Fairytale Land and Theorytale Land | Creation Today

Our Websites

Fairytale Land and Theorytale Land

Dora The Explorer

My son was watching Dora the explorer this morning and they went to fairytale land. The magic words you had to say to get there were “once upon a time.”  Once inside fairytale land, just about anything can happen. Poor Boots ate the banana from the Wicked Witch and fell fast asleep. The only way to wake up sleeping Boots was to have a princess give him a hug.

Fairytale Land and Theorytale Land

As I listened to this while drinking my coffee, I couldn’t help but see the parallels between the Dora story of fairytale land and the evolution story of Theorytale land. How? Well, to get into Dora’s fairytale, you had to say “once upon a time.” To get into the evolutionists’ theorytale, you say “millions of years ago.” Once you are in the fairytale, anything can happen, just like once you’re in the theorytale, anything can happen. Think about it: In the Dora’s fairytale, she made rocks sing, got a magic brush that made her hair grow long, and brought the moon down to the earth; in the theorytale land of evolution, something can come from nothing, life can come from non-life, intelligence can come from non-intelligence, order can come from disorder, and structure can come from randomness—truly anything can happen.

In Dora’s fairytale, Boots ate a banana from the wicked witch that made him fall fast asleep. He could not hear anything, or see anything, or say anything. He went blind and dumb. Just like when you are in the theorytale land of evolution, you fall fast asleep and cannot hear the heavens declaring the glory of God. You cannot see simple truths and you refuse to listen to truly impeccable evidence that design demands a Designer. Instead, you swallow the idea of humanism from teachers who say things like: the purpose of life is the happiness of man, the natural world is all there is, there is no God and there are no absolutes. This deep sleep causes you to not be able to hear the truth, it closes your eyes to reality, and you can do nothing to wake yourselves up. The more you try to use your intellect to prove the humanism that you have been taught, the deeper the sleep becomes. Being deaf and dumb, you cannot see or hear the truth that so many people are trying to show you.

In Dora’s story, the only way to wake up the sleeping Boots was to give him a hug. In the evolution story, the only way to wake up the sleeping evolutionists is to do exactly what the Bible says to do—show them love, allow the Holy Spirit to work in their lives, and show them how their world view opposes itself. The best way to do this is to avoid some questions that the Bible describes as foolish. 2 Tim 2: 24–26 tells us that we should not only avoid foolish questions that just bring up arguments, but it also tells us that God can grant people the ability to repent so that they can see the truth. 1 Corinthians tells us that the unsaved person is blind and dumb to spiritual things and that they cannot see the truth.

To the Evolutionists:

I can promise you that you will never see the truth by trusting in your supposed autonomous ability to reason. You must look outside yourself to your creator. Acknowledge Jesus, even if you don’t understand everything, and repent of what you know you have done wrong. Then and only then will you have the opportunity to see the truth.

To Christians:

There are ways that we should not argue, and there are questions that we should not ask. Your job, as someone who has been revealed the truth, is to love as Christ has loved us and instruct those that oppose themselves (evolutionists) in a way that reveals their foolishness so that we can point them to God.

Further Study:

Evidence of God Webseries: Evidence of God Webcast (Part 1)Evidence of God Webcast (Part 2)

For great resources that teach you about your faith and how to defend it, visit www.CreationStore.org

,

52 Responses to Fairytale Land and Theorytale Land

  1. andrew Ryan May 3, 2011 at 6:08 am #

    Eric: “structure can come from randomness”

    Indeed it can. All you need is an input of energy, which this planet has. This is observable even for creationists. Snowflakes have structure, but they’re formed by random processes. Waves are random, but they do a good job of separating pebbles on a beach according to size. There are many other examples of this.

    “truly anything can happen”

    Science requires an assumption that the laws of physics are constant. That’s the opposite of ‘anything can happen’.

    I notice again you using the word foolishness. This is pure hypocrisy given your earlier blog on name-calling.

  2. John Bebbington May 3, 2011 at 7:17 am #

    To the Evolutionists:

    I can promise you that you will never see the truth by trusting in your supposed autonomous ability to reason.

    Maybe not. But “reason” is what distinguishes us from animals and I won’t have it for much longer so don’t intend to not use it while I am still able. Presumably, Kent has been using a little of it in his “recent dissertation”.

    If reason is such a bad thing, Eric, why do you spend your life reasoning against the evidence? If you just said that you believe despite the evidence that would be OK (but daft) rather than coming up with all sorts of spurious anti-scientific nonsense to justify your religious beliefs. Is your faith so weak that you feel you have to justify it by relying on the faux-authority of people like Brown, Baugh, Humphreys and Patton?

    You must look outside yourself to your creator. Acknowledge Jesus, even if you don’t understand everything, and repent of what you know you have done wrong. Then and only then will you have the opportunity to see the truth.

    I only have to read your father’s bio to realise that “truth” is a slippery fellow.

    Eric, you know details of your father’s career and have plenty of time on your hands not writing a recent dissertation. Why don’t you tell us at which high schools your father claims he spent 15 years teaching maths and science? It’s not a difficult question so why the reticence in providing the information?

    To Christians:
    There are ways that we should not argue, and there are questions that we should not ask.

    Yes, don’t ask. Stay in ignorance. Most importantly, don’t educate your children.

  3. Corey May 3, 2011 at 7:18 am #

    Danny,

    I have been busy with my job and doing some more research, so here is my repsonses.

    You are using a general definition of religion. A sport such as hockey, football, baseball, soccer could be classified as a religion by your definition.

    An encyclopedia and common knowledge tells us that a religion is a systematic set of beliefs, rituals and codes of behaviour that revolve around a group’s worldview, rooted in supernatural views about the world and humanity’s place in the world and guidelines for morality or ethics.

    Where does evolution states that we claim from a “warm pond”?

    Christianity is a religion, so is Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism. When you are talking Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. these are sects of religion and evolution is not requirement for faith.

    Evolutionsists know more because they do the research instead of using fallistic arguments and trite phrases and refer to original documentation.

    The video that, I assume, you are referring to is about Mary Schwietzer’s work on biological material extracted from dinosaur remains. This is a classic example of proceeding from false premises to confuse the discussion.The argument that organic molecules found in ancient material disproves all independent dating methods is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy similar to Hovind’s arguments that the oldest tree and Sahara Desert’s age proves that the earth is young.
    When one actually does the accurate research from reliable sources and not opinion pieces, you will find that Dr. Schweitzer states that no red blood cells or hemoglobin were found and Carl Wieland grossly falsified his account.

    When she was asked about whether this was evidence for a young earth she states:

    “Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.”

    As others and I have pointed out that your assertation that Darwin only has theology degree does not omit him from not know about what he is talking about. In those days, there was not a demand to have a degree when aspiring to be a scientist. Today, those who jump in without education usually get things wrong, because without an education they are entirely unaware of the mounds of data collected over the last century-and-a-half that falsifies most “alternative” theories.

    Darwin’s clerical aspirations, as well as his documented antipathy toward the idea that the world came about “by chance,” work against some creationist claims about him, as it excludes any claim that he was pushing an agenda of atheism with his work.

    Believing/accepting evolution does not omit responsibilty just as Hovind being in jail does omit his actions due to his belief in creationism.

    Again, your “Dissent from Darwinism” argument is an appeal to authority fallacy and does not disprove evolution or even suggest that evolution “is in trouble”. Take a look at the decrease in people in the Western world declaring that they are Christians while the number of atheists have increased. Does this disprove the existence of a god or suggest that Christianity “is in trouble”?

    Through science would get closer to ages which have been proven to be older than 10,000 years and understanding what is evolution from credible sources such as science journal and not from opinion columns.

  4. Andy May 3, 2011 at 6:43 am #

    Very true, and a great parallel. And just because a bunch of people believe in evo, doesn’t make it true. Many people used to believe the world was flat.

  5. Geno Castagnoli May 3, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    Eric wrote:
    “… when you are in the theorytale land of evolution, you fall fast asleep and cannot hear the heavens declaring the glory of God.”

    Geno points out:
    I find that amusing as it is “the heavens declaring the glory of God” that leads me away from a literal Genesis. How can we see objects billions of light years from Earth in a universe 6000 years old?

    To me, it is awesome God created a universe with tens of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars in each of them with no more effort than a single thought…. “let there be light.”

    #####
    Eric claims:
    You must look outside yourself to your creator.

    Geno:
    (((sigh)))
    And I was just taken to task recently by a creationist who accused me of repeating the same things over and over.

    Some 80% of those who accept evolution believe it to be the creative process used by God. Only a small minority of evolutionists are atheists.

    Evolution and atheism are different things.

  6. Geno Castagnoli May 3, 2011 at 6:58 am #

    Eric wrote:
    teachers who say things like: the purpose of life is the happiness of man, the natural world is all there is, there is no God

    Geno points out:
    Any public school teacher who teaches these things can (and should) be fired. This is just as out-of-bounds as teaching Biblical creation.

  7. Duane May 3, 2011 at 7:07 am #

    Eric, have you ever been right about ANYTHING? Seriously? You are going to tell us that a naturalistic view of the world and its origins is a fairy tale but the magic man in the sky who creates the world in 6 days with some magic words sic thousand years ago, who takes a rib from the first man and makes woman from it, who is enticed by a talking snake into eating a fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this event introduces death and decay into the very atoms of the universe and causes some animals who were previously vegetarian to become meat eaters, and years later the sky man tells a man on earth to build a giant boat to house 2 of each kind of animal while He floods the world, and then years later the survivors build a tower to heaven, so their languages are confounded, and then many years later this sky man transforms Himself into a regular man to take on the sins of the world and so forth. All that stuff is perfectly real and rational, but the naturalistic view of the world is a fairy tale?

    There are not enough faces nor palms to deal with the amount of projection and irrationality of this kind of nonsense. I am now convinced you are a Poe. This is all a hoax and you are actually a cynical atheist making money off the backs of rubes. Either that, or you are truly your father’s son and he raised the second most deluded person on the face of the earth.

    Eric, you will never top this one. Brav-O.

  8. David Ray May 3, 2011 at 7:08 am #

    Quoting Eric: “To Christians: There are ways that we should not argue, and there are questions that we should not ask.”

    Quoting HP Lovecraft: “If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.”

    The truth is not afraid of questions, Eric. In fact, it welcomes them.

  9. H. Bosma May 3, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    So you’re comparing a theory with evidence to substantiate it to a fairytale………….

    In your own fairytale anything can happen. Everything can from nothing. If your god wanted a rock to speak, it can happen.
    Who’s believing in fairytales now.

  10. Stephen Holshouser May 3, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    Eric,

    Thanks for the good post. Now if I could just always remember to practice it…

    It is easy to get into a reasoning contest and forget that even a decisive victory will not change the heart of a sinner. It must be a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. I, myself, have spent the majority of my life in darkness fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and mind, without the ability, will, or desire to bow to the Lord of Life… Thankfully for me, He is full of mercy and ready to forgive those who do not deserve it.

    To the Atheists (and Geno),
    As I go back and forth with you, I do think about you as a person and not just some faceless, random person on the internet. And for what it is worth to you, I do pray for you and hope that the Lord would deliver you from bondage as He has me. Knowing the Lord IS eternal life itself, and having all the empty pleasures that this life has to offer cannot compare to it.

    Romans 6:16-23

  11. Jeff Brace May 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    Great post Stephen.

  12. Caleb Fielding May 3, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    Eric personally I do not think it is wise to compare evolution to fairy tales since so many people are emotionally attached to it, all that you are doing is making them defensive. That said I do not see evolution as applying with physics or anatomy. Every doctor expects that all the organs and muscles and nerves to be in the same spot, and when they are not it is never to someones advantage.

    Finally I agree one question should not be asked. What if. I have noticed anytime I am doing something that is long term people always ask me what if. Just because you can ask what if doesnt mean much since a three year old can do it, at some point your training and experience has to take over.

  13. Jason Schultz May 3, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    How can anyone look at the precision of a total solar eclipse and be so filled with ignorance that they are blind to see it is indeed Gods creation? How can anyone admit the delicate compositions of the global life cycle, and then turn around and say “Yep, Randomness created all of this.” One poster said snowflakes are created from randomness, but last I checked the elements for the snowflake have already been created…and by God! The separation of rocks in waves: again all observable because the elements have already been created. I suppose I can throw 2 dice, and indeed record patterns; but what a fool I’d be to say the dice were created from nothing.

  14. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 1:08 am #

    Stephen wrote:

    It is easy to get into a reasoning contest and forget that even a decisive victory will not change the heart of a sinner.

    You haven’t had one yet. Even amongst the christians on the site there are at least three very different views and at least two of them consign the third to hell on the basis of his heretical if orthodox beliefs.

    Why do you expect us unbelievers to change our minds when after 2,000 years of argument you christians cannot sort out a consistent story between yourselves. You claim the bible to be the word of god and the means by which humanity can learn what is required to obtain eternal life and yet your god seems too incompetent to lay out a simple set of rules to achieve this. One only has to go onto the ex-christian message boards to read how local protestant churches in America, despite spending many hours a week seeking the will of god in all that they do, to be no better than badly-run small time businesses. We evolutionists cannot compete with their gruesome stories of daily life red in tooth and claw in a protestant fundamentalist environment.

    Danny wisely stays away from such iniquitous dens by creating his own Church of the Latter Day John the Baptist affecting the same hairstyle as his hero and preaching to a congregation of nil.

    It is also interesting to watch Geno, highly rational and articulate about science, take apart the washed-out arguments of the fundies but at the same defend a weird theology (from my point of view) from which his life-long immersion in the catholic culture will not allow him to escape even if he now wanted to. He is happy in his heresy and who is Stephen to deny him?

    I, myself, have spent the majority of my life in darkness fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and mind…..

    Stephen, I’m salivating. Please tell me more.

    ……without the ability, will, or desire to bow to the Lord of Life Thankfully for me, He is full of mercy and ready to forgive those who do not deserve it.

    I think you’ll find, Stephen, that all that has happened is that you have forgiven yourself. But if to believe so makes you happy then I am happy for you. And, doubtless, so is Geno.

  15. Danny May 4, 2011 at 2:14 am #

    CoreyMay 3rd at 7:18 am
    Danny,
    I have been busy with my job and doing some more research, so here is my repsonses.
    You are using a general definition of religion. A sport such as hockey, football, baseball, soccer could be classified as a religion by your definition.
    You are absolutely right. One definition that I read is, the worship of gods or God, Since there is only one true God, then the other gods that mankind worships would be themselves, money, sex, popularity, whatever we live for is our “religion” hence, our god. Another definition is on Wickipedia and one part says, The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. That definition fits evolution to a tee. They have an organized belief system that they expect their followers to follow or they are out, excommunicated. Check out John’s favorite video, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for further proof.

    An encyclopedia and common knowledge tells us that a religion is a systematic set of beliefs, rituals and codes of behaviour that revolve around a group’s worldview, rooted in supernatural views about the world and humanity’s place in the world and guidelines for morality or ethics.
    I see that you got your definition for “religion” from an encyclopedia or common knowledge. I would say on the second one that one’s common knowledge might not be the same as someone’s common knowledge. One example, there are those with “common” knowledge that they came from nothing or an impersonal god , others have a common knowledge that they came from a Creator God who loves mankind very, very much that he was willing to become a man to free them from sin. Those two common knowledge illustrations totally disagree with one another. So I will toss your common knowledge one out and the encyclopedia one we will let you have that. Curious though, which encyclopedia did you use? But as I was asking John a while back when he mentioned that by my religion it is wrong to lie and I replied back by his religion, evolution it is alright to lie.

    Where does evolution states that we claim from a “warm pond”?
    I REALLY WONDER at times if you, John and other evolutionists on here just do this stuff to argue not knowing what evolution really teaches. When you asked the above question is when I started thinking it again. My mind went to certain comments that John made and I am still trying to find some more of the recent ones. I can’t get on this blog site as much as others are getting on, other things get in the way of it. I think about how it seemed by reading John’s post that he was pretty upset that I would dare question Darwin. I keep saying and you don’t like it, many evolutionists are leaving Darwinism and it is like another false religion that I study called Mormonism, they are getting more numbers joining their “church” but there are many going out the back door and never have their name removed from the records so on face value, they are still Mormons but in reality, they AREN’T any more. The same with evolutionists, they know it isn’t true, they just can’t leave, their life, wife, kids, schools, friends are all wrapped up in it and they can’t leave. I hope you follow that, it is fairly basic.
    Here is one link, it an evolutionist’s website regarding the warm pond.
    National Science Foundation
    nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/polar_essay1.jsp

    Christianity is a religion, so is Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism. When you are talking Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. these are sects of religion and evolution is not requirement for faith.
    Evolutionsists know more because they do the research instead of using fallistic arguments and trite phrases and refer to original documentation.
    You should watch some of my videos where I go into this subject deeper. All of us are religious, all of us live by faith. ALL of US! There are many definitions for “religion”. But just to be nice, I will use yours above. Look at your above definition when I say what I am about to say. Evolutionists live by their worldview, their code of conduct and that code might vary based on if they are “atheistic” evolutionists or “theistic” evolutionists. That everything came into being without God or a personal God, hence everything is subjective, based on what they view as right or wrong. There are really no absolutes, they usually follow a strong charismatic leader such as Richard Dawkins to name one.

    I will reply to the rest later. It is almost 3:00am here

    Danny Bunn

  16. Danny May 4, 2011 at 1:56 am #

    Eric,
    I liked your comparisons. A lot of them fit really well. Keep on keeping on. The Lord Jesus Christ is about really to split those clouds wide open or so it seems by the things happening on planet earth.

    Danny Bunn

  17. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 6:55 am #

    Mark wrote:

    You wrote: “In reply, I asked you why you felt that God would single out your daughter for treatment but ignore the prayers of millions of black African kids with similar conditions.”

    Your question makes three assumptions. The first is that miraculous healings don’t occur in places like Africa. This is not true. From the accounts I have read and people I have spoken to, miraculous healings are a regular occurrence in these places.

    Please would you supply a few well-documented examples.

    The second assumption is that God ignores prayers. I do not believe this to be the case. Why does one individual get healed while another does not? I don’t know, but if God were to physically heal everyone who prayed for healing, these healings would become run-of-the-mill and would no longer be considered miraculous. [A good example of this is the healing that occurs in nature. You can cut your finger and by the most extraordinary, unguided, application of a complex series of processes the wound can be healed so perfectly that it is indistinguishable from undamaged tissue. In every sense of the word this is miraculous but because it happens every day we take it for granted.]

    No, we don’t. Science has discovered the clotting mechanism and we now know how and why it works. If a phenomenon has a known physical mechanism it is not miraculous.

    The third, and more subtle, assumption is that the sole reason for God to heal is to improve the physical wellbeing of the person healed. But physical healing is only temporary we all eventually die, whether we’ve experienced miraculous physical healing, or not. Spiritual healing, on the other hand, has eternal consequences. Miraculous physical healing builds faith in the person healed and in those around them and this, I believe, is the real reason for the healing.

    Can a faith based on evidence be a true faith? Your hypothesis seems to fly in the face of the teachings of modern cash-hungry faith-healers. If the healing doesn’t work (as it never does) the faith-nonhealer will blame the patient for a lack of faith. According to you, a lack of faith is a pre-requisite for receiving a miracle.

    You also wrote: “I also asked why it is only those conditions which are also remedied by the body’s own repair mechanisms or through medical intervention which answer to prayer.”
    Good question. I don’t know. But there are an awful lot of things I can’t explain and it doesn’t stop them happening.

    That’s not the question. The difficulty with your position is that nothing which cannot happen naturally seems to happen supernaturally.

    Maybe you would now like to answer the question I asked of Duane.

    What question?

  18. Stephen Holshouser May 4, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    David Ray,

    “Quoting HP Lovecraft: “If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.” The truth is not afraid of questions, Eric. In fact, it welcomes them.”

    It is true that we cannot force our children into being Christians. However, our duty is to follow the Lord and His Word and raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, who IS truth. Don’t you think you would be a good parent to at least point them in the way of truth if you knew what it was? If you believe that atheistic evolution is true, you better do some teaching, because they aren’t going to arrive there on their own, ESPECIALLY by going on an “unbending quest for the truth.”

    Do you think sending kids on an “unbending quest for truth” will get them there? How many people have gone on this quest and never made it there? Do you believe in absolute truth to begin with? Finally, since, according to your belief, there is only the material world that we will perish from shortly, and the world itself will cease as well, why does it ultimately matter if anyone finds the truth at all? If it doesn’t really matter anyway, why not instruct them in the ways of Jesus Christ to love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love and do good to your enemies, and return not evil for evil, and to forsake the sins of the flesh, which only bring disease and destruction? Surely you can’t object to that, can you?

    I think if you compare Jesus’ life and teachings to that of the mainstream worldy “do whatever you feel is right in your heart,” Hollywood lifestyle, you will easily see that Christ’s ways far exceed the world’s ways in goodness, purity, health, both mentally and physically, righteousness, and TRUTHFULNESS.

    take care, SH

  19. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    Stephen wrote:

    Do you think sending kids on an “unbending quest for truth” will get them there? How many people have gone on this quest and never made it there?

    All of them. It’s the quest, the journey and not the destination which is important. You think you have already got there so bully for you but it isn’t apparent from your writings.

    If it doesn’t really matter anyway, why not instruct them in the ways of Jesus Christ to love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love and do good to your enemies, and return not evil for evil, and to forsake the sins of the flesh, which only bring disease and destruction? Surely you can’t object to that, can you?

    As a matter of historical fact JC was not the first to teach such things. Are you so ignorant of other belief systems throughout history that you really believe that only christians teach their children a moral code?

    I think if you compare Jesus’ life and teachings to that of the mainstream worldy “do whatever you feel is right in your heart,” Hollywood lifestyle, you will easily see that Christ’s ways far exceed the world’s ways in goodness, purity, health, both mentally and physically, righteousness, and TRUTHFULNESS.

    Wilfully denying the hard-earned evidence of our senses is not “TRUTHFULNESS” but perversion.

  20. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 10:32 am #

    Danny wrote:

    They have an organized belief system that they expect their followers to follow or they are out, excommunicated.

    Give me the names of any two people featured in Expelled No Intelligence Discernible who were “excommunicated” or even lost their jobs.

    Check out John’s favorite video, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for further proof.

    There is no proof, only polemic, to be had in the film. Check the facts.

    But as I was asking John a while back when he mentioned that by my religion it is wrong to lie and I replied back by his religion, evolution it is alright to lie.

    A clever retort which had me completely stumped for an answer.

    I think about how it seemed by reading John’s post that he was pretty upset that I would dare question Darwin.

    Still obsessing about Darwin. Forget Darwin – he’s irrelevant. Attack the current theory if you are able.

    I keep saying and you don’t like it, many evolutionists are leaving Darwinism and it is like another false religion that I study called Mormonism, they are getting more numbers joining their “church” but there are many going out the back door and never have their name removed from the records so on face value, they are still Mormons but in reality, they AREN’T any more.

    It’s ironic that it was the science of genetics which also supports the ToE which showed that the Lamanites were not semitic and that therefore the Book of Moron is false.

    The same with evolutionists, they know it isn’t true, they just can’t leave, their life, wife, kids, schools, friends are all wrapped up in it and they can’t leave. I hope you follow that, it is fairly basic.

    And daft.

    Here is one link, it an evolutionist’s website regarding the warm pond.
    National Science Foundation
    nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/polar_essay1.jsp

    Actually, Danny, if you had bothered to read it you would have found it postulates a “cold little pond”. It also includes a Darwin quote: “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.

  21. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 9:41 am #

    Jason Schultz wrote:

    How can anyone look at the precision of a total solar eclipse and be so filled with ignorance that they are blind to see it is indeed Gods creation?

    Are you talking about the fact that the apparent size of the moon appears to be the same as that of the sun during total eclipses? If so, what is magical about that?

    The moon in its orbit does not remain at the same precise distance from the Earth and neither does the Earth remain at a precise distance from the sun. These distances constantly vary in complex cycles and therefore their relative apparent sizes differ.

    Furthermore, millions of years ago the moon was closer to the Earth than it is now and therefore the sun would have been completely obscured by the moon during a full eclipse. As the moon continues to move further from the Earth in millions of years to come there will be no more full eclipses because the apparent size of the moon will always be smaller than that of the Sun.

    What was that about ignorance?

  22. Geno Castagnoli May 4, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Stephen wrote:
    I hope that is the case about you teaching only the scientific facts. I just remember you talking about a list of evidence that supports a young earth, which you stated your 9th graders saw through (which, honestly, I find hard to believe unless they were coached).

    Geno answers:
    Actually, several of those evidences are posted right here on the CSE website. Since it’s a CSE page, I’ll guess it will be OK to post the link:
    drdino.com/evidence-from-earth/

    Specifically the assertions about Niagara Falls being less than 8400 years old; the Mississippi Delta being less than 30,000; and the Sahara Desert being 4000 years old. My students quickly pointed out you cannot determine the maximum age of the planet from these things but they could indicate a minimum age. There are a number of other claims on that page that are just as bad (Earth’s magnetic field, salts in the oceans, helium in the atmosphere, the polar ice caps), but would probably be beyond the ability of a 9th grader to spot.

    #####
    Stephen wrote:
    Regarding St Augustine, …. One of his primary concerns was that people would get locked into an interpretation of the Bible that fit the “scientific” assumptions of whatever age it was in.

    Geno points out:
    You are right that Augustine was a “young-earth” type. But he believed in instant creation, not six days. You are missing the point completely. His point was that when we make claims of the Bible that people KNOW from their own personal experience and observation are false and give those claims the authority of Scripture, those non-believers will treat our beliefs with ridicule and scorn and reject them. If you need the complete statement of St. Augustine, I’ll be happy to provide it.

    #####
    Stephen:
    By this statement, I just assumed you had discussions with your students about your belief of the Genesis account not being literal a subtle, yet certain declaration that the Bible cannot be trusted to mean what it says.

    Geno:
    Didn’t discuss the Bible at all, that would have been a leading question and I wanted to find out it they could spot the erroneous logic on their own…. and they did.

  23. David Ray May 4, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    S. Holshouser said:
    It is true that we cannot force our children into being Christians. However, our duty is to follow the Lord and His Word and raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, who IS truth. Don’t you think you would be a good parent to at least point them in the way of truth if you knew what it was? If you believe that atheistic evolution is true, you better do some teaching, because they aren’t going to arrive there on their own, ESPECIALLY by going on an “unbending quest for the truth.”

    D. Ray responds:
    The point I was making is this. Eric says that there are questions that should not be asked. Restricting they types of questions allowed is not a free search for truth. Instead, religious folks have a tendency to take the tradition they were raised in, assume it’s true, and then restrict the questions that can be asked to protect that assumption. I intend to teach my children that all questions are free to be asked because reality has nothing to fear from questions. Of course, one must carefully consider the answers and where they come from. I have a tendency to trust answers obtained using the scientific method, answers that are not forced to fit into the mythology found in a 2000 year old book written by bronze age goat herders. Here’s why – the answers derived from the scientific method are testable and replicable and provide useful tools. The answers provided by religion tend to be vague and untestable, change depending on who is reading the text and the culture in which they occur, and provide little if any useful information to improve our lives. For example it wasn’t until science came on the scene that washing our hands was determined to be a good idea. A brief mention of this practice in the Bible could have saved millions of lives over the course of human history. Why didn’t the all-knowing master of the universe skip the commandment not to make statues of Him and instead include “Thou shalt wash they hands in soapy water before eating and thereby reduce the impact of communicable disease on thy population”?

    “Don’t you think you would be a good parent to at least point them in the way of truth if you knew what it was?” Of course. However, while I may think I know the best way to do something, I would encourage my children to question that method and potentially find a better way. I am human and I don’t know everything. I could be wrong. Why would I restrict them when they have such potential to improve on what I think I know? In fact, I encourage them to question me and potentially improve their lives. I say to my children, “Ask away and if your answer is better, tell me so that I may improve my own understanding of reality.”
    ============================================================
    S. Holshouser said:
    Do you think sending kids on an “unbending quest for truth” will get them there?

    D. Ray responds:
    Yes.
    ============================================================
    S. Holshouser said:
    How many people have gone on this quest and never made it there?

    D. Ray responds:
    In the recent past, approximately the same number of people who trust the words of religious texts as accurately portraying the history of life. In the more distant past, most of the human race. We didn’t have a credible explanation for the diversity of life until Darwin and Wallace.
    ============================================================
    S. Holshouser said:
    Do you believe in absolute truth to begin with?

    D. Ray responds:
    Define “absolute truth”, please. I can’t answer until I know what this means?
    ============================================================
    S. Holshouser said:
    Finally, since, according to your belief, there is only the material world that we will perish from shortly, and the world itself will cease as well, why does it ultimately matter if anyone finds the truth at all?

    D. Ray responds:
    To answer this question, I’ll define truth as “conformity with fact or reality” (dictionary.com). It matters because the better our beliefs conform to reality, the better we can cope with any given situation and help other people. If you understand that disease is caused not by demons but by a virus, you can make your way toward curing the disease and helping people. Questions answered using scientific methods have improved life for billions of human beings over the past few hundred years. Vaccines, increased life span, cured diseases, improved farming practices to yield higher quality food, etc. If we relied only on 2000 year old texts (and restricted our questions as Eric suggested), none of this would have happened.
    ============================================================
    S. Holshouser said:
    If it doesn’t really matter anyway, why not instruct them in the ways of Jesus Christ to love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love and do good to your enemies, and return not evil for evil, and to forsake the sins of the flesh, which only bring disease and destruction? Surely you can’t object to that, can you?

    I think if you compare Jesus’ life and teachings to that of the mainstream worldy “do whatever you feel is right in your heart, Hollywood lifestyle, you will easily see that Christ’s ways far exceed the world’s ways in goodness, purity, health, both mentally and physically, righteousness, and TRUTHFULNESS.

    take care, SH

    D. Ray responds:
    As a matter of fact, I teach them nearly all those things but for different reasons. Let’s take them one by one:
    =”Love you’re neighbor as yourself” – Not a bad idea but one that a person can come to simply through empathy with your fellow human beings. Are you saying that people didn’t care about others before Jesus?
    =”Do unto others….” – The golden rule, which was around loooong before Jesus. Again, are you saying that people didn’t follow this rule before Jesus was around? Evidence exists for it as early as ~1700 BCE in ancient Babylon. That’s written evidence. I would suppose that parents were teaching their children such a thing well before that – “Cain, would you want Abel to hit you with a rock?” Again, why do we need Jesus for this if it was around before him?
    =”Love and do good to your enemies” – You mean the way the Bible teaches that if God says so, it’s ok to slaughter the men, women, children and animals of a defeated foe? Couldn’t resist. This is the same as loving your neighbor. I teach my children to do this because I think empathy is an important character trait. Showing mercy to your enemies builds good will among people. Why do we need Jesus for this?
    =”Return not evil for evil” – So, you think nobody before Jesus came up with the idea of ‘breaking the cycle’?
    =”Forsake the sins of the flesh, which only bring disease and destruction” – You’ll need to be more specific with this one. Which sins and which disease and destruction. This is one of the problems with arguing here and why I don’t do it very often – the vague terms. I’m a scientist. I’m used to dealing with specifics. Define ‘sins of the flesh’.

    Neither I nor anybody I know who is a non-believer teaches that one should “do whatever you feel is right in your heart.” I and others like me teach that you should consider how your actions impact others and yourself. Think, question the propriety of your actions. If it harms them or yourself, don’t do it. This is a strawman argument and I’m disappointed that you even brought it up. You’re better than this.

    Now, I’ve answered all of your questions to the best of my ability. Please answer mine (including those in my respons to “love your neighbor”, etc.).
    Is Eric correct in saying that some questions should not be asked? If so, what are they? Are they forbidden because they might lead to doubt in creationism or God or the Bible? If so, is that a bad thing if it leads to a better understanding of reality and therefore an improvement in human life? How do you know that the Lord “IS truth”? What extra-biblical support do you have for this claim?

  24. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    Danny,

    Please quote a verse in which “Paul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God”.

    I’m still waiting to hear from you.

  25. Geno Castagnoli May 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    Stephen wrote:
    Do you believe that man actually brought death into the creation, or had it always been there? What NEW consequence did Adam’s sin bring about? Do you believe the first man who brought sin into the world, Adam, lived 6000 years ago as the Bible states?

    Geno answers:
    I believe physical death has always been here and that Adam’s sin led to spiritual death, not physical death. I believe what seperates us from other animals is our immortal soul and have no idea at what point God decided to grant us that gift.

    As for the rest of your comments, I’m not here to debate denominational differences.

  26. Anthony Keeton May 4, 2011 at 12:53 pm #

    Eric, I found something fantastic to refute the claims of the theological evolutionists. It has to do with Genesis 1:3. Check it out on my blog:

    thestillman.com/stillmanfiles/2011/03/creation-vs-evolution

    Hope this helps the Christian community!

    The Still Man

  27. Corey May 4, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    @ Danny

    Which encyclopedia did you use?

    Any encycylopedia.

    Website regarding the warm pond.

    The “Primordial Soup” model deals with abiogenesis, not with evolution. Also, they are other scientific models that have been accepted as more plausible.

    All of us are religious, all of us live by faith. ALL of US! There are many definitions for “religion”..

    So, what is your religion, Christian or Creationist?

  28. Todd Thomas May 4, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Respectfully Duane,

    Do you have a rational or scientific argument to put forth for your position or just all question begging epithets and name calling?

    If you decide to put forth an argument, please include your foundational basis for how you account in a naturalistic universe.for the existence of immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic that you must use to formulate your argument.

    Todd

  29. Danny May 5, 2011 at 1:16 am #

    John BebbingtonMay 3rd at 2:43 pm
    Danny wrote:
    @John,
    You are confusing me again. You are reading a different bible than I read and are in turn reading a different Paul than I read. Paul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God when he was told by the voice in heaven who blinded him.
    John said,
    Yes, Danny, I think you must be reading a different bible.
    Please quote a verse in which “Paul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God”.
    Danny said,
    I was looking for something else but I found the above comment that you wrote to me Sorry I missed it, it was in part one of the “series” blogs by the same name.
    @John,
    Keep in mind that Paul was an old testament scholar, he knew those books, mentally speaking. Paul said this in Rom. 10:9-13
    9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
    12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
    13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
    I started at v. 9 and went to verse 13 since that is the verse that I am dealing with but you need to see verse 9 so you will know that Paul is talking about Jesus Christ. Now I take you to the old testament, the books that Paul really knew and in Joel 2:32, it says,
    32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
    Deliverance and salvation is one and the same from the old testament to the new testament. I can do more but this is how Paul operated. He prayed to Jesus, submitted to Jesus, acknowledged Jesus as his Lord and God. And there is only one true Lord as Paul knew since he also said in Eph 4:5, “5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” I know of nowhere in the bible that anyone is acknowledged as Lord except God after the book of Acts when the new testament church started. Also if you noticed in Romans 10:13 is quoting from Joel 2:32 speaking of “LORD” which is “Jehovah” transliterated. Which can easily be seen that Paul is telling us that the Lord Jesus is the “LORD” Jehovah of the old testament. Paul worshipped Jesus, prayed to Jesus, submitted to Jesus, said that Jesus was the name above all names and he knew that Jehovah God was the name above all names in the old testament. I will show you more by what Paul did and said about Jesus Christ continually after he met him on the road to Damascus. Also remember that Paul said in Phil 2:10,11
    10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
    11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
    When Paul said those words, he knew what Jehovah God said in Isa 45:22,23
    22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
    23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
    Once again going from old testament to new testament, swear and confess is the same act. Hence Paul is showing that Jesus Christ is none other than Jehovah in human flesh.
    If you want to see more just let me know. I have to cut and paste them for you but that is cool, it not too much of a job, it takes a little time but it is worth it. Paul showed it in many ways through his writings that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh. Paul said that AT THE NAME OF JESUS EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, NOT AT THE NAME OF JEHOVAH. AND KEEP IN MIND Paul said THAT JESUS IS THE NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME NOT THE NAME OF JEHOVAH. IF THAT ALONE DOESN’T SHOW YOU THAT JESUS IS LORD GOD ALMIGHTY NOTHING WILL.
    In closing, Jesus died for you with an undying love, so to speak. He loves you and is calling you but will never force you to come. He is a prayer away.

    Danny Bunn

  30. John Bebbington May 5, 2011 at 6:47 am #

    Danny,

    A little bit of serendipity for you. I was browsing a website and by chance came up with this Jefferson quote which is taken from that letter of Reverend Samuel Miller in 1808 from which you quoted. It concludes:

    “Be this as it may, everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.”

    That doesn’t look to me that he wished to impose deism let alone Christianity upon America.

  31. John Bebbington May 5, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Danny wrote:

    Once again going from old testament to new testament, swear and confess is the same act. Hence Paul is showing that Jesus Christ is none other than Jehovah in human flesh.

    A long post but I see that you agree with me that nowhere in his writings does Paul acknowledge Jesus as Lord and God in any single verse; he always differentiates between them.

    The idea that Paul considers that the “Lord Jesus Christ” is Jehovah in human flesh (Paul is writing after the resurrection and ascension) is not an idea which would be supported by many christian scholars.

    I’m no theologian (as you already knew) but Joel writes of deliverance (mainly from a recent infestation of locusts) whereas Paul write of salvation. The Jews did not believe in life after death in the christian sense so I do not see how Romans 10:13 can really be compared with Joel 2:32.

  32. John Bebbington May 5, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    Todd Thomas wrote:

    Do you have a rational or scientific argument to put forth for your position or just all question begging epithets and name calling?
    If you decide to put forth an argument, please include your foundational basis for how you account in a naturalistic universe.for the existence of immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic that you must use to formulate your argument.

    The unchanging laws of logic only work in an expanding universe. Reverse the expansion and the consequent will precede the antecedent. What then for unchanging laws?

    As Danny and I have broken into a (hopefully) short-lived discussion on “flesh” how do you account for the presence in a supernatural heaven of a real live natural “fleshy” body and how do you use the unchanging laws of logic to formulate your argument?

  33. James McGraw May 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    Mr. Bebbington,

    Allow me to fill in some of Mr. Hovind’s employment history. I gleaned this information from an affidavit filed with Escambia County in 2005. This affidavit is public record, viewable online.

    1976-1978 Bethel Baptist Academy, Perkin, Illinois (pastor, founder)
    1978-1981 unnamed institution, Bourbonais, Illinois (teaching Christian education)
    1981-1986 Longview Christian Academy, Longview, Texas (teaching science and math); Texas Baptist College (a ministry of Longveiw Baptist Temple), Longview Texas. [These two institutions appear to share the same address.]
    1986-1989 Calvary Baptist Christian School, Fairfield, California (Assistant pastor, principal and science teacher)

  34. Stephen Holshouser May 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    David Ray,
    “Now, I’ve answered all of your questions to the best of my ability. Please answer mine (including those in my respons to “love your neighbor”, etc.).

    David:
    “Is Eric correct in saying that some questions should not be asked? If so, what are they? Are they forbidden because they might lead to doubt in creationism or God or the Bible? If so, is that a bad thing if it leads to a better understanding of reality and therefore an improvement in human life?”

    Stephen:
    In the context of his statement, I don’t think he was referring to asking deep, thoughtful questions about reality or the universe, but rather, that there are inappropriate questions or questions that deter from the main issue that should not be posed to non-believers. I can’t speak for Eric, but I think he would agree with you that the truth is not afraid of questions.

    David:
    How do you know that the Lord “IS truth”? What extra-biblical support do you have for this claim?

    Stephen:
    The ability to create the universe and hold it in existence necessarily makes Him truth. Since He creates reality and has the power to do with it as He wills, His very essence and being is the truth / reality. He is the ultimate reality, the source of all truth. Intra-biblical support; John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:

    David:
    “Define “sins of the flesh.”

    Stephen:
    Sexual immorality defined by the Bible. These bring about mental illness, along with STD’s. Anger, wrath, hatred, drunkenness, gluttony, etc, of which can bring about emotional instability and negative physical effects. Galatians 5:19-22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Colossians 3:8-10, Romans 1:19-32

    David:
    “Neither I nor anybody I know who is a non-believer teaches that one should “do whatever you feel is right in your heart.” I and others like me teach that you should consider how your actions impact others and yourself. Think, question the propriety of your actions. If it harms them or yourself, don’t do it. This is a strawman argument and I’m disappointed that you even brought it up. You’re better than this.

    Stephen:
    Am I? What do you expect from a bible-thumping fundie? : ) But, yes, you do what you feel is right in your heart. You just denied it and then laid out what you feel is the right thing to do in your heart. What makes your rules better than say, a Muslim cleric forcing Sharia law on those around him, or a communist dictator forcing communism on his country for the good of the whole? Any response you have will be based on your own reasoning and what you “feel is right in your heart.” Without “Thus saith the Lord” the communists or terrorists idea of what is good and right is just as valid as yours. The Judge of all the earth gets to say what is right and wrong, good and bad.

    David:
    “For example it wasn’t until science came on the scene that washing our hands was determined to be a good idea. A brief mention of this practice in the Bible could have saved millions of lives over the course of human history. Why didn’t the all-knowing master of the universe skip the commandment not to make statues of Him and instead include “Thou shalt wash they hands in soapy water before eating and thereby reduce the impact of communicable disease on thy population”?

    Stephen:
    What? You should read some of the Old Testament rules for Israel. They had all kinds of germ-preventing, washing rules way before anyone had a microscope. Read thru the dietary, anti-sexual immorality, and cleansing laws in Leviticus, which turn out to be good for us today if all people in the world practiced them today, there would be millions of lives saved.

    David:
    “Love you’re neighbor as yourself Not a bad idea but one that a person can come to simply through empathy with your fellow human beings. Are you saying that people didn’t care about others before Jesus?… Why do we need Jesus for this?

    Stephen:
    No one says the rules came into being when Jesus spoke them on the earth. They have been in the heart and conscience of man from the beginning. However, no one has kept them. We can’t even keep the rules we make up for ourselves. Jesus Christ was the embodiment of the perfectly lived life, without sin, without error, fulfilling all the righteousness of the law, which you are accountable to God for. He loved God with all His heart, soul, mind, and strength, and His neighbor as Himself. This is why we need Jesus. Because His life was the substitution for those of us who failed miserably to do what was required of us. He then took the punishment that sinners deserved on Himself that they might go free. Jesus is God’s love to mankind demonstrated and on display. The Lord has made provision for us to be reconciled to Himself though the sacrifice and merit of Jesus Christ. I have no more fear of being justly condemned for my actions because my sin has already been dealt with on the cross.

    I think you know in your heart there is coming a day where all will give account to God. It is programmed into you. God will not stand before you, but you before Him. If you think His actions have been unreasonable, remember that He is infinite, and we are finite As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. Talk to you later, SH

  35. Duane May 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    Todd Thomas May 4th at 6:57 pm

    Respectfully Duane,

    Do you have a rational or scientific argument to put forth for your position or just all question begging epithets and name calling?

    If you decide to put forth an argument, please include your foundational basis for how you account in a naturalistic universe.for the existence of immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic that you must use to formulate your argument.

    Todd

    I have a few things to say here. Do you understand what question begging is? This is one of the problems I have with Christianity. You are taught a delusion as though it is reality and you lose the ability to descern fantasy from reality. Eric’s entire post is begging the question. He assumes he’s right without actually presenting his side. How unfair is it for Eric to compare a straw man version of evolution to a children’s TV show without including his own ludicrous beliefs. Did I misrepresent or mischaracterize them? None of you in here have EVER correctly characterized evolution. There is nothing wrong with “Millions of years ago”. There’s plenty of evidence for it. The only objection is not even religious, it’s your specific interpretation of religion that is the objection. It amazes me that you demand exact absolute certainty in science but have such a low bar for your own beliefs.

    You are going to use the Presuppositionalist argument? Seriously? How do I account, in a naturalistic universe for the existence of immaterial, universal and unchanging laws of logic? We call those abstract concepts.

    ab·stract

    adjective
    1.
    thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
    2.
    expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
    3.
    theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.

    The worst part of the presup argument is the complete nonsense of equivalence. When one tries to claim that truth (and the like) is immaterial, non-changing, and goes on forever, and since “God” has the same description, then that’s God and only Christianity can account for it. Your premise right up front is wrong. Your worldview does not account for logic, you just claim it does. A fictional Hebrew storm god does not account for anything no matter what you claim. If logic and math are universal and unchanging, just because you have given your fictional deity these same attributes, that doesn’t mean they are the same and it certainly doesn’t mean I am borrowing your premise to believe my own. What you are doing is simply naming that abstraction “God”. Also, since the atheist believes we are merely chemical reactions, he can’t account for the immaterial nature of logic? Our material minds are necessary to comprehend it, but it can exist independent of any individual.

    What is the justification for presupposing that the Bible is Truth and is what it claims? It all seems to hinge on the assertion that the God of the Bible can reveal himself in such a way that the receiver knows absolutely that it is correct. Despite Sye’s insistence, it can never be granted that this is so. There is essentially no difference between this absolute revelation and a coherent delusion. Unless you have some objective evidence, it’s your word against mine. The fact that all religion throughout history has been based upon conflicting subjective experiences and the credulity of those the experiencer can convince places the probability of it being “actual” as being NIL. A god that truly loved us and wanted us to experience him would not play games like this. An actual god would not use anonymous texts in ancient obsolete languages written 100s of years after their supposed occurrences as a test for how gullible we are. There is NO textual evidence that could be presented to any rational person that would truly be convincing. Your worldview is based upon wishful thinking and your own peculiar interpretation of the nature of reality.

  36. Jack Napper May 5, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    Respectfully Duane,

    Do you have a rational or scientific argument to put forth for your position or just all question begging epithets and name calling?

    If you decide to put forth an argument, please include your foundational basis for how you account in a naturalistic universe.for the existence of immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic that you must use to formulate your argument.

    Todd

    Really? Really Todd? Did you really go back to the well and fish out this fallacious turd?

  37. Billy Joe Grace May 6, 2011 at 3:32 am #

    Your a hard, hard man John Bebbington,
    But your response:
    “Obviously, I’m not so smart. I hadn’t even realised you were an idiot till you told me.”

    ….now that’s pretty funny…
    but you should take some spelling lessons:)

  38. Billy Joe Grace May 6, 2011 at 3:43 am #

    Geno answers:
    I believe physical death has always been here and that Adam’s sin led to spiritual death, not physical death. I believe what seperates us from other animals is our immortal soul and have no idea at what point God decided to grant us that gift.

    A plain reading of scripture indicates that in the beginning, physical death had no hold on man. Theoretically man could have died if he did not partake of the tree of life, but partake of it he would, as it was part of the food provided. Once man was denied access to the garden, and the tree of life, he began his death march.

  39. Billy Joe Grace May 6, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    John Bebbington wrote.

    Please quote a verse in which “Paul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God”.

    The words Lord and God in the indicated context do not appear, but Paul was not shy about who Jesus is. His very name means, GOD with us.
    Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him

    Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    In the beginning who?

  40. andrew Ryan May 6, 2011 at 5:56 am #

    This particular blog is simply one long argument from incredulity.

    There’s no evidence presented and no counter-arguments presented against evolution. Apart from the reference to a modern TV show, the piece is little different to arguments a few hundred years ago presented against heliocentrism. At one point, the germ theory of disease was dismissed as laughable – ‘tiny little creatures we can’t see making us sick? What, like goblins and fairies!?’

    Any scientific explanation might sound like a fairytale if you completely fail to understand it, but that’s not an argument against the evidence.

  41. Derrick Koehler May 6, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    evolution experiment…..

    you’ll need
    one glass jar with lid..
    a scoup of dirt..
    some water..

    Now, take the dirt and put it into the jar.Now add the water and put the lid on tightly.
    Now shake the jar around like never before.

    Now wait for something to come crawling outta that…

    Should be any time now

    Still waiting…………………

  42. Danny May 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    John BebbingtonMay 5th at 6:47 am
    Danny,
    A little bit of serendipity for you. I was browsing a website and by chance came up with this Jefferson quote which is taken from that letter of Reverend Samuel Miller in 1808 from which you quoted. It concludes:
    “Be this as it may, everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.”

    That doesn’t look to me that he wished to impose deism let alone Christianity upon America.
    @John,
    I don’t see how you come up with the statements that you come up with at times. It is like you go off the mark to somewhere that nobody was going. I am not basing my comments on saying every President was for Christianity. I never said that Jefferson was a Christian or wanted Christianity around. I just said that he wasn’t trying to make a separation “church” and “state” in the sense the ACLU says and that so-called separation is NOT in the Constitution was the reason that I jumped into this when I said that Richard Dawkins knows the Constitution like he knows the creation/evolution debate and that is rather poorly. He is just another religious charismatic leader who has his followers, following his doctrine. This country was founded on God, on Christianity but many of our Presidents were NOT Christian whether they were deists or agnostics or pagans or witches or whatever does not change the fact of our founding, foundation being God. The so-called mention of separation of church and state was to show that the state wasn’t going to try and control the church or the other way around. BUT because our country was founded on God, all of our laws were based on the Ten Commandments as Regan said in one of his speeches when he was President. Did you read my post to you on this subject? Every President that I know up claimed to be a Christian since he knew it would be close to impossible to become a President without that claim. I gave you a few quotes from past Presidents and leaders in America and just about all of them claimed to be Christians whether they were or not. Jesus Christ is in many if not most of our state constitutions.
    What you don’t seem to see is that the uSA should not care what any one President wants if it is not in line with the Constitution. This country was founded on God/Jesus. We don’t need anarchy or churcharchy or religionarchy, we NEED Godarchy back in America. In other words, our laws based on the word of God as they once were. The Ten Commandments are being thrown out and America is crumbling fast.

    Danny Bunn

  43. Danny May 7, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    DANIEL WEBSTER, AMERICAN ORATOR, SECRETARY OF STATE for 3 US Presidents, 1782-1852: “If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering & to prosper, but if we & our posterity neglect its instructions & authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us & bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”

    Based on Webster’s words, we as a nation who have turned our backs on God are seeing what Webster said above taking place in our society. Our glory is being buried now, much of the world is laughing at us, mocking us, ridiculing us for our big shot attitude, unconstitutional wars that we are starting with little nations and the like. Many of our laws are non-laws from abortion to homosexuality (sodomy) to many other types of perversions, such as adultery or fornication to drunkenness. Evolution has been made the unofficial “official religion of the masses under the guise of science. Bush said that the Constitution is nothing but a God Da.. piece of paper. God is allowing men to be put into office to help destroy this nation as he has done with his people in the Old Testament. We must fall if there is no repentance.

    Danny Bunn

  44. Mark James May 8, 2011 at 4:08 am #

    Hi John,

    I wrote: “[A good example of this is the healing that occurs in nature. You can cut your finger and by the most extraordinary, unguided, application of a complex series of processes the wound can be healed so perfectly that it is indistinguishable from undamaged tissue. In every sense of the word this is miraculous but because it happens every day we take it for granted.]”

    You replied: “No, we don’t. Science has discovered the clotting mechanism and we now know how and why it works. If a phenomenon has a known physical mechanism it is not miraculous.”

    Please explain the physical mechanism that put this physical mechanism (hemostasis) in place, remembering that every single component and every single step in the process is essential and had to be present and operating from the very beginning (and from the time that the cardiovascular system first appeared).

  45. John Bebbington May 9, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    Billy Joe wrote:

    Your a hard, hard man John Bebbington,
    But your response:
    “Obviously, I’m not so smart. I hadn’t even realised you were an idiot till you told me.”
    “now that’s pretty funny”

    but you should take some spelling lessons:)

    Billy, that should be: “You are” and not “Your”

  46. Jennifer Preston May 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Derrick Koehler Wrote:

    “evolution experiment”..

    you’ll need
    one glass jar with lid..
    a scoup of dirt..
    some water..

    Now, take the dirt and put it into the jar.Now add the water and put the lid on tightly.
    Now shake the jar around like never before.

    Now wait for something to come crawling outta that

    Should be any time now”

    Except that it is not quite as simple as that.

  47. Jack Napper May 9, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    Please explain the physical mechanism that put this physical mechanism (hemostasis) in place, remembering that every single component and every single step in the process is essential and had to be present and operating from the very beginning (and from the time that the cardiovascular system first appeared).

    Argument from incredulity.
    God of the gaps.

    Nice attempt at irreducible complexity nonsense. I think it’s pure comedy not only a misunderstanding of what you are arguing but the backwards thinking you must employee to write such nonsense.

    Oh and I suggest that you read up on the works of Hermann Joseph Miller who wrote 9and I over-simplified it here for you) that irreducible complexity is a predictable result of evolution. He wrote this some 50 years before Michael Behe was even born.

  48. John Bebbington May 9, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Mark wrote:

    Please explain the physical mechanism that put this physical mechanism (hemostasis) in place, remembering that every single component and every single step in the process is essential and had to be present and operating from the very beginning (and from the time that the cardiovascular system first appeared).

    Untrue. Google “CB200.2 “

  49. John Bebbington May 9, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Thanks, Billy Joe,

    You made my point.

  50. David Ray May 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    @Stephen,

    This time, I’m going to start from the end and work my way backwards.

    S. Holshouser writes:
    “I think you know in your heart there is coming a day where all will give account to God. It is programmed into you.”

    D. Ray responds:
    And I think that you know in your heart that you know there is no evidence for your claims and that you believe a lie. Truthfully, I have no idea what is “in your heart”. Nor do you know what is in mine. So, given that neither of us can say what is “in each others’ hearts”, please stop with these statements. If you can tell me what I “really” think, I can just as easily tell you what you “really” think. It’s quite silly really. Deal with the evidence and the facts please and stop telling me what I think. You’ve never even met me.
    =================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    “God will not stand before you, but you before Him. If you think His actions have been unreasonable, remember that He is infinite, and we are finite As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts.”

    D. Ray responds:
    … by repeating his request for extrabiblical evidence to support these statements.

    I could just as easily claim that when you die you’ll stand before the Magical Jug of Milk (MJM) that speaks to me at breakfast and that MJM is infinite even as we are finite, and that His ways are higher then ours, and the MJM’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts. However, I’m willing to say that I have no evidence to support my claim. Until you come up with evidence, my claims remain as valid as yours. Again, stop making unsupported statements and argue the facts and evidence. Otherwise, I quit because I refuse to waste my time.
    =================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    “No one says the rules came into being when Jesus spoke them on the earth. They have been in the heart and conscience of man from the beginning. However, no one has kept them. We can’t even keep the rules we make up for ourselves.”

    D. Ray responds:
    Yes, I believe they’ve been around for a long time as well. I believe that having these instincts for the preservation of the ingroup (the population you consider ‘yours’) confer an evolutionary advantage to the species. Thus, populations with individuals having these traits were better able to reproduce and thereby passed them on to the next generation. Thus, most people will feel the urge toward empathy. The difference is that I have experimental evidence that dedicated researchers from multiple cultural backgrounds can replicate to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, have a 2000 year old book written by a group of semi-nomadic bronze age people with (in my opinion) delusions of grandeur. Which is more reasonable, 1) trusting verifiable evidence from researchers that you can talk to and experiments that you can replicate or 2) trusting a mostly illiterate population in the ancient middle east who were surrounded (and often dominated by) rival (and often larger) cultures and who might have made up a god who “loves them best” to feel better?
    =================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    This is why we need Jesus. Because His life was the substitution for those of us who failed miserably to do what was required of us. He then took the punishment that sinners deserved on Himself that they might go free.

    D. Ray responds:
    I disagree with you. I assume from what you’ve written that you think I will be punished in Hell for an eternity for my sins. Please correct me if I’m wrong. You stated that Jesus “took the punishment that sinners [I] deserved”. It that’s true, he should be in Hell for eternity. However, all I ever hear is that he is at the right hand of the father. Seems to me that he had a bad weekend with the knowledge that he would come through it ok in the end. Do I get the same option? If not, then Jesus didn’t take my punishment.
    ==================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    “Read thru the dietary, anti-sexual immorality, and cleansing laws in Leviticus, which turn out to be good for us today”

    D. Ray responds:
    Chapters and verses please, and I will do just that. Now, I suggest you go read up on evolutionary theory and find out what it actually predicts rather than the caricature presented by Eric and Kent. They’ve been called out on this multiple times.
    ==================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    “What makes your rules better than say, a Muslim cleric forcing Sharia law on those around him, or a communist dictator forcing communism on his country for the good of the whole? Any response you have will be based on your own reasoning and what you “feel is right in your heart.” Without “Thus saith the Lord” the communists or terrorists idea of what is good and right is just as valid as yours. The Judge of all the earth gets to say what is right and wrong, good and bad.”

    D. Ray responds:
    Did you even read what I wrote? How us asking someone to consider how their actions impact others the same as a dictator forcing a system on others? It appears that you are very good at asking questions but not as expert at answering them. The rest of the quote is irrelevant because you still haven’t provided extrabiblical evidence for your Judge. Remember, MJM is watching you.
    ===================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    Some stuff defining sins of the flesh.

    D. Ray responds:
    This was part of the discussion about why I don’t just tell my kids to live like Jesus. I think I handled that reasonably well with the other points I made. For the sake of brevity, I’m going to let this one be. However, I would ask that you be more clear next time. I’m a godless heathen. It doesn’t make much sense to use biblical terms on me.
    ===================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    “The ability to create the universe and hold it in existence necessarily makes Him truth. Since He creates reality and has the power to do with it as He wills, His very essence and being is the truth / reality. He is the ultimate reality, the source of all truth. Intra-biblical support; John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life”

    D. Ray responds:
    I’ll quote myself. “It appears that you are very good at asking questions but not as expert at answering them.” I specifically asked for extrabiblical support. You responded by quoting the bible. Again, I’m a godless heathen. You might as well have quoted James T. Kirk or Keanu Reeves to me.
    ====================================
    S. Holshouser writes:
    I don’t think he was referring to asking deep, thoughtful questions about reality or the universe, but rather, that there are inappropriate questions or questions that deter from the main issue that should not be posed to non-believers.”

    D. Ray responds:
    I could see that interpretation. That’s all I have time for for now. Faculty meeting followed by at date with the wife.