End of Year

Evolutionists say, “No Fair”

Scientific Critique Not Fair

The House of Representatives in the state of Tennessee has voted 70 to 23 for a bill that would allow students the freedom to scientifically critique modern scientifically held theories. Quoting from the Channel 9 website article, “Scientists opposing the proposal are concerned it will unfairly target evolution…” Now the bill must be passed by the Senate Education Committee before it goes any further. I have two thoughts on the subject.

Evolution Can’t Withstand a Challenge

  1. Can evolution not handle the fight, fair or unfair?  Evolutionary scientists keep telling the masses that there is lots of evidence for evolution, but yet they don’t think it would be fair for students to give it a scientific critique!  Something smells fishy here. Sounds to me like they enjoy the upper hand of indoctrination and would be delivered a blow if students actually got an education.
  2. Students already have the right to critique the theory! Come on students,: You should know that you are the one with the power in the classroom. Teachers may not be allowed to discuss some things, but as soon as a student brings it up, the debate is on! Now you have opened Pandora’s box and allowed teachers to share their opinions, even if they do not agree with the curriculum.  I have met many Christian science teachers that can’t wait for students to bring up the subject and question evolution so that they can share what they believe and the science that backs it up.

So students, you have the right to question that stupid theory and you should.  Don’t settle for indoctrination, get an education, and that means asking questions. Don’t be afraid to do it!

Recommended Reading

,

Leave130 Responses to testEvolutionists say, “No Fair”

  1. Jeff Brace April 25, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    @ John
    Quote: “The point that Dawkins was making wasthat it doesn’t matter whether or not life one Earth came from somewhere else in the universe it is still necessary for life to have started somewhere and that the principles involved in the theory of evolution still pertain.”

    Actually, the point is that Dawkins does not understand where and how life began. It certainly does matter in this case as Dawkins readily ssays there is no god and this is his reason why. He can’t accept that there might be a creator and in doing so will go to any length to prove that position wrong.
    Tha fact that evolutionists tried to explain his statement as a misrepresentation of his true thoughts is plenty of evidence in my book that he really has no proof of evolution in the first place.
    Now, you said Dawkins did not make that statement. Who fibbed?

  2. Stephen Holshouser April 25, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    Jennifer wrote;
    “Okay, since populations evolve, a population of chimps would’ve changed slowly over time (sorry I couldn’t resist). At one point you have a population that is almost human, then one of that population gives birth to a baby that has a genetic mutation that is advantageous, maybe, no hair, so when it was hot, instead of dying of heat wave, it would’ve lived and passed on its genes. Go down a couple more generations and you maybe have a male and a female cousin that were both human. These are who I believe are Adam and Eve. The question boils down to, at what generation do you start classifying apes as humans? What did the offspring of these first 2 humans marry? Um, well who did Adam and Eve’s children marry? Their sin probably would’ve been the same. They knew they shouldn’t eat from a particular tree, then saw a lizard eating from it, ate from the tree and you know, the rest is in the Bible. That enough humour for you?”

    So you believe that just 6000 years ago men were non-human, ape-like creatures? That is specifically when the Bible says Adam and Eve lived. Look at the detailed genealogies. In your scenario, why was it wrong for them to eat of that tree and what NEW consequences were placed on them for doing so? May I point out that all your answers are coming directly from your imagination and you have no evidence for any of it.

  3. Danny April 25, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    Jan BuntenApril 23rd at 1:45 pm
    Oh and something else. I’ve seen some of you use the words ‘lies’ and ‘deceit’ when referring to scientists who teach evolution. Do you really believe that a bunch of (usually egotistical) scientists could organize their efforts enough to pull off a major conspiracy? What purpose would that serve?
    Jan
    My thoughts on this comment are:
    All through time, we have seen corruption in society whether leaders such as presidents or rulers or kings, queens, dukes, bishops, from the poor to the rich, whatever else; we have seen corruption take place in a society. Evolutionists could easily have an agenda.
    If you have read even a few of the posts here, you have read plenty of evolutionists and ex-evolutionists who have admitted that there is no proof for evolution as taught in our public schools from horse evolution, monkey to man, the peppered moths glued to trees, Haeckel’s embryos, etc. There are way too many lies and deceit to talk about in just one post. I noticed in this blog that Stephen brought up a post made by John in another blog. It said,
    “John Bebbington, previously in the “Dinosaurs extinct?” topic you wrote;
    “It is postulated by some that time ceases at the centre of black holes which then create new universes. I don’t know that they do and you don’t know that they don’t. But if they do then time restarts from t=0 and no agency, other than physics, has caused the new universe. It just is.”
    Here John was giving us his views on what might have happened in the black holes, he DOESN’T KNOW if they do exist and we DON’T KNOW if they don’t exist. I think that is another incredible argument for evolution. Evolutionists don’t know BUT they DO KNOW that God didn’t do it SO that is another point for evolution??? That is not science, that is a fairy tale. God’s word gives us ways to define different things around us such as corrupt, evil, wrong, good, bad and ugly. Without an absolute then everything is relative, no real right or wrong, only what we think is right or wrong should matter. WAIT, I mean only what the governments decide is right or wrong should matter? Right or wrong? Well, it really does not matter if you are an evolutionist. Because it might be right to one evolutionist and wrong to another since truth and falsehood are relative, no absolutes, no foundation but if there is, where did it come from and what is it?
    There have been conspiracies all through time, from the garden of eden till now. The “scientists” have been blinded by Satan, the world lies in darkness as a whole. Whether you go with the darkness illustration or not, I am sure that you cannot MISS that something is terribly wrong with mankind. If you don’t want to blame sin within man then you can blame the school systems, the governments, just society as a whole. But even if you did that, we are back to where we started, what makes something wrong, evil? Who decides?
    You also asked could those scientists organize their efforts enough to pull off a major conspiracy? NO, but a mastermind working behind the scenes could and is doing it. Satan is the master deceiver. How do we define right and wrong without God? How could there be right or wrong without God? Can our beginning starting in a warm pond by accident have anything to do with right or wrong? There are way too many impossibilities without God in the scenario. If no God and right and wrong is to do with the genes or whatever else we can come up with then how can we really say that the genes or whatever on the wrong side is right and the genes on the right side is wrong? Without an absolute God, we can’t. I am not talking about the left handed and right handed amino acids where they showed that Miller’s experiment really only helped to verify that life cannot be created by mankind in a test tube. They can only be left handed and Miller’s experiment produced both which never will produce life by what scientists say. I am getting off the subject, enough for now.

    Ekkman

  4. Danny April 25, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    Geno CastagnoliApril 25th at 11:33 am
    Geno wrote:
    “This was clearly demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board”
    Mark James answered:
    There is a danger in using court cases to support your beliefs. At some stage the court will make a decision that you don’t agree with.
    ######
    Geno adds:
    I don’t know if I pointed this out before, but the textbook in question at Kitzmiller was clearly shown to have been “converted” from a creationist work to an ID work by simply changing the term “creator” to “designer” and “creationism” to “design.”
    Then there was the fact that a couple of the (creationist) school board members claimed not to know where the money to buy the books came from. until their cancelled checks were produced in court.
    Finally, I suggest you look up the “Wedge Document.”
    “ID” is still nothing more than “creationism in a lab coat.” The more accurate and true meaning of “ID” isn’t “Intelligent Design,” it’s “Intellectual Deception.”
    @Geno,
    I was reading your argument to Mark. I hope you don’t think I am be nosey.
    Let me see if I am following your argument above based on what you said, “Are you implying that an “UNintelligent something” even though it was really “nothing” created everything. OR if there was something, we need to know where that something came from You say for ID’ers to say an intelligence created everything is too religious for you, it makes you think of creation. BUT to BELIEVE that everything came into being with NO intelligence behind is intelligent.??? Am I following your argument so far? So if “ID” is “creationism in a lab coat” then evolution would be “nothing” in a lab coat. Correct? In closing, evolution would be “non intellectual deception” based on my understanding of your belief system. I am really dealing with what is known as macro evolution. It is fairy tales in a lab coat, an Alice in Wonderful truth.

    Danny Bunn

  5. Danny April 25, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    Geno,
    I have no idea where you are coming from in the post to me above. I don’t want to cut and past it, it is too long. But the quotes that I read in your post is when I am talking to Corey NOT you. The only time that I wrote to you or in regards to you is when I answered John Bebbington about the condemning illustration, Can you show me where I wrote the above to you and NOT Corey?

    Danny

  6. Duane April 25, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    Mark James April 22nd at 10:45 pm

    Sorry to do this again but I’ve just come back in and noticed a couple of replies to a post I made a week or so ago.

    Hi Duane,

    I wrote: “It astounds me that you make such sweeping and certain statements calling into question the character of people you’ve never met, concerning events that you could not possibly have witnessed.”

    You replied: “I don’t have to call into question their character.”

    And yet you do! Your exact words were “events they didn’t understand or completely made up, rough translation they lied. When does calling someone a liar not constitute a questioning of their character?

    You then go on to attack the “alleged fulfillment of alleged prophesies by those same anonymous authors.” I don’t have a problem with you not believing in miracles (exercise your fee will any time you like) but I do have a problem with you accusing people of deception when your only evidence is your unbelief.

    I don’t know you, but if you were to tell me you met comedian Steve Martin in the mall over the weekend I have no reasonable expectation for you to lie, so I might take you at your word. If you told me Steve Martin appeared riding a flying pig on a shaft of light and psychically spoke to you at your church over the weekend about how he is the reincarnation of Jesus and has the ultimate truth and it is your job now to proclaim this to the world, I would call you a liar or I would tell you to see a doctor about your psychotic episode. That is the nature of reality. You don’t get to posit some weird fantasy and claim there is the same chance it could happen as a mundane event. We do not know who wrote the Bible. The gospels were not assigned authors until sometime in the second century and there is evidence of many alterations throughout the centuries to agree with newer dogmas. Only seven of the thirteen Pauline epistles are presumed to have even been written by him. The gospels were written later to convince followers rather than to be biographies. Until it can be shown that miracles are likely, we can only assume deception or error on the part of those reporting them. The Bible does not get a free pass. If it makes extraordinary claims about events defying what we know to be the laws of physics, it has the burden of proving these events likely if not definitely true. Anonymous reports are not adequate. Anything more is special pleading.

  7. David McCrea April 25, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Ms. Preston, you wrote:

    “Andy, Ask to have a look in the vaults at the Natural History Museum in London, they have a wealth of transitional fossils stored there.”

    Who specifically proclaims them to be “transitional” fossils?” My guess is it’s done by scientists who already have a biased world view.

    The truth is no one knows if those so-called transitional fossils transitioned from or into anything. Shared morphological characteristics and/or the level of dirt they are found are meaningless.

    The only way you could claim with any certainty they were transitional in nature is if you had access to numberless linear generations both pre and post transitional, which you clearly do not.

    Maybe they are transitional. But a general qualifier such as “but we’re not sure” would help establish and retain some degree of scientific integrity.

  8. Jack Napper April 25, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    See, you are picturing zoology as the study of the “evolutionary ancestral tree” and how they all descended from a common ancestor because that is what you were bombarded with!

    Yes it’s simply because that’s what I was told. I never bothered to do any research or ask question. Really? Is that the garbage you so eagerly spew? People that don’t believe as you believe as they do simply because it’s what they are told? PROJECT MUCH?

    You missed out on learning about so many amazing creatures and how they live and interact with the other plants and animals around them because they had to preach as much evolution to you as they could they wasted your time and you drank it like water.

    See the reply above

    Thank you for continuing to prove my point about you not even being able to imagine science without the evolutionary theory.

    I did no such thing. You simply don’t like that people are ignoring your “equal time” nonsense based simply on the fact that you offer nothing to support it Rather than fallacious nonsense and bold faced assertions. I patiently await you canned response to this one.

    agree that your analogy is really simple, it just doesn’t relate to the situation at all. The foundation is part of the actual house that you need, can see, can reproduce, and use every day. You would like to tell people that the materials for the house arose by natural processes over millions of years. And I would say, “Leave your religion at home.

    Really??? Apparently you have difficulties in grasping the concept of an analogy and then run off with more fallacious garbage. Nice to see it wasn’t an airplane in a junk yard this time.

    I just want to build the house. The rest of your arguments continued to compare apples to oranges and assert, as I thought you would, that the evolutionary theory is fundamental to the sciences. Can you not see that you have been programmed to fit the evolutionary religion into the sciences?

    So hire some kids off the street to do it for you. You apparently don’t think they should learn about various techniques and that they should just run out and start building. Learn as they go I guess huh?

    Well, maybe not at first but if you listen and believe you would worship the living God.

    So I have to believe it’s true before I can believe it’s true?

    Besides, it would give you something to do instead of looking at filth on your computer and watching TV.

    What baseless assertion and assumptions you gladly spew forth. How Christian of you. It amazes me how so many of you cry foul that someone is “being mean to you”. Heck, you even create numerous blog entries every so often whining about it. And you wonder why people call you a hypocrite.

    Do you go or not?

    Used to for years. Why don’t I go anymore? For the same reason I don’t go to a mosque, a synagogue or church of Scientology. I ask for evidence and all I get are fallacies.

  9. Tyler Bridges April 25, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    Wow. Lots of laughs! You all crack me up. Especially CSE, thanks for the smiley faces. Someone at the beginning said they wanted to challenge Eric Hovind to a written debate (not sure who, don’t care), do us all a favor and have a debate with him face-to-face. Written? C’mon, get real. The guy is busy running a full-time ministry. Last I checked, and it’s been a while so I may be wrong, CSE has had a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give them actual evidence of evolution. Why don’t one of you stand up and do it? The alternative is to continue sneaking around the creation web site and complaining on their blogs about how they’ve got it all wrong. While you’re doing that, Eric Hovind and his team are out taking action everyday to further their cause. One of you is making an impact. It’s not Mr Written debate. Cowards. And you can haze me all you want, I’ll never look at this again anyway. Nor do I care.

    Thanks Eric and CSE for all that you do! Keep up the good work! Thanks for inspiring others to go out and do more!

  10. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 1:29 am #

    Stephen wrote:

    Can you not see that you have been programmed to fit the evolutionary religion into the sciences?

    As a child I was programmed to believe in creationism. It was my own questioning of its glaring inherent illogicalities which led me to abandon my childish understanding.

    Besides, it would give you something to do instead of looking at filth on your computer and watching TV.

    Has anybody ever complimented you on your engaging charm, Stephen? No, I thought not.

    Perhaps you would let us have the URLs of your top three sites which you would recommend we don’t visit.

  11. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 5:55 am #

    Corne wrote:

    Hi John B,
    My name is Corne. I did ask CSE to change my name but did not happen yet? Please do – if you guys read this…..
    Anyway back to my question:
    Please explain Who or What in your case holds the balance between male and female populations?
    World population: ¨Total: 6,829,360,438 ¨Male: 3,442,850,573 ¨Female: 3,386,509,865

    Hi Corne,

    Welcome to the bear pit.

    When thinking about these problems I sometimes like to imagine the absurd case. This is a good example.

    Generally speaking, there are slightly more males born than females (as shown by your figures) and therefore the male/female ratio tends to stay roughly in balance. But suppose some strange phenomenon occurred which resulted in a world population reduced to 1,000,000 males and only one female of child-bearing age – the absurd case. The men (bar a very few) would necessarily die off without issue quickly reducing the male/female ratio.

    But the one remaining woman would give birth to a number of children, either all girls, all boys or a mix of both.

    If all the babies were girls the male/female ratio would be back to near parity with the remaining men.

    If the babies were a mix of males and females then the male ratio would still be higher but would reduce with the death of the old males.

    However, if all the babies had been boys then the whole population would become extinct because there would be no females left to reproduce. As this hasn’t yet happened to the human race there must be a natural mechanism which tends not to permit a preponderance of one sex to arise. But even if this was not an efficient mechanism the simple one male/one female relationship combined with a slow reproduction cycle would tend to cause an equality of the sex ratio.

  12. Ann Polvelska April 26, 2011 at 6:13 am #

    That news is wonderful! Now students have a chance to ask questions that hopefully lead them to the truth about creation and ultimately – Jesus Christ.

    Praise the Lord!

  13. Geno Castagnoli April 26, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    Danny Bunn wrote (with regard to my comments about ID):
    I was reading your argument to Mark. I hope you don’t think I am be nosey.

    #####
    Geno:
    Not at all. As I said, so far as I know, this is a public forum in which anyone can respond to comments by anyone.

    Danny:
    Let me see if I am following your argument above based on what you said, “Are you implying that an “UNintelligent something” even though it was really “nothing” created everything.
    #####
    Geno:
    Nope. I’m stating as clearly and explicitly as possible the ID movement is a stealth effort to get creation into the public school science curricula. This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs concerning the “Intelligent Designer” (which is IDist code for “God”).

    Danny:
    OR if there was something, we need to know where that something came from
    #####
    Geno:
    Nope. If there was “something,” the “tests” proposed so far by IDists fail to meet the rigor of a properly validated scientific test.

    Danny:
    You say for ID’ers to say an intelligence created everything is too religious for you, it makes you think of creation.
    ####
    Geno:
    No. I’m saying IDists are thinking of creation and God when they talk about a “Designer.” Further, I’m saying ID is a political/social movement, not a valid scientific theory.

    This is based on evidence entered into the record at the Kitzmiller trial in which is was shown the “ID” book was simply a creationist book with the terms about “creation” replaced with terms about “design.” It is based on the leading ID organization’s “Wedge Document.” It is based on the comments of ID proponents (when they are not trying to convince government bodies). It is based on the failure of ID to do exactly what every other scientific idea has had to do…. convince the scientific community FIRST, then gain admission to the classroom. It is based on the fact that we don’t find the IDists in the lab doing research but speaking before legislatures and school boards.

    I’m not sure how much more it would take to convince anyone even attempting to approach the situation with an “unbiased” attitude.

    Danny:
    BUT to BELIEVE that everything came into being with NO intelligence behind is intelligent.??? Am I following your argument so far?
    #####
    Geno:
    Obviously not.

    This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs (which may largely agree with ID) and everything to do with what constitutes valid science (which has a much higher standard of evidence than relgious belief).

    Danny:
    So if “ID” is “creationism in a lab coat” then evolution would be “nothing” in a lab coat. Correct?
    #####
    Geno:
    No. Evolution has passed the scientific tests and has been doing so for over 150 years. Unlike ID, it first gained acceptance from the scientific community (which was dominated by creationists) before entry to public education was attempted.

    Danny:
    In closing, evolution would be “non intellectual deception” based on my understanding of your belief system.
    #####
    Geno:
    This post makes it clear you don’t understand either my belief system or the requirements for valid science.

    Danny:
    I am really dealing with what is known as macro evolution. It is fairy tales in a lab coat, an Alice in Wonderful truth.
    #####
    Geno:
    In science all evolution is “micro.” What creationists call “macro” is an accumulation of “micro” steps. Besides, I don’t reject YEC and a literal Genesis because of evolution at all.

    IMO, physics is much more a problem for YEC than evolution ever was.

  14. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Jeff Brace fibbed:

    Now, you said Dawkins did not make that statement. Who fibbed?

    You did. You don’t seem to be able to help yourself. What you watched was an edited scene of an edited scene. And Dawkins did not walk away as you fibbed.

  15. Geno Castagnoli April 26, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    Danny wrote:
    Can you show me where I wrote the above to you and NOT Corey?

    #####
    Geno answers:
    I’m guessing this is in regard to the 10,000 scientists rejecting “Darwinism” claim. The brief answer is I can’t show where you wrote to me and not Corey. As far as I know, this is a public forum in which anyone can respond to any post. (Except when CSE blocks response… such as those by Kent Hovind.) Therefore, I don’t need to show the comment was addressed to me.

  16. Jennifer Preston April 26, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    Stephen wrote:
    “So you believe that just 6000 years ago men were non-human, ape-like creatures?”
    No, not 6000 years, millions of years.

  17. Geno Castagnoli April 26, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    Tyler Bridges
    Someone at the beginning said they wanted to challenge Eric Hovind to a written debate (not sure who, don’t care), do us all a favor and have a debate with him face-to-face. Written? C’mon, get real. The guy is busy running a full-time ministry.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    That would be me. Scientific debates are conducted in writing. Further, verbal debates are often won by sound-bite rather than substance. In addition, the debate I envision… my reasons for rejecting YEC beliefs …. require a lot of physics and calculations that are not well suited to a timed verbal debate. Finally, a “lack of time” is hardly a reason to avoid the written debate. One of the advantages is one can do research and compose answers whenever a few minutes to do so is available.

    Tyler:
    Last I checked, and it’s been a while so I may be wrong, CSE has had a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give them actual evidence of evolution. Why don’t one of you stand up and do it?
    #####
    Geno:
    The offer is a sham. First, it requires one essentially renounce any belief in God. That alone excludes about 80% of those who accept evolution. It also requires one show a lot of things that are not part of evolution at all.

    Let’s put it this way….. I have a $1,000,000 for anyone who can prove Biblical creation. My terms are based on those in Hovind’s offer. So, I don’t have the money but have an anonymous friend who will provide it if anyone meets the test criteria. All applications will be sent to me and, if I find the claim credible I’ll forward it to judges I refuse to identify. Then if those judges find the “proof” valid, I’ll contact my friend and he’ll pay up.

    Is there anyone dumb enough to take me up on my offer? Why is Hovind’s offer any different?

    Tyler:
    The alternative is to continue sneaking around the creation web site and complaining on their blogs about how they’ve got it all wrong.
    ######
    Geno:
    No sneaking about it. You guys have my real name and I’m right here in the open. Besides, how much fun is a blog where everyone agrees?

    Tyler:
    While you’re doing that, Eric Hovind and his team are out taking action everyday to further their cause.
    #####
    Geno:
    That’s nice. I’m sure they can convince those with a 4th grade understanding of science (which is the level of science CSE claims to aim at).

    Tyler:
    One of you is making an impact. It’s not Mr Written debate. Cowards.
    #####
    Geno:
    You’re entitled to believe what you wish, but I’m right here and the offer to engage Eric or Kent in writing stands. But the discussion will center on physics and the problems that creates for YEC. For some reason, I doubt anyone at CSE is up to the challenge.

    Tyler:
    And you can haze me all you want, I’ll never look at this again anyway. Nor do I care.
    #####
    Geno:
    If you don’t care, why did you post in the first place?

  18. Jeff Brace April 26, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    @John Quote: “You did. You don’t seem to be able to help yourself. What you watched was an edited scene of an edited scene. And Dawkins did not walk away as you fibbed.”

    All you have to do is watch to see that it is unedited. It’s been gone over with a fine tooth comb.

    The exact quote is exactly what he said. Ther eis no denying it. Dawkins believes that the earth could have been seeded by aliens. Why don’t you admit when you are wrong? Makes things go better and gives you more credability.

  19. Chase Braud April 26, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    I began skimming comments at the top, and quickly gave up after a look at just how many comments there were and how long they are! )= Sheesh! Let’s get on a new topic, obviously some people here favor Dawkins while others do not. We ALL get it. Big whoop.

  20. Stephen Holshouser April 26, 2011 at 8:08 pm #

    Jack N,

    “I did no such thing. You simply don’t like that people are ignoring your “equal time” nonsense based simply on the fact that you offer nothing to support it Rather than fallacious nonsense and bold faced assertions. I patiently await you canned response to this one.”

    You mean equal time for creation and evolution? As far as public school goes, teaching neither would be my choice. However, if you teach neither, the students are going to come to special creation as a conclusion on their own you actually need someone helping you to believe in evolution.
    You lost me on some of your other responses. Remember who you’re talking to here;

    “What baseless assertion and assumptions you gladly spew forth. How Christian of you. It amazes me how so many of you cry foul that someone is “being mean to you”. Heck, you even create numerous blog entries every so often whining about it. And you wonder why people call you a hypocrite.”

    What? I don’t remember whining about that. I remember telling you I thought it was funny once that only seemed to encourage you to do it more. However, maybe I was unnecessarily rough there. Please accept my apology. It is not the first time I’ve had to apologize, and probably won’t be the last, knowing me.. I’m working on it though.

    “So I have to believe it’s true before I can believe it’s true?”

    The Bible says that we are saved by grace, though faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8) So, you do have to be given faith from God in order to believe on Christ in a saving way (this is different than believing in creation with a head-knowledge). I know God has chosen to save people thru preaching, so that is what I hope you listen to. (1 Cor 1:21)

  21. Jack Napper April 27, 2011 at 12:17 am #

    CSE has had a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give them actual evidence of evolution. Why don’t one of you stand up and do it?

    Apparently you have never bothered to read why the challenge is complete garbage and nothing more than a publicity stunt. I suggest doing a bit of research next time. I find huge fault with secret judges but mostly with that one must apparent convince Hovind before he will pass it on to them at which point they will pass it back to him for a final decision.

    The alternative is to continue sneaking around the creation web site and complaining on their blogs about how they’ve got it all wrong. While you’re doing that, Eric Hovind and his team are out taking action everyday to further their cause. One of you is making an impact. It’s not Mr Written debate. Cowards. And you can haze me all you want, I’ll never look at this again anyway. Nor do I care.

    FACEPALM

    That news is wonderful! Now students have a chance to ask questions that hopefully lead them to the truth about creation and ultimately Jesus Christ.

    The truth about creationism is very different from what you think.

  22. Jennifer Preston April 27, 2011 at 5:24 am #

    Jack Napper wrote:

    “You are probably talking about guys like Neanderthal, who by the way, was genetically proven to be COMPLETELY HUMAN, not part ape.

    Jennifer-
    Perhaps you should look at sites other than this one and the ICR.

    Others were a mix of a human skull and a orang-utan jaw, seriously, if you have to go that low you know the theory is WRONG.

    Others? What OTHERS? Yes we know about Piltdown Man which failed to fool the larger scientific community but perhaps you’ll tell us about the OTHERS?”

    Um, I didn’t write those, the person that replied to me wrote that. I’m on your side Jack, apart from the fact I believe in the ressurection.

    Danny wrote:
    “Here John was giving us his views on what might have happened in the black holes, he DOESN’T KNOW if they do exist and we DON’T KNOW if they don’t exist.”

    Okay, Black Holes. When we observe the orbits of the inner most 20 stars at the centre of the galaxy, taking into account their mass, we can work out the size and mass of the thing they are orbiting. It turns out they are orbiting something that is very small with a massive mass. If that is not a black hole, then what is it? But a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and every other galaxy would explain a lot more than just the orbits of the inner most stars, which we can’t even see in other galaxies. A black hole at the centre of every galaxy can account for their structure, the spiral arms, and a lot of what goes on in a galactic centre.

  23. Peter Bilmer April 27, 2011 at 5:07 am #

    “As a child I was programmed to believe in creationism. It was my own questioning of its glaring inherent illogicalities which led me to abandon my childish understanding.”

    That’s highly unlikely but interesting non the less.
    Evolution is the only accepted theory of origins which is taught in all schools and media.

    There is many material for research which helps maturing the maybe once “childish” understanding of Creation in all its facets and fields.
    Not few people testify that their worldview shift from evolution to creation shifted their understanding of nature, their religious experience and their reasoning.