles Terry

    Wow, we have struck a rich vain of Hovindisms here! Maybe its a Poe?

    I need answers to these questions. No theories please. Theories are not science.

    Theories are science. The whole point of science is to construct theories.

    If we evolved from prehistoric soup. Then evolved into advanced life as we know it today. Why are there full growen trees that pass threw 10 or more layers of sedimant, and each layer represents millions of years. Wouldn’t a tree rot in just a few years?

    Trees growing though sediment layers have no relevence to the origins of life.

    Polystrate fossils are a strawman constructed by YEC. A layer does not always mean millions of years. For example, varves are yearly deposits. Or a single layer of sandstone can contain many multi-year deposits. This is how a tree (or its remanents) can pass through multiple “layers”.

    The moon is moving away at about 4 inches per year. So then 4 inches multiplied by 10 billion years would put the moon a lot closer to the earth. I guess that would explain what happened to the long necked dinosaurs. They got mooned!!

    Even using Hovind’s corny jokes.

    The recession of the moon is related to tidal breaking. Even Hovind admits tidal breaking is a process which spans (according to his source: Walt Brown) about 1 billion years. The problem with predicting tidal breaking is that the Earth’s surface is not a constant varible, with changing continents and ocean behaviours. In short, billions of years of tidal breaking is not a problem for a 4.5 billion year old Earth (not 10 billion years!)

    Every few years they have to add time to the clock. If the earths rotation is slowing down and it is billions of years old how fast was the earth rotating at the begining? The days and nights would be so short you would have to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner at the same time.

    This is my favorite YEC argument because it is spectacularly wrong. Atomic leap seconds are added because of the accumulation of error between official time and real world time. There has been no significant slowing of the Earth in recorded time.

    The real rate at which the Earth slows (not the misunderstanding of atomic leap seconds) is not a problem for a 4.5 billion year Earth.

    How come the earth’s core is still hot after billions of years, and why is there still lava around?

    The Earth core (there is a lot of debate on this) is warmed by atomic decay and intense pressures. Yes the Earth is cooling. It is loosing about 100 Kelvin per billion years. Not a problem for a 4.5 billion year Earth

    Lava is sourced from subducted continental plates and doesn’t come from the core itself.

    If it was a big bang like the evolutionist want you to believe, all the galaxies, Moons and planets should be turning the same direction,(Natural Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum) Why arne’t they?

    Because the initial premise of the argument is wrong. The inflationary model of the Universe (Big Bang) suggests space-time itself expanded and matter condensed out. Leaving aside the error that Cons. of Ang. Mom. does not say everything must spin the same way, there was no bits of shrapnel to “spin” in the first place.

    In short: the argument is based upon false ideas and bad application of basic scientific concepts.

    Why are there whales passing threw millions of years of sediment without rotting?

    There isn’t any whales passing through “millions of years of sediment. There was a fossilized whale in sediment that had been tilted towards the vertical.

    Why is the Geologic column stacked only in order in the text books?. No where on earth is it stacked like they want you to believe.

    There are a few places where all time periods are identified. But you won’t find complete columns in most places because most areas experience both deposition and erosion over time. Take a look outside at the geology which is forming right before your eyes.

    The geologic column (apart from those areas mentioned above) is constructed by cross-referencing multiple sites.

    If evolution is true why is it when you cross a dog and a dog you get a dog? You can cross a big dog and a little dog but you get a dog every time. You can’t cross a dog and a cat. You can’t cross any two unlike type of animals to get another kind of creature. You can cross a dog and a wolf, or a horse and a Zebra, but even a second grader knows they are the same type of animal.

    And everything you have suggested is exactly what Evolution Theory predicts. None of your crazy alternatives are claimed by Evolution Theory.

    If evolution is true why do scientist have to lie to make thier point.

    Science community isn’t lying to anybody. Who told you all those wrong things above? It wasn’t anyone from the science side of this debate.

    Remember Lucy one of our so called ancestors. They found her parcial body and crushed skill one place and her femuers about one mile away, then they gave her human feet and hands even though they never found these parts of her body (Lucy was a Chimpanzee).

    The “mile away” claim originates from a creationist who misunderstood the origins of a knee from a another creature. National Geographic in their Lucy special used a femur from a different specimen of Australopithicus to illustrate what a complete skeleton would look like.

    One museum put human like feet on their display (probably not the best decision). That is not a position held by the anthropology community.

    Lucy is definitely not a chimpanzee. She is a member of a unique species identified by multiple specimens.

    How about Nebraska Man, they found ONE TOOTH, Just one tooth!!!!! and made him and his wife, it was a pigs tooth they found by the way.

    The tabloid press did all of the “creating”. The discoverer thought he had found a human tooth. It was the same discover who disproved it.

    And then there was Piltdown man, he was a complete hoax. They found a monkey skull and a human jaw filed them down to make them fit.

    Yep. 100% hoax. Fake. But not done by any scientist. Disproved by ………. scientists.

    I want to know how life originated from non living chemicals?

    We would all love to know that one. Some interesting ideas but still a frontier of science.

    BTW there is no such thing as “non-living chemicals” because there is no such thing as “living chemicals”

    I want to know in the begining of evolution how 92 elements came from hydrogen?

    Formation of elements has nothing to do with Evolution Theory. That is a Hovindism. Anyhow, elements come from hydgrogen via nucleosynthesis. All elements are just different numbers of neutrons and protons. Start with a basic element – a bit of nuclear physics – and you get another element made from the same neutrons and protons.

    If life came from non living chemicals why does this one well known law of biogenensis not work for evolutionists?. [….]

    Because nobody is claiming complex replicating systems (life) poofed into existance.

    I want to know how time, space and matter came from NOTHING (Scientific American May 1994 Page 128) in the big bang?

    The question of existance of anything without space-time as we know it is not possible to answer which leaves the default position of “nothing”. It is not that anybody is claiming there was absolute nothing from a science perspective but a “nothing” from a layman’s perspective. Take an object, remove its dimensions and what is left? Nothing. But all that has changed is the removal of space-time (dimensions).

  32. Jaap Maat October 17, 2010 at 4:16 am #

    In response to David Crea:
    “There is an overabundant amount of evidence that proves the birth, life, ministry, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. ”
    This evidence all has the same problem, it’s hear-say, and we have conflicting hear-say stories, and when you look at them from the outside it’s impossible to tell who is telling the truth.

    From hear-say we know that people are prone to mistakes, deliberately as well as by accident.

    “There were dozens of fullfilled prophecies,”
    This is not the first time a Christian tells me about predictions, and I’ve looked into the ones they recommended. and unfortunately (as in: I was raised as a Christian and would like the positive side of the narration to be true) the predictions are not convincing when looked at closely. Example: the virgin story seems to be based on a mistranslation of a word meaning ‘young girl’, and on closer scrutiny that story is not even meant to be a prediction. Other predictions could well be postdictions to favour one side of the Judean.

    “tens of thousands of eye witnesses”
    If I asked you to name them, how many could you come up with? Maybe two. But I digress.

    “You choose Darwin, I choose Jesus Christ.”
    That’s a false dichotomy.
    Darwin was just a person. With all his imperfections. It’s the observations that count to people who accept that evolution is the inevitable explanation of life and all the traces it left.
    If you wish to discredit the person Darwin, you are still left with the facts.

    “That’s what free will is all about. We both live with our choices and their respective consequences.”
    Examining Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Acts 13, Romans 8, Romans 9, 2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians and Revelations, you would have to accept that God’s plan overrides your free will. Take a quick peek: Romans 8:28-30.

  33. Jaap Maat October 17, 2010 at 3:32 am #

    In response to Charles Terry: let me start with your second last line:

    “THEORY IS NOT SCIENCE. ”

    Please be informed that a scientific theory is something of a different degree than the vernacular ‘hey I’ve got this idea!’ theory. In science a theory is an explanation for a phenomena which incorporates all known tested facts. It is better than any separate fact, observation, hypothesis because it is on top of all of them. It is still open for debate, as everything in science always is, but you have to come up with something mighty impressing because the theory of evolution is not just backed up by the fossils, but also by DNA, and I don’t mean just the existence but many little change that have been document between species, to follow the evolutionary development of
    the energy metabolism, immune system, growth organising genes, antlers, skulls, and the unfortunate co-development of diseases.

    “Science is something observed over time, something tested and touched,”
    Yep and in physics you try to do everything with experiments though even in physics there are theoretical bits, take for example star development, we’ve never seen the complete lifecycle of a star, yet we combine what we see and can deduce it. Or what a black hole is, you cannot directly observe the object visually, yet you can know a lot by theory and indirect observations.
    When you walk in a forest and see oaks of different sizes, you can also assume safely that you see a growing order.
    Evolution is backed by a heap of independent evidence. Did you know they get the same tree of life (branching of species) by looking at various factors? That’s saying something!

    “Why are there whales passing threw millions of years of sediment without rotting?”
    Nonsense. Please read an explanation about fossiles. A great affordable book that looks good on your coffee table is
    Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters.
    It’s not taking sides so a safe read.

    “Why is the Geologic column stacked only in order in the text books?. No where on earth is it stacked like they want you to believe.”
    Nonsense. Find yourself a geology 101.

    “If evolution is true why is it when you cross a dog and a dog you get a dog?”
    Timescale. Speciation takes time.

    “I want to know how time, space and matter came from NOTHING [..] in the big bang?”
    Uhm, are we still talking evolution? No. The Big Bang itself is something that you can deduce when you look at how the universe looks now, and theoretically turn the clock back.
    What came before that is as of yet impossible to say. You say ‘nothing’, others say ‘a singularity’, or ‘a foam of time ans space’.

    Anyway do not apply your everyday physics to the start of the universe.

    “If it was a big bang like the evolutionist want you to believe, all the galaxies, Moons and planets should be turning the same direction,(Natural Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum)”
    I’m sorry, did you happen to watch that Kent Hovind video? With the playground carousel? That contains a number of errors, you might want to ask your science/physics teacher to go into it. The short of it: the angular momentum goes mainly for single objects. And when you fall of the carousel, you will NOT keep turning, you will go in a straight line and just may happen to revolve in a random direction. Be scientific, put your friend on a carousel and drop off objects and observe their directions.
    After the big bang there first where only hydrogen gases. Only after, indeed, a darn long time stars came, each with their own rotation, not as a direct result of the big bang.
    So planets rotate totally independent of the big bang. And actually, coming up with this argument shows that you are in need of independent factual information. Something went wrong.

  34. Joe Shlabotnik October 17, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    “Did Darwin Inadvertently Endorse Murder?”

    No, he did good science.

    Do you blame Alfred Nobel for everyone that got blown up with dynamite?
    Of course not. Don’t be silly.

  35. Jennifer Preston October 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    @Charles Terry

    “If it was a big bang like the evolutionist want you to believe, all the galaxies, Moons and planets should be turning the same direction,(Natural Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum) Why arne’t they?”

    The Big Bang Theory does not say that there was a big bang. It was an expansion of space-time. Secondly, it says nothing about a tiny little dot swirling faster and faster. We call the point at which space-time started to expand a singularity because our mathematics breaks down at it. That’s all we know about it so far. Just because we don’t know something or haven’t found anything, yet, doesn’t mean we never will. BBT also does not say that the planets and galaxies came out of big bang fully formed which is what must happen for Hovinds argument of Angular Momentum to have any standing. Also Kent Hovinds Conservation of Angular Momentum is so wrong it’s insulting to Physicists. The planets and stars and galaxies did not come out of the singularity fully formed, and nowhere in the BBT does it say that. They formed after the expansion of space-time. Therefore the direction in which the planets/galaxies/moons are spinning is completely irrelevant when trying to disprove the BBT. Now back to what the conservation of angular momentum actually says.

    1. The vector product of the position vector (from a reference point) and the linear momentum of a particle.
    2. The vector sum of the angular momentums of each infinitesimal component particle of an extended body.

    In physics, the angular momentum of a particle about an origin is a vector quantity equal to the mass of the particle multiplied by the cross product of the position vector of the particle with its velocity vector. The angular momentum of a system of particles is the sum of that of the particles within it.

    (mechanics) The principle that, when a physical system is subject only to internal forces that bodies in the system exert on each other, the total angular momentum of the system remains constant, provided that both spin and orbital angular momentum are taken into account.
    (The above descriptions are from googling “Conservation of Angular Momentum Definition”)

    Basically, what this says is that the number of objects spinning one way on their axis should be equal to the number of objects spinning the other way, in a closed system. (i.e. You could have -, +, +, -, +, -, -, +, but there are still 4 minus signs and 4 plus signs). The other thing is, in Hovinds description, when the kid hits the tree, he would impart the force onto the tree so the tree would start spinning too.

    And still on this site they seem to want to avoid talking about the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva which recreates the conditions that were present less than a billion-th of a second after the big bang.

  36. Julie Collins October 17, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Duane,

    “prove…prove…prove” and you cannot do your own research…why? are you just that lazy or are you afraid of what you are going to find?

    haeckle was charged with fraud, this has been proven, it is also known that haeckle botched the drawings, if you see them side by side with a photograph. now this is 100% scientifically proven, even Eugenie Scott admits that the drawings were botched.

    now if you evolutionist are done arguing about a well known fact of science trying your hardest to say it is wrong, than please go research some REAL science. because you make the other evolutionist look bad. because it is the same as denying the holocaust…

  37. Joe Shlabotnik October 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    What is further absurd about invoking Haekel’s drawings is that Haeckel’s work is not one of the pillars upon which evolution is built, and biologists have been saying so for at least 85 years (and more like over a century). Thou doth beat a dead horse.

  38. Alfred Russell Wallace October 17, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    >>>There is an overabundant amount of evidence that proves the birth

    [no evidence]

    , life
    [no evidence],

    ministry
    [?],

    miracles
    [????, you are not supposed to have proof of miracles, THAT IS WHAT A MIRACLE IS!]

    , crucifixion
    [NO evidence],

    resurrection
    [a 2,000 year old second hand witness report of two illiterate women, verified by NO ONE]

    and deity of Jesus Christ
    [?]

    There were dozens of fullfilled prophecies[?], tens of thousands of eye witnesses
    [AHEM, there were NO eyewitnesses, the bible was written around 40 years after the death of the supposed Jesus]

    and they even wrote a book about Him so you could learn what He wants for and from all of us.

    You choose Darwin, I choose [the easter bunny]. That’s what free will is all about. We both live with our choices and their respective consequences [yep.].
    [Santa] bless.
    David

  39. David McCrea October 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    Mock away, Alfred.

    Mock away.

  40. David McCrea October 18, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Jay L,

    You did advocate against the Hovinds and Christianity, including using the phrase “damaging to our society.”

    I don’t begrudge you your positions on religious issues, but as least be willing to man up to what you posted.

  41. David McCrea October 18, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    Jennifer wrote:

    “And still on this site they seem to want to avoid talking about the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva which recreates the conditions that were present less than a billion-th of a second after the big bang.”

    Ma’am, without being obtuse in any fashion, did the Large Hadron Collider create itself from nothing, or was there some intelligence behind its creation?

    Just asking.

  42. Duane October 19, 2010 at 12:17 am #

    @Julie Collins October 17th at 1:55 pm

    “Duane,

    “prove, prove, prove” and you cannot do your own research, why? are you just that lazy or are you afraid of what you are going to find?

    haeckle was charged with fraud, this has been proven, it is also known that haeckle botched the drawings, if you see them side by side with a photograph. now this is 100% scientifically proven, even Eugenie Scott admits that the drawings were botched.

    now if you evolutionist are done arguing about a well known fact of science trying your hardest to say it is wrong, than please go research some REAL science. because you make the other evolutionist look bad. because it is the same as denying the holocaust”

    I did do the research, that’s why I asked Eric to prove what he said. I know it’s not there. This is just a canard repeated ad nauseum by Creationists when they run out of things to say. No modern textbook uses those pictures, or if they do, they are presented critically or historically. His botched drawings were the first versions, anyway. He corrected them the next version. And he was never convicted of scientific fraud. There is no such thing as being convicted of scientific fraud by a university. It’s not a crime.

    One thing that is not understood is that even if there was an occasional fraud, that does not invalidate the entire science. If that’s all it took, then we would could get rid of religion. Flipping channels the other day, I saw Peter Popoff is still on TV shilling some nonsensical “miracle spring water”. He was exposed on national TV in the 80s as a fraud. All faith healers are frauds, but he is especially odious. Not to mention Swaggert, who is also still on TV, Jim Bakker, the Catholic priest molesters, and countless others. There’s a great documentary called Marjoe that explains from a former evangelist how evangelists defraud their flocks. Sure, there are sincere preachers out there, but there’s plenty of fraud, too. What is especially galling is that they take advantage of the segment of society that can least afford it. Anyone with a $2 prayer book and the gift of gab can make a good living defrauding people. Does this invalidate Christianity?

  43. andrew Ryan October 19, 2010 at 5:02 am #

    “In 1859, Charles Darwin claimed that if his evolution theory were true, there would be lots of evidence. A decade after his bold statement in writing, no evidence had been found.”

    This is an odd claim to make. Darwin’s theory was based on the evidence that already existed. That evidence was then set out in his book. Has anyone posting here actually READ the book?

    That aside, you could perhaps try to claim that 10 years later no ADDITIONAL evidence had been found, but even that would be false.

    And as everyone else has pointed out, Haekel’s drawings were never ‘evidence for evolution’ in the first place, so I’m baffled by what the veracity or otherwise of the drawings has to do with evolution.

  44. Jeff Brace October 19, 2010 at 7:21 am #

    @Joe That is not the case. Haekel’s drawings were in my school books as well as my childrens school books. I bet you will still find them there today if you look close enough.

    @ Alfred You are so misinformed. But judging from your knowledge of evolution it’s no wonder you can’t decipher christianity. If you put half the energy you expend here into really understanding creation you would be well ahead of things.

  45. Jay Liemowitz October 19, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    David McCrea said “You did advocate against the Hovinds and Christianity, including using the phrase “damaging to our society.””

    I did advocate against the Hovind’s methods and teachings, yes. But that is not the whole of Christianity.

    Jay

  46. Richard Donaghan October 19, 2010 at 7:27 am #

    Ant bourdon:

    Haeckel is a complete red herring. It’s one guy who attempted to prove evolutionary recapitulation, which nobody believes in. I’d have to say that photographs point to the fact that he seriously fudged his drawings on mid-stage embryos. Note that Darwin published his major foundations of evolution (“On the Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man”) BEFORE [BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE] Haeckel’s drawings. Therefore the fundament of evolution is in no way based on Haeckel’s drawings, and it is impossible for Darwin to have drawn upon Haeckel’s ideas while composing his works.

    Note that his “first stage embryos” are actually in the middle of the development process. The blastocysts to which I referred are near the very beginning, and are composed of just a hollow sphere of a small number of cells. Each blastocyst is aesthetically indistinguishable from any other species, because each one has no different traits then the DNA inside the cells.

    Darwin went very deep into the process through which evolution occurs. It is very similar to how MRSA is now developing. There are bacteria which can be killed by antibacterial soap. Every now and then, one of the bacteria’s DNA mutates and renders it insusceptible to antibacterial soap. This bacteria prospers because it cannot be killed, resulting in highly resistant strains of bacterial such as Methicillin Resistant Streptococcus Aureus.

    This is similar to the theory of evolution because in biology, small genetic mutations are a fact of life. Occasionally, one of these mutations actually manifests itself in a physical characteristic which works for the better of the species, allowing that member of the species to better propagate and be more likely to have children.

    Bourdon, please actually have a working knowledge of what the theory of evolution is before you blindly dispute it.

  47. Richard Donaghan October 19, 2010 at 8:36 am #

    Note that I am not afraid to call it the “theory of evolution.” Just because something is a working theory doesn’t mean that things cannot be built off of it.

    Just as it is impossible to use logic to support your theory in the existence of God, at this point in time it is impossible given modern methodology to solidly prove evolution. This is not to say that there are sheerly massive amounts of evidence pointing to it, as well as a general consensus within the scientific community.

    The way science works is that we harbor evidence to support a theoretical hypothesis, and eventually we reach a point of irrefutable proof. We of course cannot use mathematical proofs to explain evolution, so the term “irrefutable proof” is hard to come by in biology. After all, how can you prove genetic drift in a population without tracking each one over millions of years?

    Instead, what we can do is see that evolution is NOW happening in small examples around us (see my MRSA example) as well as dig up fossilized connections between the tree of life and extrapolate that evolution was used to bring us into existence.

    The alternative to evolution (there is no false dichotomy here) is intelligent design. Now where is the incontrovertible proof of God’s existence? Where are the true facts?

    Can you explain to me how you can prove Creationism beyond a shadow of a doubt? After all, your argument saying that evolution is bad because it can not be rigorously proven using our current methods suggests you can do so with Creationism. I’m interested in hearing this.

  48. Stephen Holshouser October 19, 2010 at 9:04 am #

    Alfred Russell Wallace (If that is your real name),

    God’s proof to YOU that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead was that the disciples, who had just forsaken Him for fear of their lives a few days before He rose, gave their lives after personally, physically meeting with the resurrected Son of God. It is sealed by their blood and testimony.

    Would anyone you know be tortured and/or die for something they knew to be a lie? Of course not.

    Then, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize that if He is truly resurrected as they died proclaiming, then He is God, then He was crucified, then He did have a ministry, then He did have a life, etc.

    If you don’t accept Christian testimony, there is a world of contemporary, secular writing about the life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

  49. Corey October 19, 2010 at 11:43 am #

    Did Moses Inadvertently Endorse Murder?
    Numbers 31:
    15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

    16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

    17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

    18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

  50. Stephen Holshouser October 19, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    Jay L.,

    “We can discuss solutions to the problems you expressed Steven, and perhaps Jesus is the answer, as you suggest.”

    Not just “perhaps”… He is the answer for sure. He is altogether good and lovely. How peaceful would the world be if we all actually practiced what He preached and lived? No more abortion, murder, hatred, sexual perversion, greed, prejudice, etc. However, salvation in the eternal sense does not come by us being good people… it comes through the Person and finished work of the Lord Jesus, Himself. We rest in what He has accomplished on our behalf.

    This is what sets true Christianity apart from everything else… we worship, serve, and love God for what HE has already done for us, not because if we do or don’t do X, Y, or Z He will cast us into hell. We are all already condemned by our own actions… but Jesus stepped out of heaven to rescue those who could not rescue themselves… He has never saved anyone that was worthy of it… only helpless, hopeless, undeserving people like myself.