"Proof" vs. "Persuasion" | Creation Today

Our Websites

“Proof” vs. “Persuasion”

Atheists ask for “proof” all the time; however, I don’t believe that is really what they want.  I believe that atheists really want to be “persuaded” more than anything else. The reason I believe this is outlined below.

  1. I have traveled for 13 years teaching on the subject of Creation vs. Evolution, presenting incredible “proof” that God created the world. Yet I still have debates with atheists who bury their heads in the sand and ignore the science of irreducible complexity, age of the earth, dinosaurs living with man and so on.
  2. I have heard atheists come out and say, “Proof is not the issue!”  In a debate on Premier radio in the UK between presuppositional apologist Sye TenBruggencate and self-proclaimed “free thinker” Paul Baird, Paul admits that evidence does not matter. Listen to the clip below for yourself. You may want to listen to the entire debate, which can be found on the Premier.org.uk site here.
  3. The Bible tells us very plainly that “proof” is not what matters as much as “repentance.” Lots of scripture content deal with this subject: For example, Romans 1: 18–21, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:3–4, 2 Timothy 2:25. It is clear from the teaching of scripture that without repentance, we cannot understand spiritual things, and we will not see the truth until we repent. This is the real issue.
  4. Hypocrisy destroys any proof that is presented and persuades people to stay away from Christianity! It is sad but true that hypocrisy drives many people away from Christ. As Christians, we should be followers of Jesus Christ.  When so many claim the title “Christian,” yet live contrary to what Christ says, my warning would be that perhaps most of them are not really “Christians.” Matthew 7:21 is one of the most frightening verses in the Bible that I know of and it spells this out very clearly!

It is true that “proof” is not the issue; atheists want to be “persuaded!”  Here’s the rub: You must repent before you will see the truth and be “persuaded.” I would ask that you repent now, acknowledge your sin, repent of it and trust in Christ today. If you want to learn more about this go to our “Are you a good person” article on creationtoday.org.

,

53 Responses to “Proof” vs. “Persuasion”

  1. andrew Ryan April 14, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    Never mind proof, I’d be happy just to see some evidence.

    Hmm, this: ” It is sad but true that hypocrisy drives many people away from Christ.”

    …after saying this: “…atheists who bury their heads in the sand and ignore the science of irreducible complexity, age of the earth”

  2. Jack Napper April 14, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    Atheists ask for “proof” all the time; however, I don’t believe that is really what they want.

    Atheist ask for proof because you claim absolutes. Perhaps you need to look up the difference between ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’.

    I have traveled for 13 years teaching on the subject of Creation vs. Evolution, presenting incredible “proof” that God created the world.

    Is it really proof when a flaw can be found in your evidence, your argument or both? When you present the Methusala tree as evidence of a flood based solely on its again and I present and older organism or argue that it does not tell what happen BEFORE, is that PROOF?

    Yet I still have debates with atheists who bury their heads in the sand and ignore the science of irreducible complexity, age of the earth, dinosaurs living with man and so on.

    Yep and you keep going back to the well and presenting the same tired debunked garbage. If something can be show not to be irreducibly complex what support does it lend to the idea? If your age of the Earth arguments are flawed what proof are they?

    I have heard atheists come out and say, “Proof is not the issue!” In a debate on Premier radio in the UK between presuppositional apologist Sye TenBruggencate and self-proclaimed “free thinker” Paul Baird, Paul admits that evidence does not matter.

    Firstly Sye is a douche. He present flawed argument that actually butcher themselves. Sye isn’t looking for proof. He is looking to irritate his opponent with childishness to the point they throw their hands up and then he claims victory. That is after he pulls his head out of the sand. I mean this is the guy that think SCIENTIFIC LAWS are absolute right? HAHA.

    The Bible tells us very plainly that “proof” is not what matters as much as “repentance.”

    Can you smell the hypocrisy and flawed logic? You present proof but it does matter and you blast others for making the same claim (albeit out of context)???

    It is clear from the teaching of scripture that without repentance, we cannot understand spiritual things, and we will not see the truth until we repent. This is the real issue.

    You must believe the magic sky daddy exists before you can be indoctrinated to believe he exists? Seriously?

    #4

    This and your closing paragraph are pure comedic fodder.

  3. Don Tomblin April 14, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    There is overwhelming evidence of the Creator, and His Creation. But the wicked, hateful, reprobate atheist WILL NOT/CANNOT allow this evidence to enter into his/her mind. They do not want God to exist, so they will not allow God to exist in their own warped little minds. They would much rather believe in the satanic fairytale of macro evolution, no matter how foolish it makes them look.

  4. Joseph Conkle April 14, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    Andrew, my guess you have see lots of evidence if your on this website.

  5. Eric Terrell April 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    Irreducible complexity and the age of the Earth is the evidence!!

  6. Carl M April 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    Presuppositional Apologetics is to logic what Creation Science is to science . When science or logic do not support a position the solution is to declare the desired outcome (literal creation, existance of God, etc) as an unquestionable axiom.

    Paul admits that evidence does not matter.

    And Sye agrees with him “I agree with everything Paul just said”. Where would the creationist be without the quote mine? (Exchange takes place at 22 mins)

  7. Pablo Cruz April 14, 2011 at 11:26 pm #

    Interesting, Andrew, I’d also like to see evidence of a simple organism, or simple cell, or simple molecule..

    Scientists say that there “must’ve been” a simple organism that “evolved” into more complex organisms (talk origins website). Must’ve been? Where’s the evidence for that?

    The theory of evolution and the millions/billions years is hypothetical at best.

    What amazes me even more is how the science literatures, like talk origins, present these theories hypothetically, while others try to pass it off as scientific fact!!

    Just a thought..

  8. Duane April 15, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    Atheists ask for “proof” all the time; however, I don’t believe that is really what they want. I believe that atheists really want to be “persuaded” more than anything else. The reason I believe this is outlined below.

    I have traveled for 13 years teaching on the subject of Creation vs. Evolution, presenting incredible “proof” that God created the world. Yet I still have debates with atheists who bury their heads in the sand and ignore the science of irreducible complexity, age of the earth, dinosaurs living with man and so on.

    You have never debated anyone on Evolution. You simply repeat some “best of” material from your dad then spend the rest of the debate preaching. There IS no science of irreducible complexity. It was demolished in the Dover trial. Your “Age of the Earth” video is absurd. What does the age of the Bristlecone pine have to do with the age of the earth? Or Niagara Falls? Nothing. Then there’s the issue of the science you dismiss. You are ready to believe a couple swirls on the side of a cliff face are pictures of a dinosaur, which is simple pareidolia, but the work of dedicated scientists is worthless.

    I have heard atheists come out and say, “Proof is not the issue!” In a debate on Premier radio in the UK between presuppositional apologist Sye TenBruggencate and self-proclaimed “free thinker” Paul Baird, Paul admits that evidence does not matter. Listen to the clip below for yourself. You may want to listen to the entire debate, which can be found on the Premier.org.uk site here.
    The Bible tells us very plainly that “proof” is not what matters as much as “repentance.” Lots of scripture content deal with this subject: For example, Romans 1: 18-21, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, 2 Timothy 2:25. It is clear from the teaching of scripture that without repentance, we cannot understand spiritual things, and we will not see the truth until we repent. This is the real issue.

    It’s interesting you bring up old Sye. I listened to those debates. Sye’s Presuppositional argument is one of the greatest arguments for atheism there is. The fact that he has to set up a dishonest argument to defend his position is evidence that you have nothing. If there were anything to the God debate, the facts should stand by themselves. Sye takes an an abstraction, calls it God, and thinks he’s done. He then claims it is a sin to even question him. The whole argument rests on something you brought up a few months ago. Can the God of the Bible present a revelation in such a manner than you could be absolutely certain? The answer is obviously no. First of all, the premise is that we have to grant a special undocumented property for no reason other than you say we should to an entity you’ve not presented or properly defined. It’s no different than stating Superman can beat Mighty Mouse because you say he can. But beyond that is this: What is the difference between this special revelation of which you claim to have been presented in such a manner that you know for certain it is true and a coherent delusion? If you had an outright delusion, wouldn’t you be just as certain you were right? We have many, many examples of religious delusions. How many examples do you have of unassailable special revelations? Sye’s argument is complete nonsense and if it impresses you then that makes you appear that much more foolish.

    Hypocrisy destroys any proof that is presented and persuades people to stay away from Christianity! It is sad but true that hypocrisy drives many people away from Christ. As Christians, we should be followers of Jesus Christ. When so many claim the title “Christian,” yet live contrary to what Christ says, my warning would be that perhaps most of them are not really “Christians.” Matthew 7:21 is one of the most frightening verses in the Bible that I know of and it spells this out very clearly!

    It is true that “proof” is not the issue; atheists want to be “persuaded!” Here’s the rub: You must repent before you will see the truth and be “persuaded.” I would ask that you repent now, acknowledge your sin, repent of it and trust in Christ today. If you want to learn more about this go to our “Are you a good person” article on drdino.com.

    This is one of the only true things I’ve ever heard you say. Hypocrisy DOES destroy any proof that is presented. Every time you misrepresent the evolutionist side or otherwise lie for Jesus, you dig a deeper and deeper hole. Someone in the other thread brought up Piltdown Man and some other hoaxes. You can never be immune from a renegade, but science didn’t let these things go. Science exposed these hoaxes, which shows there’s no conspiracy to protect a worldview.

    You say that atheists want to be persuaded. Perhaps. But when I look at you, I see someone who wants to be fooled. You see a squiggle on a rockface and it’s a dinosaur. Ica stones made by an admitted hoaxter are more evidence of dinosaurs. Robert Buckman proposes that gods are a product of human anxiety, fear, insecurity and a need to feel like we have at least some measure of control over the outcome of natural events. This control, or perceived influence, of nature takes the form of rituals, prayers, songs and all manner of worship. The idea behind this is simple: please the gods and you will be rewarded in return. Offer the hearts of sacrificial victims to the Sun God, and he will continue to rise. Dance and sing the proper chant and it may rain so that crops grow and the people are fed. Pray at your bedside every night and you might succeed in your endeavors, heal from a sickness, or avoid eternal damnation.

  9. Richard Mahn April 15, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    Another great post Eric. I am dealing with this myself in making the case for creation. And yes, while evolutionists have yet to show me anything that is convincing, that there is even any sort of chain, let alone a link, of evolved species, I would still like to see it. And yet they demand proof and evidence, but nothing would ever please them…for they are stuck in their close-mindedness and unless they have the humility to repent of what feeds their pride, they won’t be happy with whatever we give them. Thanks again for all your ministry does. Praying for you and your dad, who was a big influence when I came to accept this proof once I had repented, and yes, that had to come first.

  10. John Bebbington April 15, 2011 at 7:21 am #

    Yet I still have debates with atheists who bury their heads in the sand and ignore the science of irreducible complexity…

    What science? Please link me to one, just one, peer reviewed lab paper which confirms irreducible complexity.

    I have heard atheists come out and say, “Proof is not the issue!” In a debate on Premier radio in the UK between presuppositional apologist Sye TenBruggencate and self-proclaimed “free thinker” Paul Baird, Paul admits that evidence does not matter.

    You are confusing proof with evidence. Just because an Ica stone was found in Eric’s suitcase (evidence) at the end of his recent holiday doesn’t necessarily mean he stole it. For that I would need proof that it was not given to him as “a love offering” as Eric claims.

    (Not a true story, by the way)

    As for the Turing machine known as Sye TenB, logic is just a circular saw. By the way, Eric, I think you embarrassed him as well as yourself when you made that video interview. He doesn’t much like people who try to prove their religion using fossils. If I was you, I would remove it from your library.

    The Bible tells us very plainly that “proof” is not what matters as much as “repentance.”

    I’m fairly certain that repentance cannot knock 13 billion years off the age of the universe.

    Naturalistic facts remain naturalistic facts whether or not Eric is sorry that he has been a very naughty boy.

    It is sad but true that hypocrisy drives many people away from Christ. As Christians, we should be followers of Jesus Christ. When so many claim the title “Christian,” yet live contrary to what Christ says, my warning would be that perhaps most of them are not really “Christians.” Matthew 7:21 is one of the most frightening verses in the Bible that I know of and it spells this out very clearly!

    One stumbling block I have is Kent’s claim to have taught High School science for 15 years. As Eric refuses to confirm or deny the claim I can reasonably assume that it is false. After all, if it were true, Eric would be only too keen to confirm it.

    So, if Kent can’t be trusted to tell the truth about the little things of which he has certain knowledge, why should I believe anything else he has to say? Hypocrisy, indeed.

  11. John Bebbington April 15, 2011 at 10:19 am #

    Richard wrote:

    And yes, while evolutionists have yet to show me anything that is convincing, that there is even any sort of chain, let alone a link, of evolved species,

    Richard, does the phrase “nested hierarchies” mean anything to you? First it was morphology which led to the idea and then genetics came along and confirmed the system in extraordinarily fine detail.

    I would still like to see it.

    No, you wouldn’t. But it’s out there and easily available just in case you did wish to enquire further.

    And yet they demand proof and evidence, but nothing would ever please them for they are stuck in their close-mindedness and unless they have the humility to repent of what feeds their pride, they won’t be happy with whatever we give them.

    You’ve given nothing but ancient superstition and conjecture. And it is odd that you accuse us of “close-mindedness”. My religious father used to warn me against “free-thinking”. Perhaps you would like to compose a few words to explain how free-thinking equates to closed-mindedness.

  12. Jennifer Preston April 15, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    John Bebbington wrote:

    “One stumbling block I have is Kent’s claim to have taught High School science for 15 years. As Eric refuses to confirm or deny the claim I can reasonably assume that it is false. After all, if it were true, Eric would be only too keen to confirm it.”

    I agree with this too.

    “So, if Kent can’t be trusted to tell the truth about the little things of which he has certain knowledge, why should I believe anything else he has to say? Hypocrisy, indeed.”

    Brilliant

    I actually don’t understand a single thing in the ‘Proving God: Part 3 “Science” video with Sye.

    What he says is that science goes by the assumption that nature is consistent. He says this is a wrong assumption because it is not based on the Bible. He then goes on to say that if you use the Bible to come to that assumption then it is a correct assumption. But regardless of where the assumption comes from it is still the same assumption and should not have any impact on the conclusions reached from analysing the data.
    What I have just heard in the video, to break it down, is that A = B =/ A…I’m confuzled.

    Watching the last two minutes of that video, he then goes on to say that apparently changing where the assumption comes from does change the conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis of the data. Now I’m even more confuzled…

  13. John Bebbington April 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Eric said:

    I have traveled for 13 years teaching on the subject of Creation vs. Evolution, presenting incredible “proof” that God created the world.

    From Eric’s bio:

    Eric has had the opportunity to speak more than 3,500 times, traveling to five foreign countries and all 50 states, presenting and debating this life-changing message about our Creator.

    Eric, do the maths.

    Ignoring the fact that you can hardly teach c v e when you haven’t a clue about evolution do you expect us to believe that you have “presented and debated” your spiel 270 days each year for 13 years? That’s more than 5 times a week, year in year out.

    In the days when you used to have your speaking diary on the web page it was notable for the almost complete lack of bookings so I am mystified how you can now claim you were out speaking 5 days a week. Can you assist?

    As you have been away on holiday for the last couple of weeks you will need to work 7 days a week for the next 2 months to catch up.

    • CSE April 18, 2011 at 9:33 am #

      In Response to some questions/comments:

      1. Re Dr. Hovind’s Teaching Experience: A letter has been written to Dr. Hovind requesting all the information on the schools in which he taught, and the length of time at each.

      2. Re Eric’s Speaking on Creation Vs Evolution: There are many, many instances where Eric will teach 2-4 times in a day (specifically over weekends at churches and in Christian schools). Do the math 🙂

  14. John Bebbington April 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    I should also mention that Kent continues to prove himself unappealing to the appeal court.

    In his latest application to have his case thrown out Kent proposed that the government “quit whining”. The lady judge (a very unbiblical appointment?) was not impressed. In her judgment she uses the phrases “patently frivolous” and “disingenuous”.

    A perceptive lady.

  15. Eric Terrell April 15, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    If the scientists are so hung up on “proof,” “evidence,” or whatever they want to call it, they might want to refer back to Louis Pasteur’s experiments. They produced something known as the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory. In science, laws hold more weight than theories. So why is it that the Law of Biogenesis- something that has been proven time and again- is disregarded for a mere theory? I think this shows that atheists are, as Richard Mahn says, closed-minded and unwilling to admit they might be wrong.

  16. Joanna Gadzinski April 15, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    andrew Ryan wrote:

    “Never mind proof, I’d be happy just to see some evidence.”

    Response: Me too. Where is the evidence from the evolutionists that the world was created from a big bang? Who exactly was there to witness that event? And please explain to me how all the DNA in the world that we observe now was present in a pool of goop that, btw, came into existence out of nothing. How can nothing develop a simple organism that developed into complex DNA? You cannot get complex DNA structures unless they were already present. You cannot add to information. It would already have to be present in order to have created all the magnificent life forms on this planet.

  17. Joanna Gadzinski April 15, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    Jack Napper wrote:

    “Atheist ask for proof because you claim absolutes. Perhaps you need to look up the difference between ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’.”

    Response: Proof means evidence which the Atheists don’t have. Atheists claim absolutes without any proof…just speculations. And they condemn people who don’t want to agree with their speculations. Who was there to witness the pool of goop form into an amphibian and then crawl on the land? And how is accidental haphazard bumping of DNA plausible? There would be katrillion by the bazillion circumstances in order to get a result of all the life forms on this planet. And if all of life on this planet started from nothing, then how did all of this come out of nothing?? How does something come out of nothing…with God.

    “When you present the Methusala tree as evidence of a flood based solely on its again and I present and older organism or argue that it does not tell what happen BEFORE, is that PROOF?”

    Please have someone proof read your sentences. What are you trying to say here??

    “Yep and you keep going back to the well and presenting the same tired debunked garbage. If something can be show not to be irreducibly complex what support does it lend to the idea? If your age of the Earth arguments are flawed what proof are they?”

    What are YOU trying to say?? You blahblah, but you are not saying anything. What’s your point?? And exactly what points of the explanation of the young earth is flawed? Why don’t you point out the discrepancies instead of being a mouth piece for your handlers.

    “Can you smell the hypocrisy and flawed logic? You present proof but it does matter and you blast others for making the same claim (albeit out of context)???”

    You take things way out of context. As an atheist, you can’t see it. There’s no hypocrisy. Repentence for Christians is most important because it’s for their souls. God wants us to come to Him, first, through repentence. Christ died for us on the Cross for our sins. He is God. So for God, to present the “proofs” of how things came into existence is not what He wants us to do to come to Him. But, when we come to Him then all the truths of our existences beomes clear. And we present the proofs, on a scientific level to show how God is the Intelligent Designer. But, the most important factor of our existence is repentance.

    “You must believe the magic sky daddy exists before you can be indoctrinated to believe he exists? Seriously?”

    Seriously? And you would rather believe that all there is to our lives is this and then nothing? How sad is that? Then your parents mean nothing to you. Your siblings mean nothing. Do you have children? Because they will become nothing..going back to the non-existence where you presume we all came from. Which brings me back to my first response of how does something come from nothing…and to follow that, does something really go back to nothing?? Aren’t we something now? We breathe, we exist, we think, we love, we hurt, we LIVE. Think about that.

  18. Joanna Gadzinski April 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    Duane,

    What is your spiritual disposition?

  19. Joanna Gadzinski April 15, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    Well John Bebbington, you are truely suffering in your soul. There’s no logic in your arguements. You are searching, aren’t you?

  20. Peter Martyn April 17, 2011 at 4:53 am #

    Very interesting to read the comments from the the atheists, what I can’t figure out is why they even bother reading a blog like this? Why do people believing in a creator God (which incidently,atheists cannot disprove the existence for) cause such irritation to folk like dear John, Duane and Jack? Why would they care?
    Well maybe because people like Eric are attacking their cherished belief system, which is really their “religion”. And that may explain their hostility and need to defend themselves.
    The evolution theory, (for that is all it is), is like me believing if I wait a real long time my Ford car will change into a Ferrari. Hope I didn’t irritate anyone.

  21. Jeff Brace April 17, 2011 at 7:23 pm #

    Well Eric, you know you are hitting the right notes when people are reduced to personal attacks when they can’t counter the argument.

  22. Tiffany Zwieg April 17, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    Eric,

    You are totally right on. Considering that there was world wide travel for centuries before the it became the “social norm” (more like the political norm) to teach that the earth was flat (send an email, that is a very interesting topic to discuss) and how easy it was to dumb down that society back then, it is no different now with evolution. People (and governments) will believe whatever makes then feel safe or comfortable or will make it easier to obtain what they want. Not having to come to terms with a Creator, His laws and His ways is more comfortable for the majority of the world’s population. Having no moral absolutes makes it easier to do whatever you want and moral relativity makes it easier to accept Hitler as the good guy (Heaven forbid…).

    Your doing a great job Eric, don’t worry about all the negativity.

  23. John Bebbington April 18, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

    Joanna Gadzinski wrote:

    Well John Bebbington, you are truely suffering in your soul. There’s no logic in your arguements.

    Then engage. Which of my arguments are illogical and in what way?

  24. John Bebbington April 18, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Pablo Cruz wrote:

    Interesting, Andrew, I’d also like to see evidence of a simple organism, or simple cell, or simple molecule..

    Scientists say that there “must’ve been” a simple organism that “evolved” into more complex organisms (talk origins website). Must’ve been? Where’s the evidence for that?

    Pablo, go to the Science Daily website and search on Lock Torridon. It isn’t the answer to your question but it is another piece in the jigsaw.

    The theory of evolution and the millions/billions years is hypothetical at best.
    What amazes me even more is how the science literatures, like talk origins, present these theories hypothetically, while others try to pass it off as scientific fact!!

    All science is provisional.

  25. John Bebbington April 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    Dear CSE,

    1. Thank you very much. I look forward to Kent’s reply.

    2. Hmmm. I don’t think that combining two or three talks at the same event qualifies. But even if it does, that equates to about 1,000 events in 13 years which is about 1.5 events a week every week for 13 years – which was not the evidence of the appointments diary. It may be, of course, that the diary was not kept-up to-date.

    By the way, any news of Mr Abramson? My apologies but I cannot remember the correct spelling of his name.

  26. Jack Napper April 18, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    They produced something known as the Law of Biogenesis.

    Eric Terrell –
    Biogenesis is a theory. I suggest you do some further research into this. forth record the “Law of biogenesis” deals with fully formed life. Apparently Creationists think you should be able to dump Clorox and baby shampoo into the bath tub and Batman should pop out.

    Evolution is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory.

    So is Gravity. What’s your point here?

    n science, laws hold more weight than theories.

    FACEPALM. I think you need to stop looking at Eric’s little chart and get back to reality.

    A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

    So much for Sye’s claim that LAWS ARE ABSOLUTE too.

    I think this shows that atheists are, as Richard Mahn says, closed-minded and unwilling to admit they might be wrong.

    I apologize for making you look so foolish.

    Response: Me too. Where is the evidence from the evolutionists that the world was created from a big bang?

    Joanna Gadzinski-
    What does the Big Bang have to do with Evolutionary Theory? I think you are really just trying to get your opponent to accept the label of ‘evolutionist’ in a effort lend some credibility to the concept of EVOLUTIONISM so you can claim the whole thing is a religion.

    Who exactly was there to witness that event?

    Are you really trying to use the “were you there” argument? I can play too. How about Moses and the burning bush?

    And please explain to me how all the DNA in the world that we observe now was present in a pool of goop that, btw, came into existence out of nothing.

    Abiogenesis has been explained many times. In fact there is an interesting video title “Origins of life made easy” on YouTube. Perhaps you could watch it first. In the future try at least to make a better strawman.

    How can nothing develop a simple organism that developed into complex DNA? You cannot get complex DNA structures unless they were already present.

    See the YouTube video. You might wanna strap on a crash helmet first.

    You cannot add to information. It would already have to be present in order to have created all the magnificent life forms on this planet.

    This is starting to sound like a broken record. Do we really need to keep bringing up the nylonase?

    Response: Proof means evidence which the Atheists don’t have.

    I see you looked up one but not the other and therefore can’t tell me how they differ. I see here too that your assertions continue.

    Atheists claim absolutes without any proof just speculations.

    What absolutes? Maybe you should have looked this up too. The claim that there is no God is based on a lack of evidence of the claim. It isn’t the Atheist’s job to prove God doesn’t exist. this is called proving a negative. Of course you can try an re-word it all you want such as “proof and evidence that Atheism is true and accurate” but ultimately it’s childish avoidance of the fact that the burden of proof is on you.

    And they condemn people who don’t want to agree with their speculations.

    So if you walked into a crime scene found fingerprints, gun shot residue blood on the suspects hands and even a video tape would you still ignore the evidence simply because you couldn’t find the gun? Is it silly for the other officers to say “guess we have to let the guy go because you have found the gun YET”?

    Who was there to witness the pool of goop form into an amphibian and then crawl on the land?

    FACEPALM

    Please have someone proof read your sentences. What are you trying to say here??

    I admit to errors in my posts because I often check the blog late at night when I can’t get back to bed (neighbor’s dog) The questions were still coherent enough to follow. Let’s try this again.

    “When you present the METHUSELAH tree as evidence of a flood based solely on its AGE (yet again) and I present an older organism or argue that it does not tell what happen BEFORE, is that PROOF?”

    How about something simpler. The man down the street takes care of his elderly father. He’s 85. If he presented his father as evidence that because he is the oldest living person on the block as evidence that NOBODY lived there before would you buy it? The town we live in has been around for quite some time before that.

    What are YOU trying to say?? You blahblah, but you are not saying anything. What’s your point?? And exactly what points of the explanation of the young earth is flawed? Why don’t you point out the discrepancies instead of being a mouth piece for your handlers.

    Are you really that thick? The point is that if your arguments are flawed or your grasp of the science behind is such should we consider it proof? I already gave one example of a flawed argument above. If you would seriously like your PROOF of a young Earth scrutinized I and others would YET AGAIN debunk it. So go on. Run back to the well.

    I could have fun with the rest of this post but you shown your inability to grasp basic concepts. I make a statement regarding your argument and you run rampant with fallacious garbage.

    Well John Bebbington, you are truely suffering in your soul. There’s no logic in your arguements. You are searching, aren’t you?

    Joanna-
    Perhaps you can tell John how his arguments are flawed rather than making assertions.

    1. Re Dr. Hovind’s Teaching Experience: A letter has been written to Dr. Hovind requesting all the information on the schools in which he taught, and the length of time at each.

    Is your phone broken CSE? So what has taken so long? This isn’t the first time the question has been asked.

    • CSE April 18, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

      John,
      If one speaks three times at the same place, then it is considered speaking three times, is it not? You wouldn’t say, “I spoke only once… well, er, it was really three times in one day, but I only count it as one time.” 🙂 And, yes, the event schedule is not updated as often as it should be (not my department). (Like the passing of the buck? Some things we continue to carry from the Garden.)

      Jack,
      We are giving you an answer (after all the noise… You know, “The squeaky wheel…”), and yet you still have to be antagonistic? 😉

  27. Jennifer Preston April 18, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    Eric Terrell said:

    “In science, laws hold more weight than theories.”

    I literally spat out my tea in reaction to this. In a word, NO.
    In science, theories hold more weight that laws. Laws are basically mathematical descriptions of observations such as Newton’s law of motion. This includes the law of gravity. In otherwords a mathematical equation for the observation that larger objects attract less heavier objects.
    Einstein’s theory of relativity goes on further to explain these results. The reason it is called a theory is because it must be able to be proved false. I.e. it must be able to be tested.

    So you’ve got observations, laws if you like (although strictly speaking that would be completely the wrong word to use), for example, more massive objects attract less massive objects, you only find kiwis in New Zealand, you only find Pandas in China, Earthquakes occur in New Zealand more than they do in Britain. But what gives these observations meaning is the ability to explain them. That’s what theories do. So you’ve got relativity, natural selection and plate techtonics that explain the observations respectively.

    So theories have to be able to explain the results. What else do they have to do? Well they have to be able to make predictions, they have to be testable. This doesn’t mean predicting the future, as in this is what will happen in 15 years. What that means is you say if your theory is true, this is what we should observe if we were to run this experiment to test it. Then you can either see it or you can’t see it. If you can see it then you have more evidence to support your theory. Over time you build up evidence, you tweak your theory to account for more observations if needed. The more evidence you accumulate for your theory in this way the stronger your theory means. The longer your thoery lasts against testing, the stronger it becomes. Facts are facts. But theories explain those facts. Laws are laws, but theories explain those laws. Theories answer the ‘Why’ of laws and observations.

    So why are they call theories, when they are not your “this is what I think happened when I have no evidence theories”? Well when you carry out experiments, they have to be able to give you the results you don’t want (although for many scientists, it’s brilliant if you’re wrong because then you go through the wonder of discovering something new), i.e there has to be a chance that your experiments will go against your thoeries predictions. Sometimes all you need is to tweak your theories ever so slightly, but other times you need to scrap everything you’ve done.

    Joanna Gadzinski wrote

    “Proof means evidence”. Um, not in science. Proof means solid observations. Evidence is a case for. So for example, Person A shoots Person B with a gun. Finding Person A’s fingerprint on the gun would be evidence that Person A shot Person B but not proof as Person A could’ve touched the gun but not fired it. Proof would be catching the whole thing on CCTV so you could watch it. Science works in the same way. We cannot view the Big Bang but we can find evidence for it, for example, the Universe is expanding, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation etc. These observations are what the Big Bang (technically not an explosion, more of an expansion of space-time) theory explains.

    It might help if you looked up an online dictionary for those two words.

    Peter Martyn wrote

    “Very interesting to read the comments from the the atheists, what I can’t figure out is why they even bother reading a blog like this? Why do people believing in a creator God (which incidently,atheists cannot disprove the existence for) cause such irritation to folk like dear John, Duane and Jack? Why would they care?”

    Well I’m a Christian but not a creationist. But the reason I read this website and respond on the blogs is because: 1) I just have an interest in it, 2) I feel it is my duty as a scientist to give people the right information and to let them know that a lot of the “science” CSE comes out with is wrong, i.e. to not let false information regarding science be spread, 3) Some of the “science” and arguments posted on this site, by both CSE and commenters on the blogs, are so wrong it’s hilarious, and I swear with all the extra laughing I’m doing my overall health is improving. One such example of this is “In science, laws hold more weight than theories.” written by Eric Terrell.

  28. John Bebbington April 18, 2011 at 3:23 pm #

    CSE,

    It is still a remarkable claim but, as I have no evidence to the contrary, I am happy to give Eric the benefit of the doubting Thomas.

  29. John Bebbington April 18, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

    Jennifer,

    Would you like to have another go at this one:

    In other words a mathematical equation for the observation that larger objects attract less heavier objects.

  30. John Bebbington April 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    Jeff Brace wrote:

    Well Eric, you know you are hitting the right notes when people are reduced to personal attacks when they can’t counter the argument.

    Quite right, Jeff. Are you listening, Joanna?

  31. Duane April 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    @Joanna Gadzinski

    Duane,

    What is your spiritual disposition?

    What, are you going to preach to me? Save it. I find your religion repugnant, immoral and infantile. You are not going to find the verse that convinces me otherwise.

    Statement of Faith
    The Scriptures

    We believe that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout, in that holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the very words of Scripture. It is without error (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself, and that Scripture is our final authority. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.

    Read that. It pretty much invalidates ANY and ALL “Science” presented on this blog by CSE. It shows a bias that is insurmountable. This shows that protecting your delusion is more important than facts.

    Did you ever consider that all of this might even possibly be wrong? “Son of God” in the Old Testament was an honorific meaning “righteous person”. When Christianity was taken over by Gentiles, they had an existing tradition of demi-gods such as Hercules and Perseus. When they heard about this Jesus person claiming to be the Son of God, then they had a pre-disposition to take it literally. Your whole religion is based upon a cultural misunderstanding. Did you know the Trinity is a concept that’s not even in the Bible, but was created later? “Oh, but it’s implied.” The whole foundation of your religion is “implied”? This is simply a 1st Century Mystery Blood cult that was forced upon Europe by the Roman Empire and reinforced at sword point in the Middle Ages.

    It’s 2011. Time to shed ancient superstitions and join us in the real world. We don’t have all the answers yet, but we’re getting there.

  32. Pablo Cruz April 18, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    John, all science is not provisional. Only the interpretation of scientific evidence. The facts remain the same while the interpretations. In the dictionary, science is knowledge derived from observations, experimentations, etc..

    I haven’t read the website you’ve recommended, but I will. The info I got is from talkorigins.org and they were very thorough. However thorough they may be, as well as perhaps the website you recommended, their conclusion is only based simply on the non supported, unscientific, zero evidence of a simple organism. Naturally, any explanation to support this preconceived idea is futile.

    I would say that the “simple organism” idea isn’t even a hypothesis (my opinion). Because it was stated as “mustve been”. So, it doesn’t seem as a hypothesis, rather a statement. From an evolutionary point of view, it must be right. This ideology is a hinderance to science.

    If you want to believe it to be true, that’s fine, but don’t call it science. Since you want to believe it to be true, it is your religion.

    But I’ll check out the website.

  33. Eric Terrell April 18, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    Jennifer-
    If a valid theory must be able to be tested, how might evolution be tested? If it can’t be tested, how is it so accepted among the “scientific” community? The only way I know of is evidence, and I have not yet seen a single piece of it that hasn’t been disproved or discredited. There are many unexplained mysteries, enigmas, and conundrums that it seems evolution cannot explain, yet tells us to accept anyway.

    P.S. How can one be a Christian and not a creationist? I think Genesis is crystal-clear that God created the universe in 6 days.

  34. Danny April 18, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    @John Bebbington
    Don’t forget to answer my post back to you in “DID THE DINOSAURS BECOME EXTINCT?” Thanks!

    Ekkman

  35. Pablo Cruz April 18, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    Ok, John, I looked up the website you’ve recommended.. science daily (lichen Torridon)

    This article confirms my point.

    You’ll find phrases such as “remarkably preserved organisms..1 billion yrs ago..” and “…surprisingly early start…”

    Also, “researchers believe..” made my point loud and clear!!

    You’ll also read “… first animals were able to leave the sea behind..” This comment is made as a scientific fact when there is none. But its promoted, they say it, and you believe it.

    Think about the animal in the process of evolution leaving the sea. Does it take millions of years for the process? So the animal has half fin, half legs..either it is a slow swimmer or a slow runner. How would it survive? This animal is definately not the fittest.

    Again, this article present things hypothetically, but you accept it as fact. Why??

    They present certain things as fact when science does support it.

    Science is not provisional. If a scientist presents a hypothesis, he/she need to conduct science to either confirm or reject the hypothesis. Hanging on to hypothesis in hope to find evidence is dishonest.

    Every cell, organism, molecule.. is complex. Science confirms this, including the loch Torridon. So why hang on to a simple organism belief? And why would you try to tell me its a fact when its only presented as an assumption?

    Thank you for recommending that website. It confirms my point. Please, read it again…objectively, and you’ll see it (I hope).

  36. Pablo Cruz April 18, 2011 at 6:28 pm #

    Correction… Loch Torridon..

  37. Jennifer Preston April 19, 2011 at 6:20 am #

    “Here’s the rub: You must repent before you will see the truth and be “persuaded.”

    Okay, so you have to be a Christian to believe in a literal meaning of Genesis. Therefore all Creationists are Christian. The problem is not all Christians are Creationists. And for good reason. As someone mentioned earlier, you cannot disprove God. But that is not, under any circumstance absolute proof that God exists. The scientific method means that theories must be able to be disproved. You cannot disprove God, which means that God is firmly not part of science.
    This also places Intelligent Design firmly out of science, and since Eric has just admitted that to be a creationist you have to be a Christian, this places creationism firmly out of science too. Neither Evolution, Plate Techtonics nor the big Bang theory say anything about a God or Intelligent Designer. But nor do they say he cannot exist. Including anything about God having done any of these things makes the theory unable to be disproved and so makes it not science.

    So what Eric is saying is that Science confirms the Bible, but you have to be a Christian to see that, i.e. you have to believe in God, so then you let your religion, your belief in God, control what conclusions you come to. But as soon as you believe in God and start including God in your science, then it goes firmly out of the realm of science.
    So does this mean that Eric has now admitted that Creationism/Intelligent Designer is not science? Does this mean he’s admitted that it doesn’t matter what the observation is or really means, because he’s a Christian he will always conclude that it confirms the Bible, regardless of whether it does or not? Cos that’s not science. That’s not how you come to conclusions in Science. That doesn’t prove anything. That doesn’t make you right and everybody else wrong!

    I interpret what you say as “I believe in God, I now believe in a literal meaning of Genesis, so the Bible is right, evidence must confirm the Bible or it’s false, I’m right and everyone else is wrong”. What you believe does not dictate what’s right and what’s wrong.
    At least science doesn’t go in with any pre-conceived beliefs. At least scientists can separate between what is actually science and what is religion.

  38. Jack Napper April 19, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    John,
    If one speaks three times at the same place, then it is considered speaking three times, is it not? You wouldn’t say, “I spoke only once well, er, it was really three times in one day, but I only count it as one time.” 🙂 And, yes, the event schedule is not updated as often as it should be (not my department). (Like the passing of the buck? Some things we continue to carry from the Garden.)

    This is being intentionally misleading. For example if Richard Dawkins is invited to lecture/speak he may lecture/speak multiple times in a single day or even over a couple of days. He does not get a credibility bump otherwise.

    Jack,
    We are giving you an answer (after all the noise You know, “The squeaky wheel”), and yet you still have to be antagonistic? 😉

    No you’re not. You’re avoiding. Are you telling me that after all the times people have asked CSE doesn’t have this information handy? Is this yet another dodge attempt where you will become frustrated, pack up your toys and go home without ever answering? This does more to hurt your case and proves John’s point.

  39. John Bebbington April 19, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    Hi Jack,

    If one speaks three times at the same place, then it is considered speaking three times, is it not? You wouldn’t say, “I spoke only once well, er, it was really three times in one day, but I only count it as one time.” And, yes, the event schedule is not updated as often as it should be (not my department). (Like the passing of the buck? Some things we continue to carry from the Garden.)

    This is being intentionally misleading. For example if Richard Dawkins is invited to lecture/speak he may lecture/speak multiple times in a single day or even over a couple of days. He does not get a credibility bump otherwise.

    I took the view that just as an actor doing a matinee followed by an evening performance would say that he had given two performances Eric under similar circumstances could claim that he had spoken twice.

  40. John Bebbington April 19, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Pablo:

    And why would you try to tell me its a fact when its only presented as an assumption?

    $250,000 is yours if you can prove to me that I ever told you such a thing.

    Think about the animal in the process of evolution leaving the sea. Does it take millions of years for the process? So the animal has half fin, half legs..either it is a slow swimmer or a slow runner. How would it survive? This animal is definately not the fittest.

    Every molecule, cell, bacterium, organism and animal which ever reproduced was perfectly fitted to its environment and as a mariner you will have seen many animals that live both in and out of the water.

    There is no such thing as half a fin or half a leg (outside of mutilation or degeneration). The slow leg of an alligator is not the fast leg of the cheetah but it remains a perfectly functioning leg suited to its purpose.

    A seal has four legs but the leg bones above the ankle are completely contained within its body. Not much of a leg but seals seem to manage on the seashore successfully.

    Your problem, Pablo, is that you have no understanding of evolution but consider yourself to be an expert. If you read some Dawkins, Ridley, Prothero (and a host of others) you would be better able to argue your case. At the moment, you are not fit for purpose.

  41. Jennifer Preston April 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    “In other words a mathematical equation for the observation that larger objects attract less heavier objects.”

    Yes, it’s all to do with mass not size of object as my previous comment unintentially implied.

    Eric Terrell wrote:

    “If a valid theory must be able to be tested, how might evolution be tested? If it can’t be tested, how is it so accepted among the “scientific” community? The only way I know of is evidence, and I have not yet seen a single piece of it that hasn’t been disproved or discredited. There are many unexplained mysteries, enigmas, and conundrums that it seems evolution cannot explain, yet tells us to accept anyway.

    P.S. How can one be a Christian and not a creationist? I think Genesis is crystal-clear that God created the universe in 6 days.”

    Okay, A beautiful example is as follows. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimps have 24. Therefore you would expect that one of the pairs of chromosomes in chimps have fused together somewhere in the past, giving humans 23 pairs of chromosomes. We have made a prediction. If we don’t find this, evolution is wrong. But we have found this. The fusion is on chromosome number 2. We have actually found exactly where is fused to amazing accuracy.

    Second example, actually from back in the early days. There is a flower that has such a long way down to its pollen storage (so I’m not into plants that much) that Darwin predicted there must be an insect with a long enough antenna (not much of a biologist either) to reach down and collect the pollen of the flower so they can transport this pollen to other flowers. So evolution has made a prediction about what we can find in nature. We have found the insect that does this. It is a moth/butterfly. I did try to do a search on this, but haven’t found anything obvious, because I don’t know enough of the details to have a meaningful search criteria. I don’t have the time now but I will spend time looking it up in the next 24 hours and get back to you.

    As for All Christians being Creationist, I don’t know about you, but the most important thing in my faith is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. That is what I base my faith on. That is the foundation of my faith. I don’t have to believe in a literal meaning of Genesis. But my faith in Jesus rising from the dead seems to grow all the time. And it’s Easter weekend this week, and I pray that people won’t get carried away in chocolate eggs and baby chicks and lambs, but to remember that Jesus rose from the dead to save our souls so that who ever believes in Him, may not die but have eternal life. I believe Jesus rose from the dead so that is what I will try to convince people of. But I do NOT have to take Genesis literally. In my view, Genesis is emphasising that whatever happened, God did it. Clearly you are a little confused as to what makes someone a Christian.

  42. John Bebbington April 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    Jennifer,

    The flower was the cornet orchid of Madagascar and the hawkmoth with the long proboscis was Xanthopan morganii praedicta.

  43. Eric Terrell April 19, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    You’re right, Jennifer- God is not part of science. Only His creation is. We can, however see His handiwork in the Earth today. Take the pollen/butterfly example, for instance. God created them to work together- that’s the Creationist explanation. The evolutionary explanation would be that the moth adapted to reach the pollen. But how? If it could not reach within the flower in the first generation, how would its descendents survive? It would not live to reproduce.

    About the Resurrection: Yes, the quintessential foundation for Christianity is Jesus Christ’s Resurrection (and praise God he did), but there is no need for that resurrection if there was no original sin. If you do not believe that Creation happened in six days, I am assuming that you believe the world’s humans evolved, guided by God, or as the atheistic theory of evolution believes, without God at all. Since you believe in Christ I can discount the latter. The problem with the remaining option is that it does not allow for an Adam and Eve, or original sin, as described in Genesis 3. In fact, it raises the question of how an Adam and Eve got together to produce more humans if God did not miraculously evolve both humans at the same time and place, nothing short of a miracle itself. Which raises another question-not that I presume to know the mind of God, but why wait for however many millions of years when God could have created the world and its populace in 6 days? It seems like reading too deep into a plain, descriptive passage of Scripture. It seems like shortchangng the Bible- the same Bible that gives you the account of the Resurrection.

  44. Pablo Cruz April 20, 2011 at 2:06 am #

    John, the alligator and the seal are not going through macroevolution. Very bad examples to make your point.

    I never said you told me about the assumptions. I was talking about all evolution literature is built upon assumptions. You simply try to present it here as a fact. From those assumptions, everything fits or makes sense, but it doesn’t make it scientifically factual.

    That loch torridon you’ve recommended for me to read is full of these assumptions based on their preconceived ideology.

  45. Pablo Cruz April 20, 2011 at 2:37 am #

    John wrote:
    Every molecule, cell, bacterium, organism and animal which ever reproduced was perfectly fitted to its environment and as a mariner you will have seen many animals that live both in and out of the water.

    I agree that they are perfectly fitted to its environment. God made it that way. No macroevolution needed.

  46. Pablo Cruz April 20, 2011 at 2:43 am #

    John wrote:
    Your problem, Pablo, is that you have no understanding of evolution but consider yourself to be an expert.

    Ok, $250,000 to you if you can prove I said that I’m an expert.

    I have no understanding of evolution, that’s true. I don’t understand how something that is based on assumptions from preconceived ideology is scientific.

  47. Jennifer Preston April 20, 2011 at 6:15 am #

    Ah, here we go… I did a search for “Darwin Predicted Existence of Moth” and a few links down I got this:

    “Darwin was studying the Comet Orchid (Angraecum sesquipedale Thouars) of Madagascar and determined that there must be some specialized insect that could feed from and pollinate this curious plant with a nearly one foot long spur that only has nectar (sugary water that feeds adult moths and butterflies) at the very extreme tip.

    The comet orchid is a phalenophilus or “moth loving” flower that is scentless during the day but fragrant and highly visible at night (due to the stark white coloration) which helps to attract night flyers. Thus, Darwin concluded that the proboscis of a moth would be just the thing to retrieve this deep nectar from the orchid.

    “The pollinia would not be withdrawn until some huge moth, with a wonderfully long proboscis, tried to drain the last drop. If such great moths were to become extinct in Madagascar, assuredly the Angraecum would become extinct.” (Darwin 1862)

    Thus Charles Darwin predicted the discovery and existence of a creature that seemed utterly laughable at the time. A moth with a proboscis at least 11 inches and probably more like 12 inches long. Nothing of this sort had been discovered anywhere in the world.

    Darwin wrote in On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects.

    “It is, however, surprising that any insect should be able to reach the nectar : our English sphinxes have probosces as long as their bodies ; but in Madagascar there must be moths with probosces capable of extension to a length of between ten and eleven inches !” (Darwin 1862).

    In 1873, Fritz Müller discovered a sphinx moth in Brazil with a proboscis of 10 to 11 inches long, nearly the right length for the Predicted Moth, but certainly on the wrong continent. At least, Müller’s find proved the possibility that a moth of this sort could exist somewhere in the world.

    Darwin died in 1882, never having known if is his prediction would be proven false or true.

    A subspecies of Morgan’s Sphinx Moth of southeast Africa was discovered on the island of Madagascar twenty one years after the death of Charles Darwin. It indeed had a proboscis long enough to reach the deeply hidden nectary of the Comet orchid.

    In 1903 was classified as Xanthopan morgani subspecies praedicta. It is also known as the long-tongued night-flying hawk moth, or also as the Predicted Moth.”

  48. Stephen Holshouser April 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    Jennifer,

    You wrote;
    “Well I’m a Christian but not a creationist…. The problem is not all Christians are Creationists. And for good reason…. In my view, Genesis is emphasising that whatever happened, God did it….”

    All Christians ARE creationists. They might be old earth creationists or young earth creationists, but creationists, nonetheless. You do believe that God made the universe and established the physical laws, right? You believe that God did it, right? Then you ARE a creationist. If you don’t believe God created the world like John, Jack, & Duane, then you are NOT a creationist.

    You wrote;
    “As for All Christians being Creationist, I don’t know about you, but the most important thing in my faith is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead… Jesus rose from the dead to save our souls so that who ever believes in Him, may not die but have eternal life….”

    What did Jesus save His people from? (Matt 1:21) According to your view, when did sin come into the world, and who was the literal first person that sinned against God? Do you believe Jesus is able to save your eternal soul, but that He was incorrect when saying “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”?

    You wrote;
    “I believe Jesus rose from the dead so that is what I will try to convince people of… ”

    Have you ever done that on this website, or are you content to see Jack, John, Duane, Carl, and andrew perish without Christ? Or maybe it’s more important to you to “give people the right information and to let them know that a lot of the “science” CSE comes out with is wrong.”

  49. Eric Terrell April 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    As great as these arguments for evolution are, the fact that Darwin predicted that for every plant, there is a species that uses it is not in and of itself spectacular. That could also be used as a creationist argument- that God has a purpose for everything. It could also mean that Darwin was just astute. For example: if I see that there is a lock, I assume that there must be a key. If I see something that would otherwise be totally useless and impractical, I assume that there must be something or some situation that makes it practical.

    Of course, there is a presumption about all this X evolved with/for/from Y stuff- that life exists at all. Evolution has no statistically possible way to explain why life exists. They argue “this evolved from that,” but they have no way to account for the intricately complex mechanisms of biology that could NOT be formed from random interactions in a primordial goop or sea. I would recommend looking up what the odds are of life occurrung on Earth outside of special Creation. Evolution tries to be logical, but there is a reason the overwhelming majority of mathemeticians aware of the odds don’t believe in it. It is based on the fallacious assumption that the exact conditions needed for life- very specific ones, I might add-arose out of what amounts to a big explosion. I would ask you to think- does anything resembling order ever arise out an explosion? Because if the foundations are false, evolution must be, too.

  50. Duane April 20, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser April 20th at 2:09 pm

    Have you ever done that on this website, or are you content to see Jack, John, Duane, Carl, and andrew perish without Christ? Or maybe it’s more important to you to “give people the right information and to let them know that a lot of the “science” CSE comes out with is wrong.”

    So, for the sole crime of using rationality and common sense and not believing in your particular delusion you have convicted me to eternal torment. You don’t even know me. This is why your beliefs are immoral. Because I haven’t been convinced that the entire purpose of life is to tell Yahweh over and over again what a swell guy He is and because some Greek misunderstood the Hebrew honorific Son of God, and took it literally, I get cast in the lake of fire. Oh, and all of this over a piece of fruit, that Yahweh so lovingly pointed out to his guileless creations. Unbelievable.