How to question evolution in class | Creation Today

Our Websites

How to question evolution in class

A teenage boy recently asked a question from our Facebook page. My heart goes out to him with everything he is going through. Here is what he wrote:

Hi my name is Eli and I have been watching you and your dad for about a year now, and just want to say you have made a massive impact in my life. But I have a question and I’m really worried. I’m only 14 so I’m in high school. But my biotechnology teacher was talking to the class today about evolution and was saying that you can’t “believe” in evolution, you “know” evolution and that there is so much evidence in the DNA that supports it, that it is closed minded to not accept it. I raised my hand and asked if we were going to learn anything about intelligent design. She of course said not, ruling it off as unscientific and that you can’t test it. I have no idea what to do because I want to defend my beliefs or at least be able to argue my point and not have to hear about how amazing evolution is every day. I’m sure you get kids all the time in my position so what should I do? I don’t want to be rude in a sense of destroying her in a debate (all debate skills I have, I learned from you guys) but I don’t want her converting kids away from God because they are NOT hearing the opposing ID viewpoints. So I would really appreciate it if you could let me know what to do.

In case you don’t see it, here is a 14-year-old kid on the front lines of the battle for souls here in America. He is battling for truth in the minds of his peers. There are kids like this in just about every high school, youth group, and college campus around America.  They are a young, but determined, army that is doing all they can to battle against the tide of humanism and the lies of evolution that suck the truth out of people’s lives and leave them wondering what life is all about. They are desperately trying to link arms with others that are fighting the same fight, and being hit with the same questions.

Here were a few of my thoughts:

First, thanks for standing up for what is right. It takes a lot of courage to do that. I also appreciate that you are not trying to just make the teacher look bad. That is wise and I commend you for being that mature. 1 Peter 3:15 says that we need to be able to speak this truth in love and be humble about the fact that we are right.

One great tactic in approaching your teacher is to ask good questions. Things like:

  1. How did information arise out of matter?
  2. How did order come from disorder?
  3. How did life come from non-life?
  4. How did everything come from nothing?

These are the kinds of questions that show Evolution to be a religious worldview just like Creation. You see, “science” deals with things that we can see, test and demonstrate, so Evolution is not part of science as it cannot be seen, tested or demonstrated.

The questions above reveal the truth of their beliefs. Evolution really is a religious worldview. We cover that issue in Session 1 of the series Beginnings.

Now, according to 1 Peter 3:15, you also need good answers to tough questions as they come up. A great book that covers what the teacher is teaching and exposes the lies that are being taught is Dr. Hovind’s new book, Help, I’m Being Taught Evolution In My Biology Class. It is a great resource for getting to the truth.

You may want to watch the session, “Lies in the Textbooks” from our Creation Seminar as well. It covers lots of things that are being taught right now in the textbooks that are just not true.

Praying that this helps.

,

51 Responses to How to question evolution in class

  1. andrew Ryan April 5, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    “It covers lots of things that are being taught right now in the textbooks that are just not true.”

    Hi Eric! Before you go any further talking about lies in textbooks, could you just tell us which textbook/s made the claim that there is no life after death. Your father clearly claimed that this can be found in textbooks, so it shouldn’t be hard for you to offer a cite on this.

    Many thanks.

    Andrew

  2. John Bebbington April 5, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    One great tactic in approaching your teacher is to ask good questions. Things like:

    How did information arise out of matter?

    Slowly.

    But, sensible woman that she is, she would be honest and tell him that we don’t yet know – just like 400 years ago we didn’t know what light was or 200 years ago what electricity was or 100 years ago how life passed “information” from generation to generation.

    The teacher could ask the kid for a bit of fun why he thought that was there a place called the Land of Nod when there were only 3 or 4 people on Earth none of whom were called Nod? Or why Cain decided to build a city there for just him, his wife and his son?

    How did order come from disorder?

    By the application of energy. Trying baking a cake or learning about thermodynamics or, preferably, both. Is a cake more ordered after it comes out of the oven than before the ingredients were mixed?

    How did life come from non-life?

    Don’t know. Therefore, Jesus cured illness by casting out devils into pigs.

    How did everything come from nothing?

    Only creationists think that it did. The kid could try asking his teacher what is the net energy of the universe. She might tell him that it is zero and then ask the unfortunate brain-washed fellow “In which case, what was created?”

  3. Joshua Powell April 5, 2011 at 9:59 am #

    Well I don’t know about you, Mr. Bebbington, but I’m certainly more complex and intelligent than a cake. A cake certainly isn’t living, so it’s quite a poor and irrelevant example. Try blending up all the ingredients for a LIVING thing and putting it in the oven. What do you think would happen? I think the result would be neither alive nor tasty.

    And you also claim that only creationists think that everything came from nothing. I ask you then: what did it come from? And what did that come from and what did that come from and what did that come from, and so on and so forth. Also, WHEN did it come? When did time start? It can’t have been going on for infinity, by basic logic, so what created time?

  4. Jack Napper April 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    I raised my hand and asked if we were going to learn anything about intelligent design. She of course said not, ruling it off as unscientific and that you can’t test it.

    Absolutely right. Not only was ID shot down in the courts it has been ruled unscientific by consensus. Heck, even the ID proponents can’t figure out any form of testing other than “it looks designed” or “it’s too complicated so let’s just say it was designed”.

    One great tactic in approaching your teacher is to ask good questions. Things like:

    How did information arise out of matter?
    How did order come from disorder?
    How did life come from non-life?
    How did everything come from nothing?

    None of these things have anything to do with evolution. At most the kid will look ignorant. The teacher is trying to teach. What are you doing?

    These are the kinds of questions that show Evolution to be a religious worldview just like Creation.

    Just keep telling yourself that Eric. Maybe one day your fairy godmother will make it come true. I find it funny that you’re trying to say that “oh evolution is just a worldview”. Thus Creation SCIENCE is a really silly term then isn’t it.

    The questions above reveal the truth of their beliefs.

    FACEPALM

    Evolution really is a religious worldview.

    Repeating it and underlining it doesn’t make it more true.

    We cover that issue in Session 1 of the series Beginnings.

    And here’s the sales pitch. Too bad all the resources you suggest have been picked apart. Say, what ever happened to your dad’s promise that if you prove him wrong he’ll stop repeating garbage? Guess you didn’t make the same promise did you Eric?

  5. Charles Terry April 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    John, I think you forgot that electricity can be tested and the same with light. That’s science. Theory’s cannot be tested, you might want to call it science, but the fact is, it is still a theory. I have a theory that watermelons are florescent orange on the inside until the rhine is cut or damaged somehow. Prove me wrong. That is just a stupid theory like the evolutionist religion teaches as fact. Your arguments are typical, no proof just hate and trying to belittle others that appose your religion. I pray you will see the truth before you die. Because by then it will be to late. Jesus was the truth, even if you don’t want to believe in him. Fact is, his followers spent years recording who He was and what He did. How about this theory, everything came from absolutely nothing, and I mean everything. (All the solar systems and everything they contain came from nothing in a the big bang.) That takes some monumental faith.

  6. Mr T April 5, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    In the UK my eldest son (8 years) is starting to be “primed” by the school for the idea of evolution with a far too generic definition of the term:
    Evolution = change over time.

    Other than correcting the term “change” to say something like “improvement” or “positive change” or “development”, do you have any other suggestions or better definitions that will stop this mis-guidance (deliberate or not) by the teacher/education system?

  7. andrew Ryan April 5, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Charles Terry, you need to look up the scientific meaning of ‘theory’. Your watermelon example doesn’t qualify. Start off with imperical observation. Propose an explanation for it. Attemp to falsify it. Use the theory to make predictions, then see if they come true. Evolution qualifies for all the above.

    “How about this theory, everything came from absolutely nothing”

    Still nothing to do with evolution. But since you brought it up, what God make the universe from, if not nothing? And if NOT nothing, where did that something come from?

  8. Steve Brule April 5, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    Well in all fairness, we should also have the teacher fully demonstrate all viewpoints of all religions and world views and how they explain the great questions of life as well, not just intelligent design.

    And to assist John Bebbington, there is much evidence and logic to explain how life came from non-life. It all really revolves around what is considered life to decide at what point life arose, but there is a very clear path.

    The Stanley Miller experiment is an amazing and repeatable demonstration of how life may have began. He recreated the atmosphere that was believed to have existed in the very early stages of the Earth by vacuuming out all of the air, particularly oxygen, of a closed series of tubes and beakers, and inserted gaseous ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, and systematically sparked this gaseous combination for an extended period of time.

    What was found after only a few days were evidence that given energy input, these very basic molecules could rearrange and form complex organic molecules. 12 of the 21 essential amino acids for protein creation and 3 of the 5 nucleobases found in DNA and RNA were created with no guidance or assistance other than the input of electrical energy to allow these anabolic reactions to occurr. Various other essential organic molecules were formed, most importantly ribose.

    So with this empirically demonstrable evidence that the essential organic molecules can form in only a matter of days, it can be logically assumed that given enough time and energy input from lightning and plenty of other sources, the rest of the nucleobases would form and at some point, randomly link up with ribose. The amino acids could also likely form into some form of the RNA polymerase enzymes that all living beings today make use of.

    By combining one RNA polymerase, which is really just a particular combination of amino acids, with a ribose chain with nucleobases attached, the RNA pol could have enzymatically allowed even more nucleobases to be attached to the ribose chain. The beauty of this primitive form of ssRNA is that it could self replicate granted another primitive ribose chain and RNA polymerase were nearby. Nucleobases become polar when they bind on one end to the ribose, increasing the chances of a similar polar molecule to come along and link up to this primitive RNA structure, thus making double stranded RNA. With a primitive RNA polymerase, a break in the hydrogen bonds between nucleobases, and a nearby chain of ribose, the RNA polymerase would have a good chance of binding to the Ribose chain and adding nucleobases to it. As this occurrs more and more, statistically, the chains would become more and more similar to each other as they would be more likely to form the more stable double stranded RNA molecules when the nucleobases match up (A-T(or U), G-C). This shows how chemical bonding potentials can create a greater chance for organic molecules to form, and how these organic molecules can act in a way to self-replicate, and over time perfect the process through statistically favored chance.

    The idea of “random chance” isn’t exactly accurate when talking about evolution. Had all creationists taken Biochem and molecular bio, they’d understand that enzymes significantly reduce the level of random chance needed for an organic chemical reaction to occur. And enzymes only work by having a particular order of amino acids, which are just elements bonded and arranged in a particular order, the shape and bonding potential of which simply make certain reactions much more easily occurr.

    So as I’ve explained, primitive RNA is believed to be the first true form of self-replicating life. It wouldn’t take much time or energy or chance for the building blocks of RNA to form, but it would take a lot of time and chance for these building blocks to form together.

    Now say over time, more enzymes form through natural chemical bonding with some energy source to allow for more anabolic reactions to occurr. Say a primitive form of the rRNA complex forms, which is highly likely due to chemical bonding potentials. The rRNA has chemical bonding potentials itself that would allow for a chemical change caused by bonding to a nucleobase, and this change would create a bonding potential on the other end of the rRNA molecule that would attach an amino acid. Say this process repeats, and more amino acids add on, which is highly likely due to the chemical bonding potential seen in polypeptide bonds. Say that given enough time for this to occurr many times, that by chance, they happen to get the correct order of amino acids (and with only 21 amino acids, that is a small chance but absolutely mathematically possible given enough time and trials), and another RNA polymerase or rRNA molecule is formed. Now this self-replicating RNA strand can produce for itself the enzyme it needs to more efficiently self-replicate. Given time, this particular RNA strand is going to replicate itself so much more efficiently that over time, it will hog most of the resources needed for this process. Now you have an army of efficiently self-replicating RNA.

    Much in the same way, at some point in this army of efficiently self-replicating RNA molecules, one of them will eventually find a way to make more enzymes and proteins that would serve to increase the efficiency or survivability of this RNA molecule. Given an extremely large amount of time, enough new proteins and enzymes would have been created to catalyze the anabolic reactions required to attach all of the componenets of a primitive cell. This might seem like too random of a chance to actually occurr on its own, but it isn’t random chance. Each new random chemical bond that increases the RNA’s ability to self-replicate and survive will make that particular protein or enzyme more abundant around the RNA, causing a cascade of random chances that each dramatically increase the chances of that same chemical bond occurring again.

    And by a primitive cell, look at bacterial and archeal cells. They have a protective and containing cell wall, a mess of DNA inside the cell wall, and a collection of enzymes and proteins that allow for efficient energy production and survival. That’s extremely primitive compared to eucharyotic cells, but you can see how that tiny amount of material all serve to increase the chances of that particular cell to survive. The DNA within it is already highly capable of self-replicating, and various enzymes allow the cell wall to grow through the middle of the cell, separating its contents and replicated DNA into two separate cells, each containing the same materials that give it an advantage and likelihood of survival and eventual reproduction.

    All evidence points towards eukaryotic cells being a larger cell that instead of trying to reproduce as quickly and efficiently as possible like bacteria do, find ways to exist for longer. These ways come from chance, but it isn’t random chance, it’s inclined chance due to chemical bonding potentials which lead to increased survivability and replication. Eukaryotic cells also show clear evidence of making use of bacterial cells as workhorses for themselves. I could go on and on about how mitochondria is evidence of Eukaryotic cells absorbing a primitive bacteria that was only good at efficiently creating energy, and instead of consuming the bacteria for its basic chemical componenents, allowed the mitochondria to exist within its own cellular membrane to churn out ATP for the eukaryotic cell’s componenets to use for energy.

    So long story short, the building blocks of RNA can form very quickly with little effort. These building blocks are already inclined to bond together due to chemical bonding. Given enough time, these building blocks can form self-replicating RNA, and once something is self-replicating, there’s no stopping it. It’s going to come across new ways to survive and replicate more efficiently until after an enormous amount of time, you see the diversity and efficiency of life today.

    These processes are inclined to happen due to physical and chemical laws of the universe. The origin of these laws is unknown, but because of them, life is and has always been inclined to occurr, and evidence of simple bacterial-esque life has been seen on mars and the moon already. Just because it would require a long time for these large collection of chemical reactions to occurr in just the right way doesn’t mean it isn’t true, especially when we can recreate the beginnings of the process and extensively study the current progress of self-replicating chemical reactions that we call life.

  9. Chase Braud April 5, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    Not that I agree with him, but
    CONGRATZ TO STEVE BRULE FOR THE WORLDS LONGEST BLOG RESPONSE!!!

    By the way, is any one else here noticing the massive invasion of evolution believers into a Creation site and the totally biased and one-sided statements being made. A lot of what is said is belief being wrongly portrayed as fact. That’s a pet peeve of mine. (=

  10. Danny April 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

    Steve, I am just going to cut your second and third paragraphs and your last paragraph and make a few comments because of the size of your post and I don’t mine to be that long since you didn’t really seem to say anything.

    And to assist John Bebbington, there is much evidence and logic to explain how life came from non-life. It all really revolves around what is considered life to decide at what point life arose, but there is a very clear path.
    The Stanley Miller experiment is an amazing and repeatable demonstration of how life may have began. He recreated the atmosphere that was believed to have existed in the very early stages of the Earth by vacuuming out all of the air, particularly oxygen, of a closed series of tubes and beakers, and inserted gaseous ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, and systematically sparked this gaseous combination for an extended period of time.”

    John Bebbington should ask you the same question that I am about to ask you. Where is your evidence? I didn’t read it in your post. I want to share with you just one article that I read on this subject and there are many more than refutes what you said.

    “The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Miller experiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the “Urey-Miller experiment” because of the contribution of Miller’s instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey.) This experiment is the only “evidence” evolutionists have with which to allegedly prove the “chemical evolution thesis”; they advance it as the first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller’s experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things. That is because, aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist researchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments…”

    Here is the last paragraph:

    “In brief, neither Miller’s experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

    All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.”

    You can go to this link and read all the information in between that I left out because of length.
    darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html#top

    And this page has a video that you should watch. Click on the link that says “Evolution for Intellectuals” when you go to this page.
    scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm

    Ekkman

  11. Danny April 5, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    andrew Ryan
    April 5th at 3:11 pm
    Charles Terry, you need to look up the scientific meaning of theory. Your watermelon example doesn’t qualify. Start off with imperical observation. Propose an explanation for it. Attemp to falsify it. Use the theory to make predictions, then see if they come true. Evolution qualifies for all the above.
    “How about this theory, everything came from absolutely nothing”
    Still nothing to do with evolution. But since you brought it up, what God make the universe from, if not nothing? And if NOT nothing, where did that something come from?

    Hi again Andrew,
    You seem to be comparing apples to oranges. You believe that evolution not a supernatural God did all that we see around us. You asked Charles what did God make the universe from. Simple answer, nothing. BUT we are talking about a supernatural God doing a supernatural work in this creation. You are talking about natural processes doing it by blind chance, luck, time and it can’t happen. An almighty God can easily do it in 6 literal days or 6 seconds if he wanted to. I don’t understand why many evolutionists deny believing everything came from nothing. If there was something then where did that something come from? Please explain.

    I’ve shared this a couple of years ago but it is worth repeating. The remark below was said by an evolutionist.

    Darling, David, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996). p. 49 “What is a big deal the biggest deal of all is how you get something out of nothing. “Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ‘ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.”
    Also on p. 49
    “You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.”

    Ekkman

  12. Danny April 5, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

    To Steve Brule,
    Here is another excellent article written on Stanley Miller’s experiment.
    evidencepress.com/bcell4.htm

    The article starts off like this,
    “In attempting to understand how life originated, scientists have long theorized that the first step was the development of proteins. In 1953 there was a famous experiment of a simulated “primordial soup” by Stanley Miller. In providing high energy sparks to hydrogen-rich gases thought to exist on primal Earth, his experiment resulted in the production of some amino acids, which was impressive at the time. It was thought that if amino acids could be spontaneously formed in nature, so might proteins and the organelles needed for life.
    The Stanley Miller experiment had a profound impact on the concept of evolution and is still presented in most biology textbooks. Though this experiment has been heralded as a victory for evolution, it actually does more to show that natural origins are impossible.”

    And just one paragraph from that page under his “Conclusion” to his article to make you hungry for truth.

    “From a natural origins perspective, how did the simplest cell organize itself into life? Scientists can easily provide more than enough of the parts of life and throw them together, but they cannot come close to creating life–as the Miller experiment and others like it shows. Louis Pasteur, an 1800’s pioneer in microbiology, demonstrated that life only comes from life–it does not come from chemicals. Only God can create a living creature or a human being.”

    Check it out and give me your thoughts on it.

    Ekkman

  13. Charles Terry April 5, 2011 at 9:17 pm #

    Andrew you believe nothing created everything, I believe God created everything, big difference. Both take faith. Try the real thing you might like it. I know the watermelon example was not good, but makes my point, it is just as accurate as the evolution lies and deceit

  14. Jack Napper April 5, 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    John, I think you forgot that electricity can be tested and the same with light. That’s science. Theory’s cannot be tested, you might want to call it science, but the fact is, it is still a theory.

    Are you seriously beat this dead horse?

    I have a theory that watermelons are florescent orange on the inside until the rhine is cut or damaged somehow.

    I have a theory that you didn’t bother looking up the definition of scientific theory. How’s that horse by the way? Still dead?

    Prove me wrong.

    The burden of proof is on you. Besides, just shortly after Eric blundered with an entry about logic do you really think you’re gonna earn any points asking someone to PROVE A NEGATIVE?

    The rest of your post is rather silly. Blatant assertive nonsense and unsupported claims of a historic Jesus. You crack me up.

  15. John Bebbington April 6, 2011 at 1:43 am #

    Well I don’t know about you, Mr. Bebbington, but I’m certainly more complex and intelligent than a cake.

    Well, Mr Powell, I’m not so sure. You show me a cake who believes in creationism. 🙂

    I kept the example simple in order to show that the statement that it is impossible to go from disorder to order is incorrect. But, I have to admit, using you as an example is an even better piece of evidence to demonstrate my point.

    You are an example of energy being cohorted from high entropy into low entropy. However, to make Mr Powell required a system involving the sun. In order for you to become ordered the sun had to waste vast amounts (trillions of units) of energy to make one unit of you. For every little sunbeam that hit a parch of earth to grow the wheat to make the bread you eat the rest of the sunbeams shining out from the immense globe of the sun is wasted,

    Overall, the entropy of the sun/Powell system has increased just in order that one ordered low entropy human being could be produced.

    Try blending up all the ingredients for a LIVING thing and putting it in the oven. What do you think would happen? I think the result would be neither alive nor tasty.

    It might be tasty – try beef soup – but you have just proved my point. You have taken a highly ordered living thing and, effectively by taking it apart and breaking down its complexity, run time backwards to make something with considerably less order. A living thing has very low entropy compared to a can of soup.

    <blockquote?
    And you also claim that only creationists think that everything came from nothing. I ask you then: what did it come from? And what did that come from and what did that come from and what did that come from, and so on and so forth. Also, WHEN did it come? When did time start? It can’t have been going on for infinity, by basic logic, so what created time?

    Logic doesn’t come into it. Quantum mechanisms is illogical but true. If you would like to become acquainted with some possible ideas relating to the fascinating questions you raise try going to the Internet where there are many resources to assist. One very good video you could google is by Laurence Krause entitled “A universe from nothing.”

  16. John Bebbington April 6, 2011 at 2:07 am #

    Steve Brule wrote:

    Well in all fairness, we should also have the teacher fully demonstrate all viewpoints of all religions and world views and how they explain the great questions of life as well, not just intelligent design.

    Hear, hear. Poor kids.

    And to assist John Bebbington, there is much evidence and logic to explain how life came from non-life. It all really revolves around what is considered life to decide at what point life arose, but there is a very clear path.

    Thanks Steve. I do know this stuff but it is still conjectural and therefore the only honest answer is “I don’t know how life started.”

    There is an extremely good chapter on the origin of life in Nick Lane’s excellent book “Life Ascending”. Highly recommended.

    I could go on and on about how mitochondria is evidence of Eukaryotic cells absorbing a primitive bacteria that was only good at efficiently creating energy, and instead of consuming the bacteria for its basic chemical componenents, allowed the mitochondria to exist within its own cellular membrane to churn out ATP for the eukaryotic cell’s componenets to use for energy.

    There is a wonderful analogous example of this on the Science Daily website. A species of salamander has been discovered which harbours algae within its cells. The algae is free to come and go but, for some reason, “chooses” to spend much of its time within the cell.

    To view the article, search on “salamander” on the website.

  17. Teresa Casalino April 6, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    The Stanley Miller experiment which you referenced above is faulty and has been not only refuted but replaced several times…

    No true scientist in the world would logically ASSUME a complex outcome based on simplistic results.

    Please see rebuttal below –

    “Stanley Miller’s Experiment”

    Evolutionists theorize that life sprang from non-life early in Earth’s history. This supposedly happened when a bolt of lightning struck the “prebiotic soup,” the term for the oceans that evolutionists believe were teeming with chemical compounds that would eventually form the building blocks of life. However, this speculative scenario is constantly being refuted and then replaced by new ones, which in turn get shot down. According to Antonio Lazcano, professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and president of the International Society for the Study of the Origins of Life, “those trying to discover the origins of life and study the earliest stages of biological evolution have an uphill quest: Over and over it happens that a theory or explanation believed to be well established has to be abandoned or rethought in the light of new findings” (Lazcano 2003: 452).

    The most famous of these scenarios is the experiment by Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago. In the 1950’s, he made a concoction of the chemicals that were believed to have comprised the “prebiotic soup” out of which life theoretically sprang. He passed an electric charge through this mixture in imitation of lightning, and discovered that amino acids did indeed form in the chemicals. The find was and sometimes still is trumpeted as proof of the evolutionists scenario of the formation of life. “But nowadays,” Lazcano points out, “geoscientists tend to doubt that the conditions of the prebiotic environment were as reducing as Miller and others had assumed” (Ibid.). In chemistry, “to reduce” means to remove the oxygen from. In other words, the conditions Miller created in his laboratory did not match the actual conditions of the early Earth.

    Other hypothesized scenarios have replaced Miller’s experiment. One of them is based on the fact that RNA has catalytic properties (that is, properties which speed up reactions that would otherwise take place very slowly). Evolutionists believe that RNA formed by chance from various compounds floating in the prebiotic soup; once formed, RNA then bridged the gap between the first proteins and the first DNA strands. “However, Lazcano points out, “it is now generally accepted that RNA is a frail polymer unlikely to have undergone prebiotic synthesis and accumulation” (Ibid.). In other words, RNA is too fragile to have been formed by itself from various compounds floating in the prebiotic soup.

    Some evolutionists have claimed that there is fossil evidence for the first one-celled life-forms in extremely ancient times. If these discoveries were indeed fossilized life-forms, Darwinism would receive a huge boost. “But, Lazcano notes, “several authors have contested the biological origin of the structures and chemical signatures described” by the proponents of this theory (Ibid.).

    Another theory holds that the first life-forms were highly similar to modern “extremophiles,” the recently discovered one-celled organisms that dwell in extremely cold or scalding hot conditions. Proponents of this theory claim that the ability of scientists to sequence the genomes of living organisms allows them to reach such a conclusion. “But, cautions Lazcano, “as more and more completely sequenced cellular genomes have become available, their analysis has shown that an extensive amount of horizontal transfer of genes occurred, leading many to wonder whether we will ever untangle the weblike phylogenies of early cell evolution” (Ibid.).

    Lazcano is referring to the discovery that strands of DNA can pass between different species of primitive life-forms, thus refuting the Darwinian picture of an evolutionary tree sprouting outward and upward from an original, one-celled organism. Instead, the species of life on Earth form an extremely complex web, with new species originating not through Darwinian evolution but through the horizontal (and sometimes lateral, or sideways) transfer of genes from one species to another. It is thus impossible to use the sequenced genomes of various species to trace the alleged evolutionary history of life back to a single, common ancestor.

    Reference:

    Lazcano, A. 2003. The Never-Ending Story. American Scientist 91, no. 5.
    rae.org/MillerExperiment.html

  18. Geno Castagnoli April 6, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    Eric quotes a student:
    I raised my hand and asked if we were going to learn anything about intelligent design. She of course said not, ruling it off as unscientific

    #####
    Geno:
    The teacher is absolutely correct. Public schools are required to adhere to the law and relevant court decisions. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education it was demonstrated that “intelligent design” was nothing more than creationism in disguise. This was shown by quotes form the “ID” source being introduced to the school as well as the “Wedge Document” of the leading ID organization. The process for introduction to the (public) school curricula is (1) gain general acceptance of the scientific community THEN (2) introduce it to the curriculum. IDists want to skip (1) and force their religious belief into the public schools not by scientific persuasion, but by legislative action.

    Eric says:
    ask good questions.

    #####
    Geno points out:
    Keep in mind, we’re talking about a 14 year old student who is (certainly) in an introductory biology class. As a public school science teacher, here are the answers I would provide:

    Question:
    1.How did information arise out of matter?
    ######
    Geno:
    Define biological “information?” How can it be measured? (Note: If we can’t define it or quantify it, there is no way to determine if it has been increased or not.)

    Question:
    2.How did order come from disorder?
    #####
    Geno:
    That is outside the scope of this class. However, we do see this happen in such things as crystals.

    Question:
    3.How did life come from non-life?
    #####
    Geno:
    That is abiogenesis, not biological evolution which is defined as: “A change of allele frequencies in a population over time.” In other words, evolution can take place only AFTER life exists. Further as ALL proposals for the origin of life are, from a scientific perspective, speculative, we will not deal with that in this class.

    Question:
    4.How did everything come from nothing?
    #####
    Geno:
    That is cosmology which is not part of this class.

    Eric writes:
    You see, “science” deals with things that we can see, test and demonstrate, so Evolution is not part of science as it cannot be seen, tested or demonstrated.
    ######
    Geno answers:
    You mean like astronomy which deals with stars much more than 6,000 light years from Earth; and the speed of light from those distant stars which can be tested by various methods.

    (Note: Google my name and Sn1987a to see my paper on that event and how it disproves YEC. Physics, not evolution is the worst problem YEC faces.)

  19. Philip Kingsley Subas April 6, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    They keep saying evolution has nothing to do with this….

    Miriam webster’s dictionary defines evolution as : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

  20. Jennifer Preston April 6, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    How did order come from disorder?

    Actually, the universe is more disordered now than it was just after sapce-time started to expand. Yep, that’s what the Big Bang theory says.Think about it, we live in a complex world, we have 93 elements (yep the 93rd one has been found), in liquids, solids and gas. We have life, that wasn’t around at the beginning of the universe.
    What the Big Bang theory says is that after space-time bagan to expand there were only hydrogen atoms. Fast forward 13.7 billion years (has been 13.7 billion years for at least 30 years now, clueless as to why the Hovinds think its 20 billion, if Kent really did teach high school science he should have covered that in collegeand know better , but anyways…) and you have carbon, oxygen, RNA, DNA, blood cells, photosynthesis etc. etc. And you want to call that ordered?? No, the universe was much more ordered in the past than it is now.

    At the heart of biology is chemistry, that’s all biology is, complex chemistry. At the heart of chemistry is physics, researching the structure of the atom as we speak at the LHC. I finally understand the scientist, can’t for the life of me remember, who said:
    “All science is either physics or stamp collecting”. I believe he went on to win the Nobel proze for chemistry.

    Anyway, Eric does not have the right to ask “How did order come from disorder?” until he has properly understood the big bang theory, for anyone who truly does would not ask this question. They would ask why the universe was so ordered when time first began.

  21. John Bebbington April 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    Chase Braud wrote:

    By the way, is any one else here noticing the massive invasion of evolution believers into a Creation site and the totally biased and one-sided statements being made.

    Chase, if it wasn’t for us evolutionists adding to the conversation what on earth would people be blogging about? You may not know but when such chitchat was banned a few years ago the blog virtually died of tedium.

    As for bias, that’s what you get when you base your arguments on evidence rather than make-believe. It’s called science.

    A lot of what is said is belief being wrongly portrayed as fact. That’s a pet peeve of mine.

    To some extent you are correct. But I would portray such occurrences as conjecture rather than belief. Unlike religion, science modifies itself as evidence accumulates.

  22. Jennifer Preston April 6, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    One thing I would like to know CSE…Do you lot ever actually read research papers. Have you read Einstein’s thoery of relativity. If Kent Hovind really had an IQ of 160 I doubt he would find it difficult. Have any of you ever read anything on Quantum Electrodynamics. Now try the Big Bang Theory. At least not out of a school textbook. Have you ever read the University level stuff? I know you’re trying to communicate to 4th graders, but I get the impression that you regard yourselves as more advanced than that and I’m just curious to know if you’ve ever actually read them or not. Are you keeping up to date with recent research? Not just what they publish in the press but Proper Published Peer Reviewed Science Papers?

    I mean, I think 4th graders are smarter than you think, and if you communicate properly, I’m sure they’d love to know about Quantum Electrodynamics (and how it probably goes against Genesis)…It’s a very interesting topic.

  23. Danny April 7, 2011 at 2:55 am #

    Jennifer PrestonApril 6th at 2:10 pm
    How did order come from disorder?
    Actually, the universe is more disordered now than it was just after sapce-time started to expand. Yep, that’s what the Big Bang theory says.Think about it, we live in a complex world, we have 93 elements (yep the 93rd one has been found), in liquids, solids and gas. We have life, that wasn’t around at the beginning of the universe.
    What the Big Bang theory says is that after space-time bagan to expand there were only hydrogen atoms. Fast forward 13.7 billion years (has been 13.7 billion years for at least 30 years now, clueless as to why the Hovinds think its 20 billion, if Kent really did teach high school science he should have covered that in collegeand know better , but anyways) and you have carbon, oxygen, RNA, DNA, blood cells, photosynthesis etc. etc. And you want to call that ordered?? No, the universe was much more ordered in the past than it is now.

    Hi Jennifer,
    I just wanted to deal with a little of your post at this time. I want to share a little from a book that I have been reading. This chapter is about the big bang. It says,
    1 – The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. Let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
    2 – Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
    3 – A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
    4 – There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
    5 – There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The “gravity” which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
    6 – Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons.First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second,an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.
    7 The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them “too perfect.” Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
    Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:
    “If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars.” *R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
    8 – Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!
    9 – There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter if the Big Bang was true.
    “Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up.” *Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
    “We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter.” *Victor Weisskopf, “The Origin of the Universe,” American Scientist, 71, p. 479.
    10 – The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.
    We have mentioned ten reasons why matter could not be made by a supposed Big Bang. But now we will discuss what would happen IF it actually had.
    I stopped at a place to make you hungry for more truth. Check out the link below and read the surprising news IF the big bang could happen.
    Alice in Wonderland is more believable but if you want to believe the nonsense about a big band nobody can stop you.

    evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-2a.htm

    “Scientists who go about teaching evolution is a fact of life
    are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the
    greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one
    iota of fact.”
    Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in ‘The Fresno
    Bee’, August 10, 1959. As quoted by N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and
    the Emperor’s New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title
    page.

    Ekkman

  24. carlsden April 7, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    EVOLUTION IS PLAIN STUPID!

    ‘The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God’!!!

    you have a God given consience, which is the biggest evidence of God’s laws written on our hearts… Remove God = No consciece, No morals, No right/wrong…
    just ME, MYSELF n I… I’m God = Hitler, NWO, jay z (do what thou wilt) = Judgement = lake of fire!

  25. Jennifer Preston April 7, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    Danny,

    I just wanted to deal with a little of your post at this time. I want to share a little from a book that I have been reading. This chapter is about the big bang. It says,
    1 The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. Let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

    First of all Black Holes are not theoretical. They were originally a prediction made by Einstein’s theory of relativity. We have actually observed one in the centre of the Milky Way. By observing the orbits of the first 20, say, stars at the centre of the Milky Way, we can work out the mass and size of the thing that they’re orbiting. Crunching the numbers shows that it is a very very large mass packed inside a very very small space. If that isn’t a black hole I’d love to know your interpretation is.
    Second the Universe is expanding. First of all if the Universe is expanding, it must have been smaller in the past. Secondly, we can describe mathematically the universe as it is today, as it is expanding today. It is a very good model of the Universe. When we work those equations back, it turns out that the galaxies were literally on top of each other. But at the singularity our maths breaks down. This is where our knowledge stops. Does that mean we’re wrong? No. It just means there is more research that needs to be done. Do we honestly believe that nothing expanded? No. We just haven’t figured out what did yet. There are theories but nothing that can be properly tested yet.

    A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

    Whoever said that nothingness got dense is wrong. If they say that in the textbooks they need to take it out. That is to do with black holes, not the beginning of the universe.

    There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
    5 There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The “gravity” which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

    Okay, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion. It didn’t need an ignition, it didn’t need a match and there was certainly no fire. Basically it comes down to E = mc^2. What that says is that energy and mass are the same things. Energy can be turned into mass and mass can be turned into energy. So something transferred energy into our universe and this energy was converted into matter and the universe expanded. This get back to the question of what happened before the big bang. But that is really the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is why is there something rather than nothing. Again we don’t know that yet. But this is what the LHC may help us find. This is also why the consensus in cosmology is that the big bang was not the beginning of everything. Something did come before the big bang. There are various theories for what this was.
    Next, at quantum levels, the very very small levels, atomic levels, which is what the singularity would have been, gravity is repulsive. It is only an attractive force for the very large. Which is what Einstein’s theory of relativity explains. Very very well I might add. The theory of the very very small is the quantum theory of gravity, in which, observed by the way, gravity is repulsive. The problem is getting these two theories to combine into a theory of everything. One possible solution to this is string theory.

    “If the fireball had expanded only” Again, no fireball. Expansion of space-time. No explosion.

  26. John Bebbington April 7, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    carlsden wrote:

    EVOLUTION IS PLAIN STUPID!

    Yea, I know, it really shouldn’t have happened. But there we are; we are stuck with it.

    And you’re right. Evolution is stupid. That is why we have such a rich variety of life forms on earth today. Evolution is a scavenger, a bottom feeder, a spiv, a gambler. It takes advantage whenever and wherever it can. But sometimes, it can’t take advantage quick enough. Events overtake it and it fails.

    If only evolution had given the Dodo sufficient nous to run away then there would still be a few of them around today. And, when they are around, I’ve heard they make very good eating. Mmmm. But stupid evolution didn’t provide the dodo with such a reflex which is why the Kentucky Fried Dodo franchise operation went into liquidation.

    The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God!!!

    Again, I agree. But the rational person may say that the evidence for God, any sort of god, is pretty slim which is the reason why all gods (to a few orders of magnitude) are now extinct. The evidence for them just was’t there.

    you have a God given consience, which is the biggest evidence of God’s laws written on our hearts Remove God = No consciece, No morals, No right/wrong

    Make your mind up. If God exists then there is always right and wrong. Right and wrong do not disappear just because a person doesn’t believe in your particular brand of religion.

    But tell me, was it wrong for the Eskimo to put their excess of newly-born daughters out on the ice to die in the days before they all owned skiddoos or would it have been better for the whole community to have starved? Bearing in mind that there is nothing worse than an unmarried, unproductive female smelling of seal blubber and fish heads hanging around the igloo all day (believe me), what would you have done?

    And do god-believing Jehovah’s Witnesses feel guilty when they refuse to allow their children a blood transfusion?

    And do Roman Catholics feel guilty when they use contraception against the clear teaching of their church? Geno?

    There is a debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris tonight on this very subject. Perhaps, like me, you will try to listen to it.

  27. Philip Kingsley Subas April 7, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    @jennifer:
    When i did my schooling, i was taught that there are 108 elements and in the research they have invented the element with atomic number 110(through fusion i suppose). That was about 6 years back 🙂

    Where did neutrinos come from before big bang?

  28. John Bebbington April 7, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    Jennifer,

    So something transferred energy into our universe and this energy was converted into matter and the universe expanded.

    I wonder whether you might wish to re-word that statement.

    (i) The universe did not exist so no energy could have been transferred into it. And transferred from where?

    (ii) The expansion of the universe is postulated as occurring a tiny fraction of a second after t=0 – long before matter formed.

    (iii) Is it not the case that it is also postulated that the initial conditions were such that it took some 300,000 years for the temperature to cool sufficiently to allow the first sub-atomic particles to “condense” out of the plasma? Expansion first – matter much later.

  29. Geno Castagnoli April 7, 2011 at 11:17 pm #

    John asked:
    And do Roman Catholics feel guilty when they use contraception against the clear teaching of their church?

    #####
    Geno:
    I didn’t. Nor do I feel guilty about being divorced and remarried.

  30. Geno Castagnoli April 7, 2011 at 11:57 pm #

    Philip says:
    When i did my schooling, i was taught that there are 108 elements and in the research they have invented the element with atomic number 110(through fusion i suppose). That was about 6 years back

    ####
    Geno:
    This is another of the Hovind misrepresentations as they talk about the “six definitions of evolution.” They claim “chemical evolution” (the development of elements) is unproven. The fact is we have produced more than two dozen elements. What the Hovinds call “chemical evolution” is the process that powers hydrogen bombs (and the Sun). It’s safe to say we understand “chemical evolution” really well and it is thoroughly proven.

    There are 91 naturally occuring elements. (#43 Technitium does not occur naturally on Earth, though it is in the spectra of some S, M, and N type stars.) The periodic table is now filled thru element #118 As far as I can tell, the last two produced were #117 in 2010 and #115 in 2004.
    #####

    Philip asks:
    Where did neutrinos come from before big bang?

    ########
    Geno answers:
    As far as I know the models indicate matter, as we know it, couldn’t exist at the time of the Big Bang as the temperature was somewhere around 10^32 Kelvin.

  31. Jennifer Preston April 8, 2011 at 4:22 am #

    “Where did neutrinos come from before big bang?”

    Since in our Universe, the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, it is irrelevent to talk about things before the big bang. Neutrinos didn’t exist before the big bang. They were matter converted from the energy of the expanding universe. But actually, taking this in context of after the big bang, what you are really asking is why does everything have mass? This we are searching for. We will know this within the next decade thanks to the LHC.

    Like I said, everybody keeps wanting to talk about “before the big bang”. This is wrong. As far as TIME is concerned, there was nothing before the big bang. We can only talk about events that happened in our universe AFTER the beginning of our universe. A better question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

    This is what I don’t like about creationism and Intelligent Design. What you want to do is immediately through your hands up and say I don’t understand this, God did it, and leave it at that. Yet I can’t do that. Many people can’t do that. If we had all done that in the past, we wouldn’t have the modern world. Science is about understanding things. We keep searching until we find the answers, and it may take us a while but usually we do find them. Creationists seem to assume that there is no way to understand everything, you want to assume that at some point in the future, we are going to come to a place where our understanding will stop completely. Yet there are people out there that will never stop trying to undertand and eventually we will get there.
    But does that mean there is no God? No.
    I believe in God. I believe in the Christian God because I believe Jesus rose from the dead. But there is theological and historical evidence that suggests Genesis was never supposed to be taken literally. For me it’s emphasising that whatever happened, God did it. However far we get in understanding the universe, and we will at some stage understand it, God still did it.

  32. Carlton de SOuza April 8, 2011 at 4:40 am #

    @ John

    I love the ending para of ur comment! “Make your mind up. If God exists…….Perhaps, like me, you will try to listen to it.”

    now, here’s the answers:

    1) Murder is wrong (thou shalt not kill)
    2) The Bible clearly says the life is in the blood.. so if they are refusing transfusion that would cause death.. its murder again as they could easily prevent it.
    3) i’m not a roman catholic, but i know that according to the Bible, its not about the use of contraception which is wrong, but the motive behind it. The Bible clearly says be fruitful and multiply…

    from ur comment John, i can clearly see u have a wide awake conscience… and ur willing to reason…

    let me tell u something.. God loves u, even if u dont believe He does.. or even if u dont believe He exists. but believing in God is not enough.. even the devil believes in God… doesnt mean he’s goin to heaven. The world theists think that majority r goin to heaven… but the Bible says only few find the narrow way which leads to heaven…
    u can live life the way u please, belive in evolution (which actually started in the garden of eden when man rejected God), dont care about seeking the one true God… but one day u n me will die and after that is the judgement…

    ‘what if a man gains the whole world, but looses his own soul’!

    hope you’ve read this with an open mind… leave ur prejudices behind.

  33. John Bebbington April 8, 2011 at 10:35 am #

    Carlton de SOuza wrote:

    The Bible clearly says be fruitful and multiply

    Do you think that to be wise advice? Given that mankind now typically has a 4-generation life span at what stage do you think it would be wiser in the interests of future generations not to multiply but to maintain stasis or reduce?

    I suppose you will get round the problem by claiming that Jesus will return any time soon so population growth is not a concern.

    P.S. I don’t have any prejudices. That’s the trouble with you theists; you all think you know me.

  34. John Bebbington April 8, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    Jennifer wrote:

    Since in our Universe, the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, it is irrelevent to talk about things before the big bang. ……………….For me it’s emphasising that whatever happened, God did it.

    Jennifer, given your thinking that there was no time before the Bg Bang at what stage in his existence did God decide to create the universe?

    For instance, God could not have existed a day before Day 1 because there was no Day -1. Any ideas?

  35. John Bebbington April 8, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    Geno Castagnoli wrote:

    And do Roman Catholics feel guilty when they use contraception against the clear teaching of their church?
    #####
    Geno:
    I didn’t. Nor do I feel guilty about being divorced and remarried.

    Geno, you’re a tirrible, tirrible man. May the good Lord have mercy on your damned soul.

    I wonder whether you heard the WLC v Harris debate last night? In the Q & A some young lad asked a question about the recent miraculous conversion in New Zealand of consecrated bread into bleeding, pulsating, heart muscle. Perhaps he was having a joke but he seemed genuinely convinced of it.

    Have you heard of this story?

  36. Steve April 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Jennifer,
    How do you know “as far as TIME is concerned, there was nothing before the big bang.”? It’s a little strange how you pose your dislike for “creationism” and Intelligent Design. You complain that people resort to “God did it” but at the end of your post, you say you believe in God and Jesus rising from the dead then you further say there is theological and historical evidence that suggests Genesis was never supposed to be taken literally.
    What theological and historical evidence are you referring to? Until you present this evidence, I stand on the Bible (God’s infallible word) as being the theological (pertaining to God) and historical (pertaining to written record of past events) evidence to the truth of the past.
    You evolutionists, whether God believing or not, cling to the evolutionary theory because of what you claim scientific study has produced and supports. I address this question to you because you said you believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
    Hasn’t scientific study determined that humans can’t do that (without severe brain damage and other adverse side affects)? There are dozens of prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Jesus coming to earth. Is fulfilling prophecy scientifically possible? Jesus healed people by merely touching them. Surely that’s scientifically impossible. Why disregard science on those parts of the Bible but cling to “science” when it pertains to what God says our origins were in Genesis?
    Science. You claim that if we had “all done that in the past” relating to the “God did it” solution, we wouldn’t have the modern world. Do you know Francis Bacon five hundred years ago was a creationist and he was the one who developed scientific methods? He was called the father of empiricism. He’s not all. Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, and Kelvin were Bible-believing Christians.

    I want to know. Do you really believe in God?

  37. Duane April 8, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    I have to say, it really amuses me when someone can cut and paste all kinds of science they don’t understand, get it almost entirely wrong, and then insist that it’s impossible so it must be an invisible man who is really good at magic.

  38. Mark James April 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Hi Steve,

    In your post about the Miller-Urey experiment you made the following claim: “…3 of the 5 nucleobases found in DNA and RNA were created…”

    Please let us know where you got this information from. If it is true, it is news to me. If it is not true, the rest of your post needs a great deal of revision.

  39. gyry-9@yandex.ru April 10, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    Truly scientific facts are OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE and DEMONSTRATED. If evolution is right – we have to see every time how organic life is created out of non organic material. But there are no such processes! ONLY LIFE CAN CREATE LIFE! And this is TRULY SCIENTIFIC FACT!

  40. Henry Fiorentini April 10, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    1. How did information arise out of matter? – Read the first chapter of “The Selfish Gene”.

    2. How did order come from disorder? – Not evolution, and while not fully understood, It’s basically a local decrease in entropy because the Earth is not a closed system.

    3. How did life come from non-life? – Not evolution, and we’re not entirely sure.

    4. How did everything come from nothing? – Not evolution, and read Stephen Hawking instead of whining in class.

  41. David Vodopianoff April 11, 2011 at 4:58 am #

    The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

    Psalm 14:1

  42. Geno Castagnoli April 11, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    Steve asks Jennifer:
    I address this question to you because you said you believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
    Hasn’t scientific study determined that humans can’t do that

    ######
    Geno points out:
    Humans can’t, God can.

    How silly of me, I thought the Resurrection is used as proof Jesus is God.

  43. Robin Mauro April 11, 2011 at 11:03 am #

    Steve Brule said,
    “He recreated the atmosphere that was “believed to have existed” in the very early stages of the Earth by vacuuming out all of the air, particularly oxygen, of a closed series of tubes and beakers, and inserted gaseous ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, and systematically sparked this gaseous combination for an extended period of time.”
    My response:

    “Some scientists came to God and they said
    “Okay God, we’ve done it. We’ve figured out how to create life.”
    God replied “Okay, go ahead – show me.”
    One of the scientists bent over and scooped up a pile of dirt to begin the demonstration.”
    God said “Get your own dirt.”

    One cannot do a repeatable experiment to prove evolution.
    Adaptation and mutations are not the same as evolution. And If everything is evolving, and becoming better, then why do we still have apes? They evolved, right? If the theory of evolution were true, everything would evolve itself right out of existence. And why in thousands of years, have we never seen one animal evolve into another? The millions of years aspect to the theory of evolution is a convenient one.
    Evolution has also been used to justify all kinds of atrocities and racial hatreds. It’s the survival of the fittest you know – so why then have any compassion on your brother? If they suffer and die, it is just natures way of improving, right? This is the end result of the theory of evolution, whereas God commands us to
    ” Love your brother as yourself.”
    Who do you answer to Steve?
    Yes, Christianity, as well as other religions, have been used in this way also.
    Humankind is evil, and without excuse.
    From the beginning of time, God’s works and ways have been evident throughout all of the processes of nature, so man is without excuse.
    As a scientist friend of mine once asked of evolution,
    “Why would it?”

    Ah, the bigger picture.

    You cannot see the forest for the trees sir.

    I pray that God will lead you into all truth.
    Robin

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

    John asked:
    I wonder whether you heard the WLC v Harris debate last night? In the Q & A some young lad asked a question about the recent miraculous conversion in New Zealand of consecrated bread into bleeding, pulsating, heart muscle.

    ######
    Geno answers:
    Hadn’t heard a thing of it.

  45. John Bebbington April 11, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    Steve wrote:

    There are dozens of prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Jesus coming to earth. Is fulfilling prophecy scientifically possible?

    Easy-peasy if you write the subsequent stories to match the earlier writings. Where’s the difficulty?

    Jesus healed people by merely touching them. Surely that’s scientifically impossible.

    Depends what was wrong with them. But I would like to have seen the follow-up notes just to check that any improvement was permanent. The lesson of frauds such as Benny Hinn is that such claims are cheap.

    Why disregard science on those parts of the Bible but cling to “science” when it pertains to what God says our origins were in Genesis?

    So I take it that you would burn your house down per the Bible’s instructions when it got a bit of mould growth rather than treating the problem more scientifically.

    Do you know Francis Bacon five hundred years ago was a creationist and he was the one who developed scientific methods? He was called the father of empiricism. He’s not all. Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, and Kelvin were Bible-believing Christians.

    So what? I think that I would be a creationist if the only knowledge of the world came from other creationists.

    As for your list of scientists, Newton was a life-long alchemist. By your logic, I assume that you are one as well.

    Lord Kelvin was no YECist. Unlike you, he thought the Earth to be 40 million years old based on heat-loss calculations. Then radio-activity was discovered.

    Had you been alive in Galileo’s time would you have believed his discoveries? I doubt it.

    If you had asked any of those in your list whether they believed that TV would ever be a possibility I dare say they would have thought not. They would all have been wrong.

  46. John Bebbington April 11, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    And some tedious fool keeps quoting Psalm14:1 as though it had any bearing on anything.

  47. Brent Madawick April 11, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    John Bebbington

    You can not speak unless the God of the Bible is real. What worldview accounts for knowledge and thought.

    Keep saying, “ohh we dont know yet, to this…

    and saying ” ohh we dont know that yet either..’

    when you see a book the Bible that cannot be proved wrong, and is the powerful book on human history and as for its Hero, JC, he is the most influential man in history

    it seems that when you pray to him, you are free from Bondage,

    dude you are so quick to backup a theory of “oh we dont know yet”

    but you live by faith that tomorrow your going to wake up and everything is going to run smoothly, ” Assumption of nature”

    wow and you cant account for this, but in your worldivew, everything changes right? everything evolves?

    but you wake up knowing that it will be the same, gravity, coals law, boils law, chemistry… all work the same

    and The God of the Bible and Jesus Christ’s worldview that he offers you to have is the only one that accounts for constant sustained life.

    becuase he is a constant, lawgiver, beyond all time space and matter

    and he is standing around you now, loving you and is so exicted to hear from you. But if you do not want him, he will not force himself on you.

    but i challege you John, to pray to him tonight ask him to reveal himself to you, and watch what happens.

    stop running. Your time is running out. stop doubting and give your life to him. You are in bondage to this world. if you want to stay free, which you really do, Jesus is the only way to free you becuae he rose from the dead and is with us now. Ask him to free you he is dying to do so.

  48. John Bebbington April 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Henry, welcome to the forum.

    Any relation to those enormous pre-war Italian drag-liners?

  49. Jack Napper April 11, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    You can not speak unless the God of the Bible is real.

    Nice blatant assertion let’s see where you are going with this.

    What worldview accounts for knowledge and thought.

    What does WORLDVIEW have to do with this? What you believe is utterly irrelevant. I also suggest you try looking up the WORLDVIEW. This is a typical well there must first be a means by which this is and because I don’t understand any other way it must be God right?” Do you have a new argument or do Creationist really think this copy and paste logical fail really works? Beyond simply irritating others and proudly displaying your logical ignorance what purpose does it serve?

    Keep saying, “ohh we dont know yet, to this”

    and saying ohh we dont know that yet either…

    I say you haven’t yet formed a coherent argument.

    when you see a book the Bible that cannot be proved wrong, and is the powerful book on human history and as for its Hero, JC, he is the most influential man in history

    Whaaaa…..? Is English not your first language? Are you really trying to put forth an intellectual argument with this gibberish? The Bible can’t be proved wrong? Yeah, get back to me when you can grasp the concept of PROVING A NEGATIVE. When you’ve wrapped your head around that please explain how you can claim the Bible is historic? Seriously I’ve heard this argument before but with any actual support for it.

    it seems that when you pray to him, you are free from Bondage,

    And when you pray to the Easter Bunny does he bring Jelly Beans? Sorry but the burden is on theist to prove your claims. Then again Creationists are still demanding that other prove a negative and claiming victory when they can’t. Still waiting for an intelligent argument by the way.

    dude you are so quick to backup a theory of “oh we dont know yet”

    Not a theory but it is intellectually honest.

    but you live by faith that tomorrow your going to wake up and everything is going to run smoothly, “Assumption of nature”

    As there is no evidence support your here after fantasy land I live as if this is the only life I get. So I live my life and try to be kind to my friends and family. I help out other in the hope that my kindness or charitable donation will enrich their lives. I don’t do it to win points with your imaginary friend. By the way what the heck is ‘assumption of nature’? Makes no sense and please explain how it’s fallacious and what it has to do with nature.

    wow and you cant account for this, but in your worldivew, everything changes right? everything evolves?

    You can’t account for this in your beliefs according to what I can wrap my head around therefore I’m right and your wrong. Forgiving your false dichotomy please look up WORLDVIEW.

    but you wake up knowing that it will be the same, gravity, coals law, boils law, chemistry all work the same

    Coals Law? As a result of your obvious lack of scientific understanding I suggest you look up SCIENTIFIC LAW.

    and The God of the Bible and Jesus Christ’s worldview that he offers you to have is the only one that accounts for constant sustained life.

    I cover what you believe in the first paragraph. Now you wanna assert that your worldview is supported by evidence?

    becuase he is a constant, lawgiver, beyond all time space and matter

    So it can’t be measured or tested or anything else? So Creation Science is really just a fun phrase so you guys can pretend to be smart huh? It amazes me that Creationists ask that others provide everything from the sun to the moon and stars as evidence but will accept the poor example of anything that supports their hooga booga.

    nd he is standing around you now, loving you and is so exicted to hear from you. But if you do not want him, he will not force himself on you.

    Oh yeah? PROVE IT. You see the burden of proof is on you. Other ‘worldviews’ exist because you haven’t owned up. So PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    but i challege you John, to pray to him tonight ask him to reveal himself to you, and watch what happens.

    When I was a child I was told the same nonsense. I prayed and prayed and nothing happen. What’s your excuse here?

    stop running. Your time is running out. stop doubting and give your life to him. You are in bondage to this world. if you want to stay free, which you really do, Jesus is the only way to free you becuae he rose from the dead and is with us now. Ask him to free you he is dying to do so.

    Scaremongering appeals to emotion will get you nowhere. You’re as credible as a boy telling his younger brother that he better not fall asleep less the Boogey Man slip out from under his bed or jump out of the closet. Better yet brother telling their younger sibling (Kent) that bananas have spider eggs inside them. NOW THAT’S FUNNY.

  50. Carlton de SOuza April 11, 2011 at 6:29 pm #

    @ John Bebbington…

    mate, i dont think u’ve read the bible… u certainly aint got a clue about wha scripture says… the command of God saying ‘be fruitful and multiply’ was much before sin n death entered the world… we will never on this earth, fully understand how a perfect world was, because we are all born in sin… God made the whole universe for man! everything!! not just earth, but the stars and planets!! Everything was different and perfect before the fall of man!
    We dont know, but even in our fallen wisdom, one could belive that God could make other planets habitable for man… Like i said, we dont know how a perfect world fully was and how man was originally meant to procreate… but this is what scripture has to say about God’s wisdom:

    ‘For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.’ 1 Corinthians 1:25

    Listen man, its not the return of Christ thats gonna stop population! its people killing other people through abortions, wars, greed, etc that will reduce and is reducing the population!! Thats the NWO agenda!!

    “P.S. I don’t have any prejudices. That’s the trouble with you theists; you all think you know me”

    ok, no prejudices, then go n take ur bible of the shelf. blow the dust off it and read it for urself… With an open heart, just say this prayer… ‘Lord Jesus, if you truely exist, show it to me!’ God will do the rest…. i will pray for you!