Our Websites

They’re both religions

Many people think that religion and science do not go together. Often, they compartmentalize each into completely separate places in their lives. Science, after all, is based upon observation and testing—unquestionable facts. Right? Religion, on the other hand, is based upon thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Science is material; religion is immaterial. Science gives answers; religion causes problems. Isn’t this the basic attitude towards the two?

Ultimately, anything that is untestable is put into the realm of religion. We can observe the law of gravity. We can test the law of inertia. Of course, these would not be considered religious. We cannot, however, observe the Big Bang, nor can we test it. We have not witnessed a star form. We have not seen life emerge from non-life.

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

For more on this topic, please watch “They’re Both Religions,” session one of my Beginnings DVD curriculum.

,

Leave67 Responses to testThey’re both religions

  1. andrew Ryan February 14, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    “The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable.”

    The theory of evolution has made many testable predictions. That’s part of what makes it a scientific theory. Feel free to ask for examples, but I would really have thought you could have made the effort to do some googling on the subject before making these claims.

    “We cannot, however, observe the Big Bang, nor can we test it.”

    While the Big Bang is not the only plausible theory we have, it is certainly supported by evidence. To name just two examples, there is Hubble’s Law and there’s the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Feel free to offer alternative explanations for these phenomena (there’s a Nobel Prize awaiting anyone who can), but to claim that the evidence does not exist is simple false.

    “If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you.”

    Which atheists have you asked? Try asking professor Lawrence Krauss. Feel free to say that you don’t agree with his answer, but it’s simply untrue to say that he doesn’t have one.

    So yes, the Big Bang and evolution are both testable and potentially falsifiable scientific theories.

  2. Michael Fisher February 14, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    “Many people think that religion and science do not go together”

    Rather depends on the religion. Even speaking just of those who self identify as “Christian” interpretation of sacred texts varies widely, to put it mildly.

    “Science gives answers; religion causes problems. Isn’t this the basic attitude towards the two?”

    More precisely, science provides explanatory frameworks for observations of the physical world. As for religion causing problems, um, do you follow events in the Middle East much? Read up on history any? Christians were squabbling and Killing each other at least as far back as the Emperor Theodosius’s execution of the Bishop Priscillian for heresy, and that’s just one that happens to be well documented.

    “Ultimately, anything that is untestable is put into the realm of religion.”

    Um, neither math nor logic are testable like, say, the freezing and melting point of distilled water at a standard one atmosphere of pressure — but neither is a “religion”. Granted these pieces aren’t doctoral dissertations, but you might want to paint with a smaller brush than a (sorry to mix metaphors a bit here) fire hose .

    “We can observe the law of gravity. We can test the law of inertia.” — and a whole lot else besides. A whole lot. From subatomic particles to the very edge of the universe. HERE you’ve being ridiculously narrow.

    Nice rhetorical technique if you can get away with it, but not very revealing of any underlying truth.

    “We cannot, however, observe the Big Bang, nor can we test it.”

    Which of course, is simply wrong. And getting anyone to swallow it for even a microsecond depends on them falling for the rhetorical smoke screen you created with your over-broad and over-narrow statements about science and religion.

    “We have not witnessed a star form.”

    Another misdirect. Technically we have not witnessed *A* star forming — but then the physics we CAN test and measure tell us that “we”, humans in a single life span, never could BECAUSE star formation is a process that would require (relative to a human life span) an enormous span of time.

    However — the universe provides us with a kind of time machine thanks to its enormous size and the finite speed of light.

    “We have not seen life emerge from non-life.”

    And this one starkly demonstrates the logical fallacy underlying ALL of these “arguments” you present. It’s called “the argument from ignorance” and it relies on some actual (creation or observation of life forming from simpler elements) – or supposed (like the “not witnessed a star form”) gap in information often (as in this piece) followed by a false dichotomy (“Either you believe”).

    Here the form of the argument is “there are only two possible explanations for {origin of life}, and the evil athiest sicentist cannot PROVE abiogenises, so the ONLY ALTERNATIVE is ex nihilo creation of absolutely everything by the American Folk Protestant Christian triune God!!

    Give me a break.

    The entire universe COULD have been created last Tuesday at 1:00 pm Pacific Standard time with everything in place and in motion WITH THE APPEARANCE of age, including false memories in every living thing.

    You CAN’T PROVE that wrong.

    Does that make it true? It follows EXACTLY (work it out) the same logical form as your argument from abiogenises, so if YOUR argument is valid SO IS MINE.

    If, however, you think my argument absurd (and I’m sure you do) — then you must also abandon yours.

    Logically (though not materially and still not religiously) yours,

    Mike

  3. Michael Fisher February 14, 2011 at 9:30 am #

    Oops. I forgot. You don’t want actual clickable references to data.

    So if anyone want to find some references to star formation to verify I’m not just making things up they can google (or bing, or whatever) “Eagle Nebula” and “star formation” and find a wealth of information — and beautiful photographs of stars forming.

    Apologies.

    Mike

  4. Jay Liverstitch February 14, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    Eric says, “We cannot, however, observe the Big Bang, nor can we test it.

    We can also not witness a crime that occurred in recent the past, yet I doubt you would ever call forensics a religion. In fact, if the sole qualification of religion is that “you can not observe it” then I would dare say you have many religions. You did not witness your own birth; I therefore claim that the belief you hold that you are the son of Kent Hovind is a religion.

    Obviously, the above is just plain silly, but it’s essentially what you are proclaiming. In point of fact, we can, and have tested the Big Bang Theory (as well as biological evolution and star formation). You said ”We can observe the law of gravity. “, and indeed we can. The irony is that it is precisely the observations and tests that we’ve performed regarding gravity that have led to the Big Bang theory.

    Even if we cannot witness the event, like your birth, we can test it based on phenomenon that we can witness. In the case of your paternity, we could ask “What should we expect to find if Eric is the son of Kent”, and then test to see if those conditions exist. In this case, we should expect to find that you and Kent share physical characteristics, we could perform an ABO blood test for impossible matches, or ultimately, perform a genetic fingerprinting test to find to near certainty whether Eric was the son of Kent.

    In similar fashion, when scientists ask the question “what should we find if the Big Bang theory were correct” we can then test to see if those conditions exits. E.G. it was predicted that we should find that the universe is non-static (expanding or contracting), as you know this was confirmed by Hubble’s redshift observations. We should find light elements to be the most abundant, which has been confirmed through spectral analysis. But, the best method thus far (the “cosmic DNA test” if you will) comes from the prediction that if the big bang occurred as the theory states, 13.7 billion years ago, we should find a near uniform, very low temperature (~2.725 Kelvin) radiation emanating from every direction we look, essentially bathing the universe in radiation. This was eventually confirmed to an amazing accuracy with the COBE and WMAP satellite surveys. All of these predictions were born out of the theory, and all of them were made before the actual corresponding discovery.

    You often claim that you are not “anti-science” but the above process, the discovery of how and why things happen, which then leads to conclusions about things we can’t observe, that is, the thing which you attack in this very post, IS science. Science does more than simply look at the universe and describe what it sees, as you seem to think. The entire goal of science is to understand things which we CAN NOT see. Newton didn’t just observe gravity and stop; his goal was to use what he could observe to explain the parts of gravity which he could not. To relegate science to investigate only those things which we can directly observe, is to neuter it.

    Jay

  5. Jay Liverstitch February 14, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    Ok, now that I’ve got the science part out of the way, I want to address what I find to be the ironic and comical nature of Eric’s post.

    In my opinion, among the more strange tactics creationists tend to use is this one, where you try and claim that scientific theory’s are, in essence, the same as your religious beliefs. I find it hard to express how humerus I find this. If claiming that the big bang is religious debunks the big bang, then what does this do with creationism, when you’ve just claimed that it’s also religious? I don’t understand why you think this helps your case. If faith is not sufficient to accept the big bang, then why should it be sufficient to accept your creation story?

    What’s more, and to add even more hilarity, you don’t stop there. Today you make this statement “The theories of origins—creation – and – evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. “, but tomorrow you’ll have a video of Kent or yourself explaining how the grand canyon can be tested to show that the Bible’s flood story is true, how thermodynamics supports special creation, or how wisdom teeth prove that the bibles notion of someone living to 900 is accurate. You go to great lengths to try and show that science supports creationism more than it does what you inaccurately term “evolutionism”. Even the name, “Creation Science Evangelism” implies that you think creationism is scientific.

    It’s as if you’re playing this game with two different, and mutually exclusive strategies, and hoping we won’t notice (or perhaps you don’t notice it yourself). When it suits you, you go to lengths to try and emulate scientific research and ideas to lend credibility to your claims, but then in almost the next breath, you go to equally great lengths to discredit that same scientific process, and all of the scientific principles you were previously aspiring to emulate.

    I have a hypothesis as to why you do this, and it has to do less with you trying to convince me, and more to with your own self validation. It is confirmation bias combined with cognitive dissonance on grand display. This is why I say you probably don’t realize that your own strategies are mutually exclusive; because unconsciously you employ these strategies as a means of defending your own predefined beliefs, and whichever strategy best fits the occasion, you will employ with no regard to it’s ultimate consequence, because it simply allows you to continue to suspend the rational analysis of your claims, even if only temporarily; but that doesn’t matter so much, because when it comes up again, you’ll simply switch to a different strategy to delay even further. Perhaps this hypothesis is wrong, let’s test it and see. :-)

    Jay

  6. Jeriboy Flaga February 14, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    I am not really a scientist but I have heard some Christian scientists who said that there are other possible explanations to discoveries in science that are used to explain the Big Bang and evolution.

    I think you should also google for them..

    Thanks..

  7. Jay Liverstitch February 14, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Oops, forgot at least one point…

    Eric said “creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious.

    Since you and your father admit that creation is religious, and since both of you have said that religion should not be taught in schools (see blog post dated September 14th), will you now remove all of the articles on the site in favor of teaching creation/Christianity in schools?

    Jay

  8. Nathan Warden February 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm #

    Thanks for the post Eric, it’s amazing how many people this goes right over their head.

    One person wrote about forensic science above, however, forensics is still using observable science such as matching DNA, using mathematical probabilities, etc.

    No one “observed” the big bang happening. Even more religious are the atheists in the fact that no one “observed” the matter that caused the supposed big bang to happen in the first place. Albeit based on some theoretical evidence like red shift, to say we “know” the big bang happened is a statement of faith based on an atheistic worldview.

    The big bang is an assumption based on circumstantial evidence.

    Nathan

  9. Jennifer Preston February 14, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    Jay,

    First of all your post was wonderful and I must quote a sentence from it because I was going to mention the argument and go into more detail about it.

    “We can also not witness a crime that occurred in recent the past, yet I doubt you would ever call forensics a religion.”

    Scientists are Nature’s crime scence investigators. If someone (say Andy) murdered someone else (say Ben) and no one else saw, the CSIs go in and all evidence leads back to Andy, by the “no one observed it” argument, under no circumstances could Andy ever be found guilty because no one observed him kill Ben, yet his blood might have been on Ben’s body,

  10. Jennifer Preston February 14, 2011 at 2:40 pm #

    Sorry, my laptop did something weird and posted my last post…
    Anyway, Science is like that…We are never going to be able to observe the Big Bang because it happened in the past, but there is evidence for it, and Jay has done a perfect job of explaining how it is testable.

    Before any of you bring it up there is one more thing I want to write about. In Kent’s seminar 1 he states that the Big Bang theory says that the singularity was spinning faster and faster untill it exploded. From someone who has a BSc (Hons) in Physics, the Big Bang theory says no such thing. So I would like to request that CSE stop saying that. Kent then goes onto say that because the singularity was spinnning in one direction, that all the planets and galaxies should be spinning in the same direction. For this argument to be valid, the planets and the galaxies would’ve had to come out the Big Bang fully formed and this is just plain wrong. Kent also adds insult to every single physicist out there by getting the conversation of angular momentum (CAM) completely wrong. CAM is used more for single objects such as one Sun, or one Planet. Let’s take the Sun as an example. If the Sun rotates in an anti-clockwise direction, then all the planets will orbit around the Sun in an anti clockwise direction. In this case it wouldn’t matter what direction the Earth was spinning on its axis, as long as the Earth was orbiting around the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction. But this is not the whole story. You can have Planets/Moons orbiting backwards around a Star/Planet. I won’t go into it here, but I would like to encourage you to do your own research on it.

    So I would like to request that CSE remove all this false information on the Conservation of Angular Momentum and stop using the argument because not only should it not be used, but you are wrong and therefore giving out false information that people are going to take as being right when it is not.

    “If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you”. The question should not be ‘What came before the Big Bang?’ but rather a better question would be ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ There are a few theories out there but we don’t yet have the technology to test them…yet. Having said that, if the LHC shows evidence of mini black holes, that would be strong evidence for 11-dimensions and string theory. And if string theory is right then we are one step closer to finding the answer to that question. On the other hand if the Scientists are wrong, they would love it because it would mean that they have more investigating to do and this is what they love.

    The fact is, just because we don’t know something now doesn’t mean we never will. There is an awful lot more to the major scientific theories, especially the Big Bang theory, than what gets into the textbooks or to the press. The evidence is taken as a whole, not just from a little part of the subject. If the LHC didn’t find the Higgs Boson particle, it doesn’t mean we’re wrong about everything. We might just be wrong about a tiny little bit but the current model of particle physics is based on a lot of solid observations from particle accelerators and simple stuff at the most basic level that we are positive is right is a solid foundation for the more complicated stuff, so it certainly does not mean we are wrong about everything These theories go through brutal peer reviews and most science papers do not get published. Of the ones that do it takes years of testing and more peer reviews before they even make it into a school/university textbook. Science is a really brutal career to work in. And at shool you are only really given a very brief overview into any subject. The really meaty stuff comes at University. What they teach in the school textbooks is only scratching the surface of Science.

  11. Jennifer Preston February 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Nathan Warden wrote “some theoretical evidence like red shift”.

    Um, red shift isn’t theoretical. It’s an observation.

    Jay, I like your posts.

  12. Jennifer Preston February 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    One more…
    Could CSE also stop using the argument about Sirius being a red giant and now a white dwarf. That is also giving wrong information and is an insult to astronomers everywhere, amatuers and experts alike.

    The answer is in Kent OWN slide in CS 1. Sirius is a BINARY star system. It has two stars. Sirius A is a red giant which is visible with the naked eye, Sirius B, which orbit Sirius A, is a white dwarf which is not visible to the naked eye. CSE, Please stop using this.

  13. Michael Fisher February 14, 2011 at 3:13 pm #

    “The big bang is an assumption based on circumstantial evidence”

    Yup.

    “One person wrote about forensic science above, however, forensics is still using observable science such as matching DNA, using mathematical probabilities, etc.”

    Yup. Circumstantial evidence.

    Do you know what “circumstantial” means?

    World English Dictionary
    circumstantial (ˌsɜːkəmˈstænʃəl)

    — adj
    1. of or dependent on circumstances

    So lets look at the root. The root has several different definitions depending on the exact context, but the applicable definition here is:

    “an unessential or secondary an unessential or secondary accompaniment of any fact or event; minor detail:of any fact or event; minor detail:”

    Got that? An event, the “big event”, the even we’re concerned with, be it a murder, an automobile accident — or the Big Bang — happens. That’s the main event, the most significant fact — BUT — said even causes or is accompanied by, usually numerous, SECONDARY events – “accompaniments”, many of which ‘hang around’.

    Like finger prints. Or the cosmic background radiation.

    .

  14. Jay Liverstitch February 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    Hi Nathan,

    You responded to me “One person wrote about forensic science above, however, forensics is still using observable science such as matching DNA, using mathematical probabilities, etc.”

    Precisely!

    Even if we can’t observe an event, we can often observe the effects or aftermath of that event, and as you point out, even use math to calculate what said effects should look like.

    I now respectfully request that you read my post again and explain to me why you think that the same type of “observable science” you admit occurs in forensics, is somehow not permitted when investigating the cosmos. I even gave examples of calculations performed, like the cosmic microwave background and redshift which you hand-wave away as “theoretical evidence”. If you were to be consistent, you would also hand-wave away “Mendelian inheritance” in DNA tests. After all, Mendel’s work on genetics was “only theoretical”.

    Jay

  15. Markus Benthin February 15, 2011 at 2:03 am #

    I agree, creation and evolution a religious. Testable predictions are only observable within the variating kinds.

    The political systems that come with either religion are for creation: a (by God) limited constitutional monarchy or republic, and for evolution: collectivism (democracy, 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what’s for dinner, or the government has absolut authority without limitations by God).

    The freedoms of the US Constitutions are given by the Creator. Freedom in collectivism doesn’t exist, the government grants permits and licenses to those who comply with their agenda.

  16. Mark James February 15, 2011 at 3:38 am #

    Hi Jay (and Jennifer),

    Forensic scientists study evidence using scientific techniques but their results must still be interpreted. No matter how convinced the prosecution, or the defence, is in their interpretation of the forensic evidence, neither can be absolutely 100% certain unless they were there when the crime was committed and they witnessed it with their own eyes. This is exactly the case with theories of origins.

    Now, if the forensic scientist were to find evidence that contradicts all the other evidence using the same standards of interpretation, the case should, in theory, be thrown out. Sadly this is not the case with origins science. Evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory of the day is often ignored or ridiculed. Attempts are even made to suppress new evidence, while the scientific establishment seeks to either refute it or incorporate it into their own (modified) theory. And there are plenty of historic examples of this attitude holding back the advance of science.

    One very good example of this relates to Hubble’s law and the big bang theory. For 40 years astronomers have been aware of high red shift quasars interacting with low red shift galaxies. There are even examples of quasars that appear to be situated in front of (i.e. closer than) low red shift objects. According to the big bang theory this should not be possible as the higher the red shift, the further away the object must be and objects certainly can’t interact gravitationally if they are not in close proximity. In response to one of these examples NASA released an image which they declared showed no interaction. Unfortunately, it was quickly pointed out that the definition of the image was so poor that the spiral arms of the galaxy were not even visible and as soon as the definition was increased, the ‘bridge’ was once again obvious.

    Is this evidence sufficient to prove the big bang theory wrong? Probably not but pretending it doesn’t exist does nothing for the advancement of science. The church in the middle-ages tried to suppress ideas that didn’t fit with their religious beliefs. Unfortunately the scientific community can, at times, be guilty of the same behaviour.

  17. Mark James February 15, 2011 at 4:03 am #

    Jay (again),

    You wrote: “What’s more, and to add even more hilarity, you don’t stop there. Today you make this statement “The theories of origins—creation – and – evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. “, but tomorrow you’ll have a video of Kent or yourself explaining how the grand canyon can be tested to show that the Bible’s flood story is true, how thermodynamics supports special creation, or how wisdom teeth prove that the bibles notion of someone living to 900 is accurate. You go to great lengths to try and show that science supports creationism more than it does what you inaccurately term “evolutionism”. Even the name, “Creation Science Evangelism” implies that you think creationism is scientific.”

    I don’t see how you can think this is ‘mutually exclusive.’ Eric is correct when he says that theories of origins are not observable or testable. Why would him making this assertion preclude him from then offering his interpretation of the available scientific evidence?

  18. Corey February 15, 2011 at 8:26 am #

    Eric is falsly using “religion” and “faith” as meaning the same thing.

    The ABCs of what a religion is Assure, Believe, Convert. Does evolution assure salvation, believe in a precise theology and covert/ non-beleivers?

    Creationism is neither of these as well. To believers it is a tract to their religion, to non-believers it is a pseudo-science.

  19. Michael Fisher February 15, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    “…neither can be absolutely 100% certain unless they were there when the crime was committed and they witnessed it with their own eyes.”

    Actually, they can (as in it is a logical {and often factual} be MORE certain than if they witnessed it “with their own eyes”.

    Eyewitnesses are terrible at remembering details, they frequently get all kinds of stuff wrong.

    They’ve even been known to flat out lie. Yes, really.

    Further, memory is not a passive process. The mind does not work like some kind of video recorder, recording the feed to some tape or disc and then storing it until played back. It is an active ongoing process subject to numerous sources of error.

    After a crime or an accident, if the police/investigators are called to the scene one of the first things they do is separate both any accused perpetrators — they try to keep the witnesses separated also. The perps to keep them from actively trying to collude on a lie — and the WITNESSES because they will ALSO tend, if they talk to each other, to converge their stories — regardless of what ACTUALLY happened.

    BUT.

    Passive physical evidence CAN’T misremember, it CAN’T collude, it CAN’T lie.

    Yes, it must be interpreted.

    That’s rarely a problem. If the suspects fingerprints are on something somewhere where he had no business being, which also happens to be the crime scene, he’s got some explaining to do – to say the least. There’s not much room for misinterpretation of a simple physical fact that has only one way of being generated. (and let’s stay away from the TV crime shows were the bad guys all seem to be MIT PhD’s with unlimited resources to plan and execute elaborate “frame-ups”. A little reality here please.)

    Now you can construct ever more elaborate scenarios where the connection becomes ever more tenuous — but in the world of real world science, that’s where the scientists go looking for additional evidence that will confirm or refute a hypothesis.

    “…if the forensic scientist were to find evidence that contradicts all the other evidence using the same standards of interpretation, the case should, in theory, be thrown out. ..”

    Or the measurements double checked, or another, different, test performed. Or the data double checked. Or the calculations.

    Or a theory developed that reconciles the two results.

    Remember, Einsteins theories of relativity did NOT “disprove” Newton’s laws – Newton’s laws are what’s left when relativistic corrections become too small to matter.

    The same for quantum mechanics except the scales are reversed. Classical mechanics is what we get when we get above the scale where quantum effects matter.

    “Is this evidence sufficient to prove the big bang theory wrong? Probably not but pretending it doesn’t exist does nothing for the advancement of science.”

    And I assure you that astronomers and astrophysicists are not ignoring the data.

    You might want to subscribe to some decent science feeds/magazines and try to keep up. Scientific American would be a good start. There are plenty more.

    The saddest thing is that all the arguments “Scientific Creationists” think are so compelling were raised 150 years ago —- and found wanting.

    Some of them were rejected BEFORE Darwin had even left on his famous voyage, let alone published the Origin decades later. Try reading “The Growth of Biological Thought” by Ernst Mayr, I think you’re in for a surprise.

  20. Jack Napper February 15, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    Evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory of the day is often ignored or ridiculed.

    Oh do tell. Please show us this science rather than a so high school drop out turned YouTube star who did nothing but watch Hovind seminars. When you science can be proven wrong because you lack a fundamental understanding of how things happen your evidence falls flat.

    Attempts are even made to suppress new evidence, while the scientific establishment seeks to either refute it or incorporate it into their own (modified) theory. And there are plenty of historic examples of this attitude holding back the advance of science.

    I like that little twist you put on the end. Yeah the evidence isn’t missing they just incorporated it right?

    One very good example of this relates to Hubble’s law and the big bang theory. For 40 years astronomers have been aware of high red shift quasars interacting with low red shift galaxies…..

    If you had bothered to do a bit of Google research outside of CreationWiki you might see a better example of your bad science, conspiracy theories and misunderstanding of principles theories and yes even LAWS.

    Also I noticed that many details are completely absent from your little story. When did this happen? What was the photo of?

    A quick Google search reveals a whole mess of Creationists conspiracy theories written by people with little to no understanding of what they are looking at. Oh look the stuff in the picture looks close therefore they are. I was able to find the articles very quickly by simply typing “redshift” “blurry” “Creationists” into Google. It was really a fun read.

  21. Stephen Holshouser February 15, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    Jay,

    “We can also not witness a crime that occurred in recent the past, yet I doubt you would ever call forensics a religion.”

    The problem with your crime scene is that you are proposing things that are known to be impossible. Regarding origins; Fact; Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Evolutionism claim; All the laws of physics, matter, and energy created themselves from nothing. To quote Kent, “Now, if you want to believe that, go ahead; I don’t care what you believe; but don’t call it science, and don’t use taxpayer money to teach it in the schools.” You need to check out the problems with the big bang and realize that having some evidence that doesn’t positively disprove your theory doesn’t make your theory true.

    “You did not witness your own birth;”

    Where were you at when you were being born, Jay? : )

  22. Mr T February 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    IMHO if one changes the word “Religion” in the article to “Philosophy” it makes more sense, and reads as a good article. (or even “worldview”).

    One assumption Eric makes, and some readers are not understanding, is the Observable/Repeatable/Testable definition. eg. Newton OBSERVED an apple fall from a tree – we REPEAT the observation to TEST his results and conclusions (The law of Gravity). Science must satisfy all three, not any of them. (Ultimately anything is testable).

    Red shift is observable. However, the conclusion that the expanding universe is causing it, this is philosophical.

  23. Stephen Holshouser February 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    Jay, (part 2)

    “I find it hard to express how humerus I find this. If claiming that the big bang is religious debunks the big bang, then what does this do with creationism, when you’ve just claimed that it’s also religious? I don’t understand why you think this helps your case.”

    The point is not to help the case of creation. The point is to show that atheistic evolution is not science as it is regularly, vehemently, and dogmatically claimed to be. Creationists have no problem with testable, observable science (and, in fact, love it!)… creationists only have a problem when evolutionists jump from demonstrable science to untestable, impossible theories and try to pass them off as proven scientific facts and have us pay to teach it to the next generation … that’s all; no one’s against presenting real science or facts to support theories for either position.

    “Since you and your father admit that creation is religious, and since both of you have said that religion should not be taught in schools (see blog post dated September 14th), will you now remove all of the articles on the site in favor of teaching creation/Christianity in schools?”

    I have seen Kent say repeatedly that his goal is not to get creation taught in the public school (although he might not oppose it), but simply to remove the lies from the textbooks. He even says origins do not need to be discussed at all, especially in tax-funded schools. He also points out that it is still not against the law to teach creation in the public schools, you just can’t mandate that they do it.

    To conclude; regardless of your objections, evolution and creation are both religions… one just happens to fit what we observe today (all things created had a creator, matter and energy don’t just appear, life cannot spontaneously “arise,” the creation that we live in is irreducibly complex, sin has negative physical and emotional consequences, all things tend toward chaos and disorder, etc.) and the other is contrary to testable science and rational thought. Take care, SH

    PS; Did Jennifer Preston mention that she likes your posts?

  24. Carl M February 15, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious.

    If Creation is no longer explorable by science then the phrase Creation Science is an oxymoron.

    So an organisation which calls itself Creation Science Evangelism has a serious credibility issue.

  25. Duane February 16, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    @Mark James February 15th at 3:38 am

    Hi Jay (and Jennifer),

    Forensic scientists study evidence using scientific techniques but their results must still be interpreted. No matter how convinced the prosecution, or the defence, is in their interpretation of the forensic evidence, neither can be absolutely 100% certain unless they were there when the crime was committed and they witnessed it with their own eyes. This is exactly the case with theories of origins.

    Now, if the forensic scientist were to find evidence that contradicts all the other evidence using the same standards of interpretation, the case should, in theory, be thrown out. Sadly this is not the case with origins science. Evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory of the day is often ignored or ridiculed. Attempts are even made to suppress new evidence, while the scientific establishment seeks to either refute it or incorporate it into their own (modified) theory. And there are plenty of historic examples of this attitude holding back the advance of science.

    One very good example of this relates to Hubble’s law and the big bang theory. For 40 years astronomers have been aware of high red shift quasars interacting with low red shift galaxies. There are even examples of quasars that appear to be situated in front of (i.e. closer than) low red shift objects. According to the big bang theory this should not be possible as the higher the red shift, the further away the object must be and objects certainly can’t interact gravitationally if they are not in close proximity. In response to one of these examples NASA released an image which they declared showed no interaction. Unfortunately, it was quickly pointed out that the definition of the image was so poor that the spiral arms of the galaxy were not even visible and as soon as the definition was increased, the ‘bridge’ was once again obvious.

    Is this evidence sufficient to prove the big bang theory wrong? Probably not but pretending it doesn’t exist does nothing for the advancement of science. The church in the middle-ages tried to suppress ideas that didn’t fit with their religious beliefs. Unfortunately the scientific community can, at times, be guilty of the same behaviour.

    But doesn’t it stand to reason that interpretations should involve something close to what we experience as reality? In the case of forensics (or science), there might be differing interpretations of the evidence, but you wouldn’t expect them to entertain an interpretation that involved Garden Gnomes or Brownies. Why, in all honesty, should we entertain interpreting ANYTHING through the lens of an ancient Hebrew mythology, any more than we would Greek mythology or Norse mythology? That it is still in existence today and accepted by people doesn’t make it more credible. We have people that believe in Astrology, Crystals, Palm reading, Homeopathy, etc. No sensible person takes these things seriously. Can you objectively understand why someone would find the idea of a literal 6 day creation, the talking snake, the rib-woman, and the “Tree with the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” to be ludicrous? The time frame is coincidentally around the same time as we know civilizations began, and we also have many, many records of primitive groups with beliefs that involved the worship of obviously manufactured gods. Why do the ancient Hebrews get a pass? Especially when it can be shown they developed these beliefs through a lot of borrowing from other civilizations and only codified them relatively recently.

    I’m not sure why you insist science tries to suppress evidence. I was able to find what you were talking about on the red-shift issue in about 20 seconds of googling. It’s not suppressed, it was just proposed by 1 or 2 academics based upon a statistically insignificant amount of data which they deemed to be anomalous to the accepted consensus. It was examined and generally refuted (that is a good thing. Bad science gets refuted). Science has a fairly rigorous peer review process to weed out bad science, not because of the implications (it might impede our fun sinning), but because it might actually be wrong. I notice this tendency of creationists. They hunt and cherry-pick the 1 or 2 scientists that not necessarily even support their positions but just dispute the general consensus. Somehow, just that there is a seed of doubt, no matter how small or well refuted, is enough to wedge their own mythological assertions into the discussion. Meanwhile, we have the creationists with their articles of faith they force their workers to sign that specifically demands adherents dismiss anomalous (to their position) evidence as unreliable by definition (that is, if it contradicts scripture then it is wrong).

  26. David McCrea February 16, 2011 at 2:51 am #

    Corey,

    Your “ABCs” of religion perfectly describe evolutionary dogma. Well done!

    Jay and Jenny,

    Please take your budding Internet romance and mutual infatuation to another, more appropriate website. Thank you.

    Evolution = the world’s trump card. Throw the word around and everyone is just supposed to sit down and be quiet. Ain’t gonna happen.

    And I am curious about one thing. Are there any good old-fashioned AMERICAN atheists posting on this website? Don’t you brits have any Christian websites to mock back on the island?

  27. David McCrea February 16, 2011 at 3:24 am #

    Atheistic evolutionists: you do realize that your evolutionary religion requires you to believe that evolution created EVERYTHING on earth, don’t you?

    But it didn’t stop at just creating everything. It had to figure out all the trillions of individual FEATURES that comprise all living plants and animals, throughout all of history. It next had to figure out where to PLACE the trillions of features it created. And last, it had to figure out how to properly SIZE each of the features. Where on earth are all these evolutionary dead ends in the fossil record? Where are the multitude of freaks evolution would have created before “getting it right?” Why are all the fossils fully formed and functional? The freaks would have outnumbered the functional fossils a million to one!

    How did it do all that? Is evolution a form of artificial intelligence? How did it know it would be advantageous to place tear ducts adjacent to the eyes? How did it figure out how beneficial it would be to have fingernails and an opposable thumb? Or where to place taste buds? Or how NOT to place nerve endings inside our digestive tracts? How did blind chance know how to create, size, and place discs between each of our vertebrae, and to make the discs a perfect fit to boot? AND leave room for the spinal chord? What evolved first; the heart, lungs, pancreas, liver, gall bladder, brain, skin, nerves, muscle, blood, or skeletal system, and what did the heart do while it was waiting for the rest of the human body to catch up (evolve)? Why would evolution create knee caps and know where to locate them and properly size them? Did it figure out all on its own that people might need to kneel down occasionally? For a random, unguided process it sure seems to have an awful lot of “intelligence,” wouldn’t you agree?

    Millions of species, trillions of individual features, and all the parts are perfectly located and perfectly sized. And you mock believers for believing in miracles! The Bible says we are wonderfully and fearfully made. But you refuse to see or accept that simple truth. Why?

    Yes, there is a God, His name is Jesus, and HE LOVES YOU!

    God bless!!!!!!

  28. Jay Liverstitch February 16, 2011 at 7:20 am #

    Mark James,

    You said “I don’t see how you can think this is ‘mutually exclusive.’ Eric is correct when he says that theories of origins are not observable or testable.

    I’m not convinced that you’ve really put much thought into what this statement truly means. Perhaps you just repeat because Eric, Kent and Ken Ham continue to assert it.

    Observing, and testing, are two different things. As you pointed out even the post above, just because we can’t observe an event (like a crime) doesn’t mean we can’t test to see what most likely occurred.

    To test simply means “to assess” or “to examine”. In the case of scientific theories, the best test, or assessment, would be to evaluate how well the theory in question explains what we do observe, and how effectively it can predict future observations.

    To say that a theory can’t be tested is to say that it can’t be assessed, or that it can’t be evaluated for accuracy. But, that’s precisely what you did in the post just above this one. You cited observations about the Big Bang’s inability to explain some supposed observations of quasars and redshifts (I’ll address the specifics of the studies you mentioned in my next post).

    To sum up your two posts –

    1. Here is my assessment of the Big Bang theory: it doesn’t explain all of the observations and should probably be thrown out.

    2. The Big Bang theory can not be assessed for accuracy.

    *boggle*

  29. Jay Liverstitch February 16, 2011 at 8:03 am #

    Mark James,

    You said “Evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory of the day is often ignored or ridiculed. Attempts are even made to suppress new evidence, while the scientific establishment seeks to either refute it or incorporate it into their own (modified) theory.

    Yet again I don’t see how you can claim that these two sentences are not contradictory.

    Which is it; is new evidence ignored and suppressed, or do scientist try to refute it or incorporate it into the prevailing theories?

    Even in the example you cite, Halton Arp’s work on redshifts and quasars has not been ignored. Many other scientists have performed studies on his claims and tried to duplicate his observations. Since Arp developed his theory (in 1960) advances have been made it telescope and observation equipment. With improved techniques, Arp’s claims that quasars are ejected from active galaxies has been shown to have no supporting evidence. Also note that most of the evidence FOR the big bang (Cosmic Microwave Background for one) has been discovered and observed since the time Arp developed his theory.

    To sum up, not only has Arp’s theory of intrinsic redshifts not been found to have any supporting evidence, but it also fails to account for new evidence that’s been discovered since his theory’s formation.

    This is actually a great example of the scientific process at work, and an example that does much to refute your claims of testability as well as evidence suppression:

    1. Arp developed a competing theory to the big bang

    2. He and his team formulated tests that could help confirm or refute his theory.

    3. The tests were performed by him and later, others, and found to be lacking in supporting his theory, and lacking in explaining observations that the Big Bang already has done a good job of explaining.

    So what was that you were saying about certain theories not being testable?

    Jay

  30. Michael Fisher February 16, 2011 at 8:40 am #

    “How did it do all that? Is evolution a form of artificial intelligence?”

    It’s a form of self correcting feedback – called natural selection. Although it’s also more complicated than that, that will get you started.

    You might try learning what evolution is so you don’t sound so incredibly, um, lost.

  31. John Poe February 16, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    I can’t believe the lengths that the evilutionists will go to to believe their lies. Every evilutionist I have ever known was gay or a democrat, I don’t know which is worse.

    They are both religions. The only difference is that one offers salvation, while the other only will send you directly to hell.

  32. Stephen Holshouser February 16, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

    David McCrea,

    “Jay and Jenny, Please take your budding Internet romance and mutual infatuation to another, more appropriate website. Thank you.”

    No doubt; get a chat room you two.

    David, your questions are easily answered… Everything IS here so it MUST have evolved somehow, some way, by natural processes over millions of years. All the current science has proven it as fact, and no legitimate scientist believes otherwise. See, wasn’t that easy?

    Permit me to add a few more questions, which I am probably just ignorant for even bringing up.

    First; consider the complexity of any one of your senses. If senses do not exist, neither does life. A requirement for life is the ability to sense and react to both an organism’s external and internal environment. An organism needs a highly complex sensory organ to perceive a stimulus (i.e. light, hot, cold, contact, taste, smell, sound. etc). It needs a highly complex relay system to deliver the perceived stimulus to the control center. It needs a highly complex control center to process the incoming message, decifer the information, decide what needs to be done (whether it be a voluntary or involuntary response), then be able to send an outgoing message to the appropriate cells, tissue, organ or system that can react to the stimulus, if need be. And, of course, this entire perception and reaction system would need an organism to reside in and be interconnected with(should I mention that this, too, would need to be highly complex?) This is an over-simplified description of what is needed for ONE of many senses.

    Now the questions;
    1. Picture your imaginary early life-form common ancestor thing; How did this thing, or its descendents, ever become aware of the existence of light, temperature, pressure, or any internal or external environment at all?
    2. If you have no way of perceiving light waves, sound waves, temperature, etc, how could you evolve an organ to perceive it? (If you don’t know it’s there, how could you evolve anything to sense it?)
    3. How can anything survive and/or reproduce without the complexities of sensory systems?
    4. What came first; a living organism or its sensory system?
    5. If there are things out there that we do not know exist because we cannot perceive them, how could we as human beings develop the physical senses to perceive them? ..to perceive radio waves, for instance? (this is the exact process necessary to answer question 1)
    6. Why can’t you see that the only possible, logical, rational reason that anyone or thing can perceive the world around them is because the Eternal God designed them fully formed with the ability to perceive and interact with the elements of His creation and bring glory, honor, and praise to their Creator?

    (Answer to #6 for andrew Ryan; Because just like Sir Arthur Keith always used to say; “Evolution is unproved and unprovable; the only reason we believe it is because the only other alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.”)

    Anyone want to try and answer any of these questions at all? Jay, Jack, Mike, Jen, Duane? Anyone?

    Also, I know I sometimes like to tease or be sarcastic with you as an atheist. It’s all light-hearted and not meant to provoke, so I hope it doesn’t. I appreciate you and enjoy discussion with you. You are the main reason I even visit this site… You are an eternal soul that is responsible to repent of your sin and unbelief and submit to your Lord(Who has already been very gracious to you) in this life, because there will certainly be a Final Judgment to come for all people. As my Lord has mercifully forgiven me of all my sin, through the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ, given me eyes to see Him, ears to hear His Word, and a heart to perceive Him, so my hope and prayer is that He does the same for you as well.

    SH

  33. Carl M February 16, 2011 at 5:22 pm #

    @ David McCrea

    With all due respect, you really have not got a clue what you are arguing against. If Evolution Theory was claimed to do what you claimed then I wouldn’t believe it either.

    Atheistic evolutionists: you do realize that your evolutionary religion requires you to believe that evolution created EVERYTHING on earth, don’t you?

    Evolution is a process, not an entity. Just as the weather is a process, and there is not some entity creating each individual storm. How does the weather know where to put storms, and how big to make them? Silly questions, right?

  34. Don Carr February 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    Religions only exist when the truth is hidden.
    Science is a tool of the creator.
    —————————————————————–
    David McCrea and others who would like to think Yeshua (YHSWH) is God (YHWH).

    Mark 10:18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good, No one is good but One, that is, God…
    —————————————————————–

    The modern church has corrupt teachings. They teach the bible as a literal historical document, that there is one heaven, one earth and one hell. Much of the bible is mythological or scientific (as it points to Kabbalah).

    Science is Kabbalah, or the wisdom workings of the creator.

    Another bonehead notion being promoted is that the collection of scriptures in the bible are the only significant scriptures. And more obscene yet is that this King James character had some sort of divine inspiration. Selah (think about it!)

    There are only 2 “religions,” one being Christianity, the other being Babylon. And like it or not Buddhism is Christianity. So is the Egyptian school…Christ (Yeshua) directed Buddha to appear on this planet as he also directed his Hebrew disciples. Just because Yeshua chose to appear in the flesh as a Hebrew does not mean he did not cosmically direct the thousands of other messiahs and ascended masters etc that appeared on the planet. Yeshua is King of the messiahs (144,000 ascended masters (at least)), he has directed this whole aleph thru tav (alpha omega) cycle.

    There are also false/ficticious religions on the planet written by the worshippers of Babylon, but most of the ancient scrolls are true (1,900 years and older.)

    Religion and science boil down to truth and wisdom.

    Church is a group of praying people engaging in Christ powers. It has nothing to do with bricks and mortar, or men wearing silly dresses standing at a pulpit.

  35. Randy Miller February 16, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    They are both “religions”.
    Notice how the devout evolutionists zealously defend their faith?
    **
    It would be fine …
    Both sides passionately stating their cases.
    But for the intellectual dishonesty of the evolutionist who CONSTANTLY seeks to misrepresent his belief as “scientific fact”.

  36. Randy Miller February 16, 2011 at 11:50 pm #

    I’m serious …
    If there are folks in here who are unfamiliar with the RELIGION of secular humanism – then google “The Humanist Manifesto 2″.
    It was written in 1973.
    This document “has it all” written down.
    Starting with a rejection of the God of the Bible …
    Saying,
    “…humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.”
    And then moving steadily along to an endorsement of; evolutionism, “the scientific method”, marxism, collectivism, utopianism, “tolerance” (except for Bible believers), forced wealth redistribution, global governmentt, abortion, homosexuality, teaching sex to school children, and more.
    **
    It’s interesting to me that most secularists/darwinists claim that this document isn’t “their religion” – but this document accurately represents the WORLDVIEW OF THE DOMINANT CULTURE, and these views are inundated upon “us” in the government schools, and the media …
    And many people ascribe to these views whether they realize it or not.
    **
    From the Humanist Manifest 2,
    “The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.”
    **
    A religion?
    Read the last sentence again, ” … and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for ACHIEVING AN ABUNDANT AND MEANINGFUL LIFE.”

  37. Mark James February 17, 2011 at 3:05 am #

    Hi Jay,

    I said: “Evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory of the day is often ignored or ridiculed. Attempts are even made to suppress new evidence, while the scientific establishment seeks to either refute it or incorporate it into their own (modified) theory.”

    You said: “Yet again I don’t see how you can claim that these two sentences are not contradictory. Which is it; is new evidence ignored and suppressed, or do scientist try to refute it or incorporate it into the prevailing theories?”

    The only way this could possibly be contradictory is if I were talking about one scientist and one piece of evidence. Surely you would agree that it is possible for a scientist to supress one piece of evidence while ignoring another, or for one scientist to supress evidence while another scientist incorporates it. Where’s the contradiction?

    You then go on to discuss Arp’s theory but his theory is not the issue here. The real issue is the evidence that brought him to the realisation that a new theory was required. His theory may not have stood the test of time but the evidence is still there and the big bang theory can’t account for it.

    This is a good example of scientists critically evaluating someone elses theory while religously holding to their own theory even though there is strong evidence that it might be wrong.

  38. Mark James February 17, 2011 at 4:08 am #

    Hi Jay,

    I said: “I don’t see how you can think this is ‘mutually exclusive.’ Eric is correct when he says that theories of origins are not observable or testable.

    You said: “I’m not convinced that you’ve really put much thought into what this statement truly means.”

    I assume we can agree that no-one witnessed the event that caused the universe to come into existence, so it is not observable. I would also assume we can agree that no-one has been able to create a universe in the laboratory, which means it is not empirically testable.

    Granted, theories can be used to make predictions and these predictions can be tested. But this testing requires interpretation of the results and this interpretation will always be subject to the beliefs of the interpreter. And because the original event can neither be observed nor empirically tested these beliefs must be held religously.

    By the way, I generally don’t agree with your posts but Jennifer is right, they are always worth reading (Stephen, I promise to only say this once).

  39. Duane February 17, 2011 at 4:32 am #

    @David McCrea February 16th at 3:24 am

    “Atheistic evolutionists: you do realize that your evolutionary religion requires you to believe that evolution created EVERYTHING on earth, don’t you? “

    Do you realize your religion requires you to believe in an invisible, magical entity that poofed everything into existence with a few magic words over a period of 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, which includes creating light before creating the sun, moon or stars? It requires you to believe the entire universe was created in situ for the sole benefit of YOU. It also requires you to believe that this same entity called the animals out of the dirt and the fish and birds out of the sea? It also created man from dust and woman from his rib. He also put them in a garden containing a tree with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and a talking snake, without any sense of metaphorical irony? It also requires you to believe that 1500 or so years after this creation event, all life was killed except for a genetic bottleneck that actually requires evolution to then occur at vastly more rapid rates than is alleged by “evolution”, rates of mutation comparable to cancer victims.

    “But it didn’t stop at just creating everything. It had to figure out all the trillions of individual FEATURES that comprise all living plants and animals, throughout all of history. It next had to figure out where to PLACE the trillions of features it created. And last, it had to figure out how to properly SIZE each of the features. Where on earth are all these evolutionary dead ends in the fossil record? Where are the multitude of freaks evolution would have created before “getting it right?” Why are all the fossils fully formed and functional? The freaks would have outnumbered the functional fossils a million to one!

    How did it do all that? Is evolution a form of artificial intelligence? How did it know it would be advantageous to place tear ducts adjacent to the eyes? How did it figure out how beneficial it would be to have fingernails and an opposable thumb? Or where to place taste buds? Or how NOT to place nerve endings inside our digestive tracts? How did blind chance know how to create, size, and place discs between each of our vertebrae, and to make the discs a perfect fit to boot? AND leave room for the spinal chord? What evolved first; the heart, lungs, pancreas, liver, gall bladder, brain, skin, nerves, muscle, blood, or skeletal system, and what did the heart do while it was waiting for the rest of the human body to catch up (evolve)? Why would evolution create knee caps and know where to locate them and properly size them? Did it figure out all on its own that people might need to kneel down occasionally? For a random, unguided process it sure seems to have an awful lot of “intelligence,” wouldn’t you agree? “

    Why would we expect one-off freaks to appear in the fossil record? If a mutation is deleterious, then the animal died. The successful ones lived. Fossilization is a rare event, but even then we have millions of these fossils of animals in transition. Transitional forms does not mean half fish/half reptile. Any creature that lived would have had features that were functional for its needs. Some of those features change over time, but they are useful during the entire lifetime of the animal.

    You have your God glasses on. You are presupposing that someone had to create all animals (I’ll restrict to just animals) at once, fully formed and modern using some sort of lego set with all the special pieces in the box, just needing plugged into place. Life starts out simple. Evolution is not random, nor unguided. Mutation is random but natural selection is guided by natural processes as simple as success/failure. There is also genetic drift and sexual selection to spice things a bit, but generally success/failure is quite powerful a force.

    Millions of species, trillions of individual features, and all the parts are perfectly located and perfectly sized. And you mock believers for believing in miracles! The Bible says we are wonderfully and fearfully made. But you refuse to see or accept that simple truth. Why?

    Yes, there is a God, His name is Jesus, and HE LOVES YOU!

    God bless!!!!!!

    If millions of species suddenly appeared, all fully formed and modern, that would indeed be a miracle. Science does not suggest this is the case, so we need no miracles. But here’s the bigger issue. You have lots of questions. Isn’t it better to look for answers than to just assume you have them based upon 2500 year old fairy tales? You are here because you have questions, but you are afraid of the implications of the answers, so you play it safe and get your answers from someone who just reaffirms what you want to hear. Hovind (father or son) have not once, EVER, factually represented the side of science. This can range from misrepresentations to outright lies. Why would you trust anyone like that on anything they said?

  40. Duane February 17, 2011 at 5:58 am #

    How did it do all that? Is evolution a form of artificial intelligence? How did it know it would be advantageous to place tear ducts adjacent to the eyes? How did it figure out how beneficial it would be to have fingernails and an opposable thumb? Or where to place taste buds? Or how NOT to place nerve endings inside our digestive tracts? How did blind chance know how to create, size, and place discs between each of our vertebrae, and to make the discs a perfect fit to boot? AND leave room for the spinal chord? What evolved first; the heart, lungs, pancreas, liver, gall bladder, brain, skin, nerves, muscle, blood, or skeletal system, and what did the heart do while it was waiting for the rest of the human body to catch up (evolve)? Why would evolution create knee caps and know where to locate them and properly size them? Did it figure out all on its own that people might need to kneel down occasionally? For a random, unguided process it sure seems to have an awful lot of “intelligence,” wouldn’t you agree? “

    I was thinking on this again. and it occurred to me that you aren’t even arguing against evolution at all. What you wrote isn’t even wrong, it’s a completely different concept. Much like Eric, all you are doing is projecting your own belief and removing God, making it absurd. You are arguing against Creationism minus God, not Evolution. You guys genuinely have no actual concept of what Evolution actually is, or really even care. You are just afraid we’re taking God away from you. You can’t lose what you never had.

  41. andrew Ryan February 17, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    David McRea: “Atheistic evolutionists: you do realize that your evolutionary religion requires you to believe that evolution created EVERYTHING on earth, don’t you?”

    Evolution through natural selection explains bio-diversity on the planet. It doesn’t attempt to explain anything more than that. There was almost a billion of years of physics and chemistry going on before the first life appeared.

    You go on to erect a strawman of what evolution predicts.
    “Where are the multitude of freaks evolution would have created before “getting it right?” ”

    Noticeable evolutionary change takes place over many generations. The changes between one generation and the next are tiny. One would not expect huge ‘freakish’ differences between one creature and its parents, so the ‘multitude of freaks’ is not something science predicts one SHOULD see in the fossil record.

    The rest of your questions regarding what evolved when – why not just read a decent scientific text book on the subject?

  42. Stephen Holshouser February 17, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    John Poe said;
    “Every evilutionist I have ever known was gay or a democrat, I don’t know which is worse.”

    It’s just a hunch, John, but something tells me you might be all of the above. But if you are serious, you need to take your hatred and bigotry back where you came from.

    Mark James,
    “By the way, I generally don’t agree with your posts but Jennifer is right, they are always worth reading (Stephen, I promise to only say this once).”

    Because it’s you, I’ll let it slide THIS time.

  43. Michael Fisher February 17, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    @Randy Miller:

    “A religion?
    Read the last sentence again, ” … and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for ACHIEVING AN ABUNDANT AND MEANINGFUL LIFE.”

    Which has absolutely less than than nothing to do with, for example, the utterly brainless, ignorant flat out ludicrous assertion that the earth is only 6000 years old.

    Do try to focus.

  44. Geno Castagnoli February 17, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    Randy Miller
    I’m serious …
    If there are folks in here who are unfamiliar with the RELIGION of secular humanism
    ######
    Geno points out (again):
    Evolution is not humanism and humanism is not evolution.

  45. Geno Castagnoli February 17, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    John Poe
    I can’t believe the lengths that the evilutionists will go to to believe their lies.
    ######
    Geno answers:
    Yeah… almost as far as cretionists will go….. (you started it, John).
    ######

    John claims:
    Every evilutionist I have ever known was gay or a democrat, I don’t know which is worse.
    ######
    Geno answers:
    That’s interesting. I can name lots of straight evolutionists for you…. I’m one. Further, I’ve voted in 11 presidential elections and have voted against the democrat every time…. though I’ve never voted FOR a candidate (except Reagan the second time). For most other offices I also vote republican though my personal political philosophy is more libertarian. The only reason I’m registered to vote as a democrat is that at the local level almost all elections are determined in the democratic primary so I lose my voice in local government if I’m registered as a republican.

    Besides, we have two parties in this country…. Republicrats and Demopublicans.

  46. Stephen Holshouser February 17, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Duane,

    You said;
    “Do you realize your religion requires you to believe in an invisible, magical entity that poofed everything into existence with a few magic words over a period of 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, which includes creating light before creating the sun, moon or stars? It requires you to believe the entire universe was created in situ for the sole benefit of YOU. It also requires you to believe that this same entity called the animals out of the dirt and the fish and birds out of the sea? It also created man from dust and woman from his rib. He also put them in a garden containing a tree with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and a talking snake, without any sense of metaphorical irony? It also requires you to believe that 1500 or so years after this creation event, all life was killed except for a genetic bottleneck that actually requires evolution to then occur at vastly more rapid rates than is alleged by “evolution”, rates of mutation comparable to cancer victims.”

    I’ll take that any day of the week over “everything from nothing” and Great Grandpa Igneous falling madly in love with Great Grandma Metamorphic that later results in all life as we know it. “Talk about a genetic bottleneck… take a look at the gene code of a rock!”

  47. Stephen Holshouser February 17, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    Duane, (part 2)

    “Fossilization is a rare event…”

    Hey, you’re right. Tell me, what has to happen for an plant or animal to fossilize? How is it that we have billions and billions of fossils everywhere, all over the world? I have a theory about that if you are interested.

    “You have your God glasses on. You are presupposing that someone had to create all animals (I’ll restrict to just animals) at once, fully formed and modern using some sort of lego set with all the special pieces in the box, just needing plugged into place. Life starts out simple… …Hovind (father or son) have not once, EVER, factually represented the side of science. This can range from misrepresentations to outright lies.”

    Okay Duane; I’m calling you out again. Let us all hear YOUR factual representation of your side so we don’t distort it. You say life starts out simple? Okay let’s hear about it. Tell us how it started out. The reason you won’t answer is because you have NO earthly idea. Even the simplest life-form you can imagine is highly complex. “Life” and “simple” don’t go together. Life must start out extremely complex, or it doesn’t start at all… it didn’t start out simple!! If you do attempt to answer (you won’t), you will describe something that is A.) highly complex with the ability to maintain homeostasis and replicate itself, or B.) something that is non-living without the ability to reproduce… either way you will become a creationist unless you just continue to willfully, stubbornly ignore the obvious to your own detriment. If you cannot even describe to us what you believe, then please stop complaining about creationists pointing out where your theory logically begins.

    “You guys genuinely have no actual concept of what Evolution actually is, or really even care. You are just afraid we’re taking God away from you. You can’t lose what you never had.”

    Atheistic evolution has just been taken away from you, Duane, with no alternative but the Master-Designer. Ask the Lord to rescue you from the bondage of sin and unbelief and trust in Jesus Christ as your only Savior. You may “have” Him as well. I am for you, not against you, my friend.

    PS; Why do you keep taking shots at John Bebbington? He’s on your side!

  48. James McGraw February 17, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    @Stephen Holshouser

    I’ll have a go.

    1. Such things were naturally selected: it is advantageous to detect the existence of light, temperature, pressure, or any internal or external environment.

    2. Because evolution is not a conscious decision made by the evolver. (More to the point – why would you think that is what evolution suggests?)

    3. How do you think bacteria survive and/or reproduce without the complexities of sensory systems?

    4. Both.

    5. Same answer (and question) as #2.

    6. Probably because that’s not the only possible, logical, rational reason.

    Do I win a prize?

  49. Kenneth Tyner February 17, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Yep, either you “believe” God did it or you “believe” Nature did it. We never observed either do it. Can intelligence come from non intelligence? Only the naturalist “believe” that one is possible.

  50. Kenneth Tyner February 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

    Andrew stated: “So yes, the Big Bang and evolution are both testable and potentially falsifiable scientific theories.”

    Since the truth is never falsifiable and theories are, then theories are never true! But then again, neither the theory of evolution or the theory of the big bang are testable. What in this natural world is the guy thinking?