Our Websites

Feedback Friday 8/27/2010

Feedback Friday Vlog

Science vs the Scientific Method

Die writes in on the blog “Six Meanings of Evolution”:

Here we go again.
“Obviously no one explained to him that science means knowledge.”
Because obiously, it doesn’t. Science is the method to aquire new knowledge.

Die I believe you are confusing “Science” with the “Scientific Method.”

“Science” in the Dictionary is defined as:
1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Scientific Method: A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
You see, science is knowledge, that is what the word means.

What is “Evolution”

After reading some of the other comments on this blog, I have to tell you, it seems that there is a lack of intellectual honesty over the term “evolution.” Let me explain.

Any time an Evolutionist refers to “Evolution” in the broad sense, he is referring to what I will call today “big picture” evolution, which includes all six types of evolution referred to in the blog.

When the Evolutionists claim that evolution is only referring to “macro” or “micro” evolution and that “cosmology” is not part of “evolution,” they are playing a little game called bait and switch.

Of course they believe in Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution (a biogenesis). But because there is no evidence of it and science can’t explain it, they pretend that it is not part of evolution so that they don’t have to face the fact that their theory is a desperate attempt to suppress the truth.

So come on, let’s get honest with ourselves. Let’s call evolution what it really is: It is a religious worldview that attempts to answer the basic questions of life and has no scientific backing whatsoever!

Dragons on Animal Planet

Several commenters tried to inform us that Animal Planet was just bringing mythology to life, and that they really don’t believe it.

Jay, H Bosma, Doktor and David have all tried to claim that I was making up the fact that the Animal Planet team believes that dragons were real creatures. Well, here it is; see for yourself!

Is Morality from God or Man?

Lesley writes in on this blog as well:

Lloyd Gale wrote: “If there is ‘no such thing as God,’ then there is no such thing as right or wrong.”

Why? Shouldn’t humanity as a whole or on an individual level decide what is right and wrong based on the moral obligation that we have to each other, not simply what was written in a book. In your world does right and wrong only exist because of “God” and not due to your own morals?

Lesley, was Hitler wrong for killing the Jews? You see, when we all have our own morals, no one can be “wrong.” It is just what is right for you, is right for YOU; what is right for me, is right for ME!

Lesley also writes:

Eric Kiser wrote: ”The evidence for dinosaur and man living in the same time period is overwhelming.”
Overwhelming? Hmm, I’d like to see some of this “overwhelming” evidence, Eric. Perhaps you could link us to a site or suggest a book on the topic? I, however, have only ever seen evidence to the contrary.

Well Lesley, here are a couple for you to start with! Enjoy.
Dinosaurs with Man
Seminar 3: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Beginnings Session 4: Dinosaurs with Man
Claws, Jaws and Dinosaurs
Truth about Dinosaurs DVD

,

Leave22 Responses to testFeedback Friday 8/27/2010

  1. David Ray August 27, 2010 at 8:08 am #

    Re: Dragons.
    Eric, I’ll point out what you wrote once more. “Shocking! Animal planet admits dragons once lived on earth!”

    Even in the video you posted, they do no such thing. Listen to the words spoken. They ask the question, “Were dragons real creatures?” “The…team isn’t convinced the dragons are simply a fantasy.” Just admit it, you heard what you wanted to hear, not what was actually said. Either that, or point out at what point they “admit that dragons once lived on earth!” I find it telling that you don’t address any of our comments regarding the information posted at under the “The Show” link at Animal Planet.

    In reality, it doesn’t matter. Real science is done by real scientists, not television producers.
    =====================================
    Re: What is evolution.
    You say, “Any time an Evolutionist refers to “Evolution” in the broad sense, he is referring to what I will call today “big picture” evolution, which includes all six types of evolution referred to in the blog.”

    I could just as easily say, “Any time a creationist refers to “Creation” in the broad sense, he is referring what I will call today “a big bowl of chocolate ice cream”, which includes all of the delicious M&Ms you can handle.” That doesn’t make it true. As you have been informed over and over again, when an evolutionary biologist refers to evolution, he is referring to change in living organisms over time due to alterations in gene and allele frequencies in populations and to how these changes can accumulate over time to produce diverse new species. Once again, you have constructed a straw man.

    Don’t you see? Its no wonder there have been no changes in the textbooks. You are arguing against something that doesn’t exist. As long as you are fighting a figment of your imagination, you will always be punching at air. Make an effort to understand the reality of evolution and then argue against it. Such an effort would at least be worthwhile.

    I could go on but have no time for it at the moment. Real science awaits!

  2. I.B. Trolling August 27, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    Let’s call evolution what it really is: It is a religious worldview that attempts to answer the basic questions of life and has no scientific backing whatsoever!
    ___________________

    Since when did “religious worldview” become such a bad word?

  3. David Ray August 27, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    “Lesley, was Hitler wrong for killing the Jews? ”
    Wow. Eric Godwin’d himself.

  4. Gary Hendricks August 27, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    Don’t you think your response to Lesley was very disingenuous?? If the evidence was truly “overwhelming” you certainly would not have to rely on your own propaganda.

  5. lee pallister August 27, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    Hi Lesley,

    God has answers in his book if you want to read it?

    Recorded:
    Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

    If someone told you their was millions of pounds of treasure buried 50 feet under your garden and had written proof by someone that use to live their in recent history, Would you believe him?

    You may well be rich?

    When the Lord Jesus saves someone by grace, Its greater than any treasure imaginable, I praise My Lord and father every day for saving a sinner like me, I’ve broken all is commendments in deed and in thought, yet he came from the glory of heaven, was despised of by men and willing died on calvary for sinners. Are you one of them Lesley? I really hope so because the alternative is just to horrific to even imagine.

    I really urge you to seek the Lord with all your heart, don’t be blinded by philosophy, if you want the truth seek The Lord God with everything you have.

    God has given us his book which testifies to all his Glory.

    k.rgs
    lee.

  6. Nigel McNaughton August 27, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    The bait and switch is all yours Eric. The only people who talk about the 6 types of Evolution are Kent and Eric,… and his followers, it’s a classic sign.

    Lets do a quick look at Amazon,.. search for Evolution.

    Evolution, Second Edition by Douglas J. Futuyma
    Hmm, not about The Big Bang, or the formation of Planets or Stars…

    Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne
    Gosh still not about the Big Bang, or Planets or Abiogenesis.

    The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
    Nope still not about The Big Bang, or Stars, or Planets or “Chemical Evolution”.

    Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story by Lisa Westberg Peters
    Nope, Not about The Big Bang.

    Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution by Steve Jenkins
    Dang, still not a book on The Big Bang.

    Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero and Carl Buell
    Hmm nope, not a Book on The Big Bang or Stellar Evolution etc.

    Don’t the Evilutionists know they are supposed to be writing about the Evolution of The Universe!

  7. Nigel McNaughton August 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    Only Modern YEC’s take a bible verses about the sexual prowess of jewish monster Bull, Behemoth and try and twist into a dinosaur.

  8. Nigel McNaughton August 27, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

    And since I got no answer before, Eric do *you* think it’s right to use fake quotes?

    I mean clearly us godless heathens can kill and lie etc as much as we like. But I am asking you if you think using fake quotes is a good or a bad thing.

  9. Jeff Brace August 27, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    “Don’t you think your response to Lesley was very disingenuous?? If the evidence was truly “overwhelming” you certainly would not have to rely on your own propaganda.”

    Why may I ask is it propoganda? It is clearly stated that this website is an educational tool for believers. The evidence is very clear to those who are not denying creation. We hold to the Word of God that those who don’t believe in creation are blinded by their own denial of a true God and the consequence of that.

  10. Jay Liverstitch August 27, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Eric I think its you who needs to get honest with yourself. I have never referred to evolution as any thing other than biological, continual change of living forms accross generations except for when I was young and uneducated. What’s interesting is that it was your father’s seminar that was responsible for my mis-understanding. In reality, the only people I ever hear refer to the big bang as evolution is… well, you and your dad.

    I will concede this point: I do believe that the big bang occured (Inflationary Big Bang), that chemical synthesis (Standard Model of particle physics) occured shortly thereafter and that stars (and later planets) were pulled together by the force of gravity (General Relativity). But note: each of these activities have their own associated theories to explain how they occurred, and nobody outside you two call any of them evolution. So while we’re getting honest, admit it, you label any scientific field or theory that you don’t like as evolution. I guess because you think it’ll resonate better with your audience, given the current state of acceptance of the actual Theory of Evolution.

    On the Animal Planet special: just watch it. The people who put this together don’t believe dragons existed in any literal sense, and they state that rather plainly in the special. Dont be lazy, watch it, then come back here and be honest with us. I dare you.

    Jay

  11. Jay Liverstitch August 27, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    On the Hitler point:

    There is a difference between univerasl consensus and objective truth. Was it wrong for Hitler to murder 6 million people? I say yes, you say yes, and pretty much any non-psychopath would say yes. Does this mean that there is some objective self-existent standard stating murder is wrong? Nope. It means simply, that we agree on this topic, as you’ll find nearly all of humanity does.

    Let me illustrate. Would murder be wrong if humans did’t exist? Its a stupid question because not only would there be no concept of murder, but there would be no concept of “wrong”. The concept of wrong is a construct designed by nature and imbedded in our consciousness becaise otherwise, our species wouldn’t have survived thus far. We exist BECAUSE we universally find mass murder, amoung other things, to be repulsive and detestable.

  12. Jay Liverstitch August 27, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    …Continued (love this new Droid 2 but I gotta stop fat fingering that submit button :-)

    When we say there is no objective standard of truth, we’re not relinquishing our own nature which gives us our moral sense. Michael Shermer puts it this way; when we ask “why should we be moral” we’re asking the wrong question. It’s like asking “why should we be hungry”. The qustion is, why ARE we moral? Humans (and most other animals) are moral creatures. Your Hitler question actually illustrates rather well. Like hunger, morality has aided in our species ability to work together, which has contributed to our survival thus far. As individuals, we can no more will ouselves not to find mass murder wrong, than we could will ouselves to not feel hunger when we don’t eat.

    So when you ask a person if Hitler was wrong, ofcourse they’ll say yes. Ask my turtle, Shelly, and I bet she doesn’t care in the least. She has a moral sense that guides her not to eat her own young, but she, nor the rest of universe will bat an eye no matter how many people Hitler kills. This is what we mean when we say there is no objective morality.

    Jay

  13. Joakim Rosqvist August 28, 2010 at 1:21 am #

    >> Lesley, was Hitler wrong for killing the Jews? You see, when we all have our own morals, no one can be “wrong.” It is just what is right for you, is right for YOU; what is right for me, is right for ME!

    Introducing a god doesn’t solve that problem though – there is no common right or wrong when everyone has their own ideas about in which book “God” has written his law, which paragraph from that book is relevant for the current situation and how that paragraph is to be interpreted.

    Let us discuss the moral problems themselves instead of pretending that every answer is in a book.

  14. Jack Napper August 28, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    “When the Evolutionists claim that evolution is only referring to “macro” or “micro” evolution and that “cosmology” is not part of “evolution,” they are playing a little game called bait and switch.”

    No what you are doing is taking a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory and combining it with your misinformation and misunderstanding of Atheism and what you think they ALL believe (or must) and dump it into this thing you call EVOLUTIONISM.

    “Of course they believe in Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution (a biogenesis).”

    Thank you for showing two things. One the fact that you think these thing “evolved into being” and that stars and checmicals “evolve” (only in documentaries using language for the masses sometime called dumb-speak) and the fact that you think ABIOGENESIS is two words.

    “But because there is no evidence of it and science can’t explain it,”

    Sticking your head in the sand and pretending no evidence has been presented is intellectual dishonesty. If you don’t accept the evidence outright that’s fine but pretending none exists is another. Of course why do you work so hard (and fail with an understanding of science that would make a pre-schooler laugh) to discredit something you say doesn’t exist?

    “they pretend that it is not part of evolution so that they don’t have to face the fact that their theory is a desperate attempt to suppress the truth.”

    Yes and so is the theory of relativity because it doesn’t explain where the matter and energy came from. Heck, neither does gravitational theory either. Guess we should throw those out!

    “So come on, let’s get honest with ourselves. Let’s call evolution what it really is…”

    Something you CLEARLY don’t understand and proof that maybe you should have paid more attention in grade school science classes instead of eating paste.

    I’d love to write about the section on morality but I’ll let others have fun playing SPOT THE LOGICAL FALLACIES AND UTTER FLAWS IN THIS ARGUMENT.

  15. Ryan Vinter August 28, 2010 at 3:22 am #

    Earth to Gary the whole world is full of evolution propaganda,
    Unfortunately for you, you think that its a fact.

  16. Jay Liverstitch August 28, 2010 at 6:21 am #

    I just noticed a typo. In my last post, the second sentence should read” when we say there is no objective standard of MORALITY”

  17. Caleb Fielding August 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Question for Eric.

    Have you ever heard the song in six days God made everything but God is still working on me? I am asking because It has the theme of God is still working in peoples lives and of course changing people. For instance take james chalmer and how he led many cannibals in new guinea to Christ, or jim eliot and his fellow missionaries, or david livingstone (who just made the news recently although he has been dead for over a hundred years) or george muller . I know the theme of this website is creation science, but could you highlight some of these men God used.

    For instance david livingstone is impossible for the atheist to ignore so instead of saying he made his great contribution to science because he wanted to see africa get saved, they say it was because he had an insatiable drive to explore.

    wikipedia cuts out the years james chalmers changed new guinea, with the gospel, out of their New guinea entry.

    Many more men (and women like elezebeth eliot) could be commented on, but to keep this short let me end the list here. I am only bringing this up because these are men that without question God moved on, and is a good reminder God is still moving outside of the first six days.

    by the way you are doing a great job with the website keep it up.

  18. Jack Napper August 28, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    “Earth to Gary the whole world is full of evolution propaganda,
    Unfortunately for you, you think that its a fact.”

    OK I’ll bite. Give me some propaganda and then show scientifically debunk it. Oh I see you just like to parrot nonsense.

    Polly want a cracker?

  19. David Ray August 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    @Ryan,

    There is a difference between science and propaganda.

    Evolution is a theory that has developed for over 150 years and is well supported by the facts observed by biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, etc. from many ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. The people who have helped to develop the theory are all able to look at the facts objectively and come to a similar conclusion – evolution is a fact and it works.

    Propaganda is an organized attempt by a single or few organizations to spread rumors (very often untrue) to harm a group, movement, nation, etc.

    So, here we have two groups:
    Group one is a collection of scientists from vastly different cultures, ethnicities, and religions all converging on a single common conclusion.

    Group two is a small group of people who are all motivated by a devotion to a single set of texts produced by an ancient group of bronze-age authors.

    Group one is able to demonstrate their evidence at every turn and actually use the information from their theory to make positive changes to the way we live – produce medicine, predict epidemics, prevent epidemics. Group two mainly complains about group one but produces not a single piece of positive evidence for their position. Instead, they appear to only try to drag down group one.

    Now, which one is the propaganda again?

  20. David Ray August 28, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    Also @ Ryan.

    Really. You missed Gary’s point completely. I think he was pointing out that if there were evidence for dinosaurs and man living together, it would come from multiple diverse sources. Sources such as scientific research publications, which are available for anyone to see for free at any library.

    Nope, instead Eric trots out ‘evidence’ from his own library of things he wants people to buy.

  21. Julie Collins August 29, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    oh my, so sad to see hovind haters… but hey, like belly buttons, people have opinions, now here is mine:

    i completely agree, the atheist worldview holds its morality is the powers, whoever holds power writes the rules, and even then you do not have to follow it. in the christian religion, we all believe that the bible holds all the moral laws, and unbeknown to atheist, or at least willingly ignored by atheist, is that everyone who taught them morals, was at some point taught by a religious person.

    without religion, IF evolution took place, we would have all died out, if you look EVERYWHERE in history, not a single place shows morals brought without religious motivation. no child brought up by wolves in the rain-forest is going to know anything dealing with morals.

    as for dinosaurs, i have seen the evidence and agree with it, i have not been there and seen it for myself so i would not know for myself.

  22. Nigel McNaughton August 30, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    Ah Julie, you might need to check your talking points. Your example of the feral child runs counter to the religious belief that God has stamped his moral law on our hearts.