Our Websites

Understanding the Importance of Creation vs. Evolution

The theory of evolution, which is taught as a fact in our public school textbooks, tax-supported parks, museums, and public television programs, is actually not a harmless theory but a dangerous religious belief. I have dedicated my life to help people learn the truth needed to expose evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot of the Khmer in Cambodia, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx, who have caused untold suffering in our world. Evolution as it is being taught is dangerous for several reasons (Creation Seminar Part #5).

  1. At stake is the credibility of Jesus. He cited Genesis twenty-five times and said the creation of Adam was “the beginning” (Matthew 19:4). Evolution and creation represent worldviews that are polar opposites—one of them is wrong! Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.
  2. Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable; and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution “science” is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last 140 years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.
  3. Real science, not evolution, should be taught in the science classes. Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don’t test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world.
  4. Government should not sponsor religion. Teaching the theory of evolution as fact in tax-supported schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Why should all taxpayers support one religion over all others in our schools? Efforts must be made on all fronts to inform people that evolution is only a religion and that tax-supported institutions should not teach it as fact.

,

Leave20 Responses to testUnderstanding the Importance of Creation vs. Evolution

  1. Jay Liemowitz September 14, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    On each point…

    1. [b]At stake is the credibility of Jesus:[/b] I don’t claim that Christianity is incompatible with The Theory of Evolution, but seeing as how you are determined to defend that perceived incompatibility, then so be it, Jesus, and Genesis must have been wrong. We have testable predictions that only the Theory of Evolution actually explains. E.G. that semi-aquatic organism like Tiktaalik should be found in certain rock strata, bridging the gap between purely aquatic fish, and purely land-dwelling reptiles (note: it was the evolutionary time line that predicted that such an animal should be found in certain rock, a certain number of feet down, thus providing observable, testable evidence that the theory was correct). It explains observations such as why old rocks contain fossils of organisms so vastly different from what we observe living today, and the older the rock layer, the more they differ. It explains why land areas that have been isolated for the longest period, contain organisms that vary the most from those on the mainland. Creationism can not explain any of these apart from “Well, God can do whatever he wants”. For example, why do kangaroos and wallabies only exist in Australia? Did God hand sort every organism and specifically place them with other organisms that were most similar just to fool with us? Did he do the same with fossils and genomes? That YHWH… what a jokester huh?

    2. [b]Evolution is positively anti-science:[/b] This is simply untrue. See above.

    3. [b]Real science, not evolution, should be taught in the science classes:[/b] Other nations teach Evolution (as well as Big Bang Cosmology, geology and all the other fields of science you reject) as part of their science curriculum. It doesn’t stand to reason therefore that American schools teaching these very same subjects as science, has detracted from American student’s science test scores.

    It is at least more logical to attribute the low test scores to misinformation spread by religious leaders such as yourself. I have no scientific study to back this up of course, only a corollary link between the number of people who do not accept Evolution and these other fields in America, vs those who do in other countries. Of course, you have even less evidence to support your claim, as there is no correlation between Evolution curriculum and low test scores, since other nations also teach Evolution (most spend more time on it at that).

    4. [b]Government should not sponsor religion:[/b] I agree. I suppose you will now be removing the numerous articles on your site (e.g. “Can creation be taught in schools” and “Prayer in Schools) in support of the notion that the religion of Christianity should be sponsored in public schools? After this statement, I hardly see how you could allow this site to support a position you clearly do not favor.

    Jay

  2. Gary Hendricks September 14, 2010 at 9:49 am #

    Wow…you are really reaching on this one. It is not Jesus reputation that is at stake but yours. Pulling Jesus’ words COMPLETELY out of context and somehow imply that when He said God designed mankind as male and female in the beginning somehow means He thought the entire universe is 6000 years old is not just a straw man argument…it is patently dishonest!! I don’t even need to deal with your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th points because they are just as nonsensical.

    Come on!!! If you want to believe the 6000 year old myth fine…

  3. andrew Ryan September 14, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    Kent, how often are you going to repeat this lie about Hitler and evolution? Provide some evidence for it, or drop this rather sordid exploitation of the holocaust.

    Again, HItler rejected evolution. He claimed species were immutable – “A fox remains a fox, a goose remains a goose”, he insisted in Mein Kampf. Furthermore, he put all of Darwin’s books on his list of banned literature.

  4. BRIAN MATHE September 14, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    In regard to the Bible and the earth being 6000 years old, if you add up the dates in the Bible you do get roughly 6000 years. That is a far cry from millions of years. Let’s not kid ourselves. There are some things in the Bible that are up for debate and some that are not. Some are extremely clear cut. The Bible is clear on this. 2nd Timothy 2:15 tells us to study to show thyself approved unto God. People don’t want to study their Bible, they just want to listen to whatever someone tells them. The heaven(s) and the earth are 6000 years old. This is Bible fact. Those people that believe the earth is old are believing man’s fallible ways and not God’s word.

  5. Nigel McNaughton September 14, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    Yeah it’s a real pity that Hitler banned Darwin’s work.

    “Government should not sponsor religion”

    We agree. You will of course be revoking your tax-exempt charitable organization status right?

    No?

  6. Mike Ayala September 14, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Hi Dr. Hovind,

    You are definitely correct that evolution is anti-science. To see a good example of how anti-science evolution is, we need to look no farther than to Darwin himself, the father of evolution.

    Darwin was trained as a geologist, was the Secretary of the Geological Society of London, wrote 10 peer reviewed papers, and he considered himself a geologist in his own writings. Darwin was specialized in sedimentation and plate tectonics. However, as a geologist, Darwin had a flaw that marred much of his work as a geologist: Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyle’s postulation of uniformitarianism, that is, all processes observed today have always operated uniformly from the past resulting in slow gradual processes as opposed to catastrophic rapid processes; in other words, the present is the key to the past.

    Darwin rejected catastrophism because he was influenced by Charles Lyle’s postulation of uniformitarianism. The catastrophist evidence was contrary to Darwin’s world view.

    Darwin claimed that the boulders of San Sebastion were deposited by floating icebergs instead of what is obvious to any geologist today: the boulders were deposited by glaciers that extended all the way from the Andes mountains. Darwin was aware of the catastrophist theory because the same had been seen as the result of Swiss glaciers in Europe, yet he ignored the obvious evidence in favor of some unlikely fanciful speculative alternative absent of any supporting evidence that would much better match his world view.

    Darwin claimed the Santa Cruz River Valley was caused by slow gradual processes of marine erosion and river erosion despite seeing all the clear evidence to the contrary. The river valley was actually caused by a massive catastrophic flood from the once paleolakes miles upstream. Darwin was blinded by what we today call evolutionary thinking.

    Darwin was present for the earthquake and tsunami of 20 February 1835 at Concepcion. He saw the 9, displacement of the nearby island as a result of the earthquake, and yet Darwin claimed the Andes mountains were formed by slow gradual upward forces from directly beneath the mountains, whereas we know the Andes were formed by the lateral pressure of colliding tectonic plates. Again, Darwin was blinded from the obvious evidence by his world view. Even though Darwin’s specialty was plate tectonics, his evolutionary world view had more influence over his conclusions than all his geological training – that is if he was being honest. In the face of all the contradictory evidence, Darwin came to a wrong conclusion about the formation of the Andes because he could not accept the idea that rapid processes were responsible for their formation.

    There is possibly one other explanation why Darwin was so wrong so many times: In the light of all the glaring discrepancies, there exist the real possibility that Darwin knowingly falsified his conclusions.

    It is amazing how uniformly wrong evolutionists have been and continue to be ever since Darwin!

    Thank you for being such a blessing to my family through your ongoing ministry. God bless and protect you, and I pray the Lord opens even greater doors of opportunity for ministry through you and supplies you the wisdom and strength by His Spirit to continue through all adversity.

    Mike Ayala

  7. Stephen Holshouser September 14, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    To the comment moderator- Just an idea for a future blog topic; feel free to change it where you want to if needed. It’s thought provoking and might get a “good” response.

    Have you come to your senses?

    Do you ever think about the things happening around you that your senses cannot perceive such as magnetic fields, various types of electromagnetic waves, inaudible sound, etc.? Imagine if you were given sensory organs that could detect these things. To greatly over-simplify the requirements for this, you would need to be given the following all at once; specially designed receptors, nerves from the receptors to your brain, an area of your brain that could decipher the message from the nerves, a connection from this area to another area of your brain that could understand and make sense of the information received. This does not even take into account the intricate genetic framework needed immediately to replicate and maintain this system. The new sensory system would indeed be irreducibly complex. Common sense (and the scientific method if you need go that far) reveals that taking any part out this system will result in the stimulus not being perceived at all. In short, there could be no perception of anything if you did not previously have sensory organs in place to detect and understand the incoming information.

    Nevertheless, evolutionists would have you believe that long ago and far away, organisms somehow over time developed the ability to perceive things such as lights, colors, sounds, smells, temperature, humidity, and other contact stimuli (feeling), when they previously had no way to know that any of these things even existed. Sensory cells and organs are prerequisites to life, so what could have lived before sensation developed? How long do you think it would take us to slowly develop sensory organs to detect the things around us that we don’t know about?? Clearly, it would be impossible in the world of reality, yet this is exactly what is assuredly believed and affirmed to have happened by the evolutionists. Who says they don’t have faith? You are free to believe that our senses developed gradually over time with no apparent cause if you want to, but you will have to check logic, common sense, and the facts at the door. We will never develop the ability to sense anything we cannot already sense simply because it is not in our gene code (unless you become a Jedi). Therefore, it will never be in any of our descendants’ gene codes either. The same is true for any characteristic of any living being from the beginning of time. It simply MUST be there from the very beginning.

    Thankfully, God presently gives men and women the ability to perceive Him as the Creator and the faith to bow to Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of the world. May He grant you this kind of faith! Ephesians 2:8-10.

  8. annie smith September 14, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    Okay where do I start… This whole website is bias, all the authors prove no factual evidence for any of there claims (same for the rest of all you creationist in general.) Lets start with this article…

    Okay, your first point is retarded and I can’t find another word that can describe it. You are referencing to a book (the bible) which is not a factual piece of literature. ” At stake are the morals of our children,” if you went to a class called parenting you would learn that children learn there morals from what there parents taught them! Just like in nature, the strongest DO SURVIVE, without medicine, which scientists have perfected and over years learned and found in the wild, many people would not live past the age of a few months. Domesticated animals like dogs and cats have shots which prolong life, just like humans! To end your first claim, I would also say that abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, and incest aren’t ‘mostly’ human actions. Being homosexual is relevant to animals along with incest (which was in the bible: genesis.) What else here? Oh! Euthanasia a large topic not related to religion, porn; one of the top franchises in the world keeping our economy in check (yes guys, porn makes us money so your country can benefit from this!) Adultery also has nothing to do with religion because back in the day love wasn’t really an issue. It was, how do I say, “You have to merry this guy so our family can obtain money.” Obviously, cheating is a common thing and it is because our society is following media influences and a thousand other things not relevant to religion! Next…

    Evolution has been SEEN over years, it is factual and proven in a sense. Animals change to adapt to there environment, which is what evolution is… Over millions of years, animals have adapted to the constant changes in the movement of the earths crust, weather changes and volcanic destruction. Need I say more? Oh, the thing about beer… Well, evolution is a large part in science, look it up. I’m sick of trying to explain to you creationists what the internet can do for you these days.

    In classrooms, evolution for say isn’t exactly taught nor is (or should) be creationism. Both are theories but one is more factual, logical, and is rationally acceptable compared to a god fairy in the sky… Don’t get me started on American kids not doing well… Your whole education system is biased in a sense that you are not teaching correctly in the classrooms. Other countries score better then you because there kids study more and harder and don’t eat McDonalds all day and sit in front of a TV screen…

    Lastly, evolution is not a religion. There is no god in it… I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Tax-payer money is going into bible studies as well as science classes… Science is for studying what makes our world go round and how and why things work… bible class teaches about a book that was written so people would follow a set of rules and be scared not to break laws etc. It is no longer a need in our society to believe in the fairy princess in he sky that will solve all our problems.

    - A corrupted teenager who has a Mohawk.

    P.S. Since evolution has been brought up in the classrooms (1950′s) isn’t that also the time when teenagers became more free after WW2 and rebelled against society? Nah, evolution made kids do that too!

  9. annie smith September 14, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    P.P.S. How are you a doctor?

  10. Duane September 15, 2010 at 4:37 am #

    What you never seem to understand is that it doesn’t matter if Darwin had dedicated Origin of Species to “My Pal, Hitler. I hope you use my concepts to exterminate those Christ-Killers, but since I don’t believe in Christ I’m sure you’ll figure out what to do.” It still doesn’t mean it’s not true. This is called the Argument from Consequence.

    But I’ll see your Marx and Pol Pot and raise you Torquemada, child raping priests, hundreds of years of burning epileptics, widows and other misunderstood people as witches, Middle-Age torturers and Crusaders, and charlatans and frauds up to modern times. Ever go to a torture museum? They are filled with devices invented by Christians fiendishly designed to keep the victim alive and in extreme agony until they confessed or converted. The Bible is full of repugnant stories that have caused untold misery throughout the ages. From condoning slavery and rape to human sacrifice and devaluing women, there’s nothing to be proud of in the Bible as far as morality is concerned, What kind of “loving” God requires blood to appease Him? How anyone can look at the story of Abraham and see it as uplifting is beyond me. Even the concept of needing to torture and kill Jesus to fulfill God’s bloodlust is disgusting. God made the rules, he made imperfect creatures whom He couldn’t expect to follow them, He could disregard the rules and forgive without blood.

    I don’t know what is wrong with Christians if they believe the only thing keeping them from raping and pillaging and killing is Santa God watching what they do. If the idea of no God makes you think that the floodgates are open to all and sundry behavior, that says more about you and Christianity than it does about Atheists. I don’t know a single atheist that acts like that but the prisons are full of believers. Morality exists because society never would have survived if its members acted like that. Simple human empathy is all that is needed. I don’t want to be killed or have my stuff stolen, and I believe others feel the same way, so it gets codified when a society forms. God does not place this on our hearts innately, because if He did then we wouldn’t have to teach this to our children. A child has to be taught empathy and not to steal or hurt others. Religion has always been a method for those in power to control others and extract money from them. It sells an invisible product, and is a social club that performs a bit of theater whose sole purpose is to make you feel bad for being human for 10% of your income. It takes in Billions $, pays no taxes (as an institution), and always wants more. Since the Middle-ages religion has been a well known scam for extracting money from its followers by appealing to their base instincts and prejudices. Primarily, it exploits the two most powerful human emotions, fear and greed. If you are bad, you go to Hell, and if you are good, you go to heaven where you will get ultimate rewards.

    This is 2010. Isn’t it about time we dropped our age old superstitions and embraced reality? I was reading a Facebook page where the question was how would you feel if there were no God. Overwhelmingly, the response was how worthless life would be if there were no God. How sad I was to read that. We have no direct access to God, so it’s all about an imaginary relationship. Life apparently has no intrinsic value in the Christian worldview, but is just a qualifier lap for a hoped for second life in paradise. The only life we know for sure we have is the one we experience now. I feel my life has value as does the lives of those I love. I don’t need a Bronze Age desert deity to give me and my life value.

  11. Julie Collins September 15, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    Jay Liemowitz, apparently you never watched any of kents seminars… as he answers all of your questions…

    also, i 100% agree, when evolutionists are debating with me, they almost always say i am a science hater, but i see it vise versa, as THEY are the ones who cannot seem to separate science with fairy-tales. they cannot seem to differentiate fairy-tales and reality. and in reality, there is no scientific data available, that is actually observable and testable and demonstrative in the classroom, that can be allowed as anymore than circumstantial and assumed evidence for common ancestry, the big bang, nuclear fusion, abiogenesis, the oort cloud, etc.

    in every astronomy book i have read, they always talk about the oort cloud as if it is a well established scientific fact. which it is not. they seem to “forget” to tell you it is a hypothesis with no evidence backing it up.

    so the real science haters are the evolutionist, as they want to construe science and use it to back up their theory.

  12. Nigel McNaughton September 15, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    No evidence Julie?

    You are the one who repeatedly kept claiming Darwin ‘recanted’ despite no evidence for it, evidence from his family against it, and Answer in Genesis saying ‘it’s bunk, don’t use it!’

    Annie Smith, Kent has acquired a Doctorate in Christian Education from an unaccredited institution. You can read his thesis online.

  13. Julie Collins September 15, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    @annie smith

    “P.P.S. How are you a doctor?”

    because he has a PhD in education, and everyone with a PhD is labeled as a Dr. i thought even a evo like you would be smart enough to find THAT out…

  14. Mike Ayala September 15, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    Hi Duane,

    You need Jesus. Sure, you can point to lots of mean and bad things done in the name of religion, but that is all a red herring. The question is whether or not evolution is true, and how do we know. People are sinful as you rightly know, but the deeds of man do not determine the truth of God’s word. In fact, I suggest to you that the sinfulness of man is the driving factor behind the motivation of those who promulgate evolutionary dogma. If you are willing to objectively examine the evidence, and that seems like a big “if” based upon the tone of your post, you will find that the basis of evolution as taught by evolutionists is incompatible with the available evidence. If you are willing to objectively examine the evidence, you will find that much of what is taught as the truth of evolution is biased speculation grasping at imaginary straws hoping to find anything that can be called evidence.

    Your ridicule of God’s chosen method to reveal Himself to you makes manifest that you do not have a clue as to who God is and what He has accomplished on your behalf.

    You reject the revealed God of the Bible because the god you would be would not do what the God who created you has chosen to do. The real God has an higher standard of justice and judgment than you do. Your whole argument is based on your own limited knowledge and understanding and when boiled down really says nothing more than, “If I was god, I’d do everything differently”.

    It is good that the blood sacrifice is detestable to you. It is supposed to be. It’s purpose is to show you the seriousness and horror of sin. The account of the crucifixion of Jesus might make more sense to you once you understand that God formed a body in which to pour Himself in His Son that He might by the will of the Father make the payment Himself on your behalf. Jesus’ payment on the cross is a payment you cannot make by virtue of the fact that Jesus is who He is, God the Son, and you are a sin-stained person. Any sacrifice you might make to God would not even be considered by God let alone accepted because of your sin.

    There are two main issues. Is evolution true, and is God really who He claims to be and does He have authority in your life? Please do not confuse the two.

    Duane, please scrutinize the Bible and the claims of Jesus. Without honest scrutiny of these, your belief in evolution is nothing more than an example of the blind being led by the blind; Your belief in evolution is a belief based on one-sided untested argument.

    And yes, please embrace reality: embrace the reality of Jesus; Embrace the reality of the word of God.

    God bless you with a love of the truth.

    Mike Ayala

  15. jyrga zud September 16, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Mike,
    Your knowledge of biology appears to be rather limited. Evolution is a keystone theory in modern biological science and has been for many decades. It is confirmed not by ‘a few straws’ but by literally millions of pieces of evidence, from nearly every subdiscipline of biology, and it unites, explains and predicts many facts. Modern evolutionary theory is hands down the-best explanation of the diversity of modern life, the location and distribution of fossils in the geologic record, patterns in endogenous retroviral dna embedded in the genetics of numerous species, genetic inheritance patterns themselves, directly observed speciation events both inside and outside the laboratory, the correspondance between dendrochronology and fossil data, the timeline established by the numerous radioisotope dating methods, the timeline established by glacial core samples, comparative morphology both gross surface anatomy and in terms of the internal anatomy, including the number position orientation and shape of individual bones, the arrangement and function of internal organs, and endless other details, the present-day distribution of all life, and the fine details of cellular and intracellular chemistry. It is only through the continued efforts of propagandists like Mr. Hovind here that people like yourself continue to be misled. If you are earnest in your claims, you have been done a disservice. “Get thee to a library.”

  16. David McCrea September 17, 2010 at 2:52 am #

    Hey Annie,

    Actually, religions don’t need a god. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism are all religions without a god. Religion is a belief system, and evolution certainly is a belief system. It shapes your worldview, does it not? And really, if a person is totally honest, evolution requires a great deal of faith, again just like religion.

    So technically when Dr. Hovind refers to evolution as a religion he’s right.

    I know you’re going to deny that evolution is a religion, and that’s perfectly okay. I mainly wanted to point out that religions don’t need a god or higher authority. That’s all.

    But can I ask you this? You’ve decided through your God-given free will to trust Darwin over Jesus. Are you really willing to trust your eternal soul to the likes of Darwin? A racist woman-hater who thought life arose from sea mud and that a cell was just a random glob of protoplasm?

    Please take the time to learn about Jesus. In addition to the spoken words of Jesus, the letters of Paul are a great way to get to know Jesus better and what He wants from and for each of us. He is our Creator after all!

    God bless!

  17. Mark James September 17, 2010 at 6:00 am #

    There is a tendency for some of the naysayers in these comments to sarcastically refer to God as the “sky fairy,” “bronze age desert deity,” or “invisible sky daddy,” implying that science relegates belief in Him to the equivalent of believing in mythical creatures. I thought it was time someone protested!

    If God created the universe He must exist outside the universe. Science can only answer questions about what’s inside the universe, so no amount of scientific study will ever answer the question “does God exist?” All an atheist can ever say is that they don’t believe God exists, which means that atheism is as much a belief system as theism. So atheists must find other ways to use science if they are to discredit believers.

    Biblical creationists believe that God created the heavens and the earth. This is seen as an easy target because it requires that creationists invoke the supernatural to explain observable phenomena. It also requires a belief in things that can’t be seen and can’t be measured. But simply scoffing at these beliefs is not enough. Atheists need to provide an alternative to special creation, one that does not resort to the supernatural.

    According to my dictionary supernatural means “Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.”

    So how do atheists justify their scoffing? Apparently a big bang created everything from nothing, ignoring the First Law of Thermodynamics in the process. This happened so fast that the universe expanded to pretty much the size we see today in the first few seconds, trashing by a wide margin, Einstein’s theory which says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Then the product of this big bang organized itself, even though the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it shouldn’t have.

    Hmmm, sounds almost supernatural to me. And apparently none of this could have happened without dark matter and dark energy, which can’t be seen and can’t be measured.

    To say one theory is scientific and the other the equivalent of believing in an invisible sky daddy is to ignore the facts. Both theories are far-fetched and neither has any place in a science class.

  18. Ryan September 17, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    Hi, Dr. Hovind. I just joined and, at 11, I am probably younger than most of the people who commented here. I just wanted to make myself known to you because I am a serious follower. I agree to everything you said in your seminars. But I also have a little problem. I go to school online, but I take Earth Science. And in said Earth Science class, I’m being taught that the rocks take millions of years. Can you slove that for me? You rock!

  19. Nigel McNaughton September 17, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    Mark goes for the classic ‘Honest Christian deliberately misrepresents Science’ technique that always seems to work so well.

    Conflating ‘Atheism’ with Cosmology/Physics/Biology/Etc. Ignoring all the Christians that gave us these theories and are still active in their study.

    Then we get a round of ‘I don’t understand Thermodynamics, let me show you’. You don’t even attempt to explain the expansion of Space-Time violates it.

    Julie, misrepresents Dr Hovind, he has a Ph.D. in Christian Education from Patriot Bible University CO. Not sure why even his fans can’t get his qualifications correct.

  20. Duane September 19, 2010 at 6:14 am #

    “Hi Duane,
    You need Jesus. Sure, you can point to lots of mean and bad things done in the name of religion, but that is all a red herring. The question is whether or not evolution is true, and how do we know.”
    Have you even read any of the Hovind quotes Eric posts from his dad’s work? It’s entirely Red Herrings. What does the credibility of Jesus have to do with Evolution? What does no such thing as right or wrong or no absolutes have to do with Evolution? What does Communism, Hitler, of even Darwin have to do with Evolution? It doesn’t matter if Darwin turns out to be a woman hating, racist, homosexual child molester. It doesn’t matter if discovering Evolution was true made children abandon their parents, hitchhike to Alaska and smear themselves with fish. All of that is Red Herrings. All Darwin did was suggest that species changed over time due to the pressures of natural selection and given enough time that those changes can become quite drastic. Nothing more. It doesn’t matter if 95% of what he said turns out to be wrong, his basic suggestion is right and is testable. We have a common ancestor with apes. We share not only genes, but ancient replication errors in those genes and even retrovirus DNA. We are so beyond Lucy that it is astounding. They love to quotemine old books. Check out some new ones. Google human chromosome 2. It’s pretty close to a smoking bullet.
    “People are sinful as you rightly know, but the deeds of man do not determine the truth of God’s word. In fact, I suggest to you that the sinfulness of man is the driving factor behind the motivation of those who promulgate evolutionary dogma. If you are willing to objectively examine the evidence, and that seems like a big “if” based upon the tone of your post, you will find that the basis of evolution as taught by evolutionists is incompatible with the available evidence. If you are willing to objectively examine the evidence, you will find that much of what is taught as the truth of evolution is biased speculation grasping at imaginary straws hoping to find anything that can be called evidence.”
    You need to read something other than creationist apologetics. They keep saying this over and over, but that will not make it so.
    “Your ridicule of God’s chosen method to reveal Himself to you makes manifest that you do not have a clue as to who God is and what He has accomplished on your behalf.
    You reject the revealed God of the Bible because the god you would be would not do what the God who created you has chosen to do. The real God has an higher standard of justice and judgment than you do. Your whole argument is based on your own limited knowledge and understanding and when boiled down really says nothing more than, “If I was god, I’d do everything differently”. ”
    It is good that the blood sacrifice is detestable to you. It is supposed to be. It’s purpose is to show you the seriousness and horror of sin. The account of the crucifixion of Jesus might make more sense to you once you understand that God formed a body in which to pour Himself in His Son that He might by the will of the Father make the payment Himself on your behalf. Jesus’ payment on the cross is a payment you cannot make by virtue of the fact that Jesus is who He is, God the Son, and you are a sin-stained person. Any sacrifice you might make to God would not even be considered by God let alone accepted because of your sin.”
    Have you ever heard of Patty Hearst? She was an heiress to the W.R. Hearst fortune and was kidnapped by a group calling themselves the SLA. They beat her and tortured her and made her lowly for weeks and weeks. When she hit bottom they brought her esteem back up as part of the group. She was worthless unless she was part of this group. Eventually, it worked. It’s a classic brainwashing technique. Ever watch Full Metal Jacket, or any bootcamp film (or actually been in bootcamp, it doesn’t matter). Ever wonder why new recruits are Maggots and worse? It is the same technique. You are put at the bottom and raised up until your self-esteem is associated with that group. Add to it the singsong chant of group prayer, which is a hypnotic technique designed to further the brainwashing. Then there’s the overwhelming peer pressure. I’ve read enough posts from Stepford Christians touting the company line to know I want no part of it.
    “There are two main issues. Is evolution true, and is God really who He claims to be and does He have authority in your life? Please do not confuse the two.”
    Please inform the Hovinds of this. They seemed to have missed the memo.
    “Duane, please scrutinize the Bible and the claims of Jesus. Without honest scrutiny of these, your belief in evolution is nothing more than an example of the blind being led by the blind; Your belief in evolution is a belief based on one-sided untested argument.
    And yes, please embrace reality: embrace the reality of Jesus; Embrace the reality of the word of God.
    God bless you with a love of the truth.
    Mike Ayala”
    Did you know reading the Bible is the number one method of converting people to Atheism? This year I decided to read the Bible again from cover to cover and not follow the Sunday School plan. I got as far as Numbers before I had to set it down. I love to read the whole evolution vs creationism thing. It’s a hobby of sorts. It would be different if the theist side had an actual argument. All they do is ignore all the overwhelming evidence of what evolution actually is to the exclusion of the ultimate origin question and since there is no actual consensus (well, there is, but it’s not claimed as 100% undeniable fact, yet, and probably never will be) they claim there’s no evidence. Science is looking into those ultimate origins, but they will most likely always be theoretical. Making the assertion that your 2500 year old book has the answer when it doesn’t actually explain anything beyond “It’s Magic” is not really conducive to truth. I just marvel at how an otherwise rational adult, with adult experience in the world as we know it, can read Genesis and think that it is nothing more than a poem about creation rather than a factual, realistic account. It describes a metal dome with windows holding back water and stars hung on it like my mom did my ceiling when I was a child! Read Genesis, then read some Greek Mythology and Norse Mythology, and tell me that Genesis is somehow more compellingly true.

    But let’s say the whole thing is true. There is a God, and Jesus and the whole 9 yards. I’m God and have created humanity and the ultimate practical joke. There is a Heaven, where you will spend eternity in bliss praising Him, and there is a Hell, where you will spend eternity suffering the tortures of the damned. Here’s the gag: I’m not actually going to tell anyone. I’m going to reveal myself to a member or two of an obscure tribe in the armpit of the world but give them a bunch of rules and prohibitions, among them is the strong desire to keep separate from the rest of the world. I’m going to ride with this tribe for the next 4000 years and then abandon them. Now comes in my second phase. I’ll choose human form, come down to earth, and preach for a bit. Endure a crummy weekend at the expense of my formerly chosen people (making sure they take the blame, because I’m vindictive that way) to show the humans life isn’t that hard and that I can take a pretty good licking, and then go back home in time for supper. Here’s where the fun comes in. The humans are going to have to trust that the stories from that tribe are true, but I’ll make sure they don’t trust anything else they say or do, also I’m going to make them as hard to believe as I can, filled with magic and such that they will never witness or confirm. If they believe and tell me how great I am, they can live in Heaven with me. If they don’t then they will suffer for eternity. I really don’t even care what kind of life they led, as long as they tell me how great I am and how worthless they are, they’re in. This God is not worthy of veneration.

    Why should I believe, anyway? I’ve yet to see a good reason. Anytime I’ve ever listened to someone’s story on why they believe, it is invariably some mundane coincidence or other such event with a low bar. “Oh, Jesus helped me stop drinking.” Glad Jesus could take time out of his busy day showing up at Mass in his bread costume to be your personal counselor, which no one else would have been capable of doing. Or, even my family’s pet story. I had a cousin who had seizures as a child. They did the early 70s equivalent of a CAT scan on her and discovered a tumor in her brain. Well, the church prayed and prayed and before the operation, the doctors were begged to scan her again. They said no and went in anyway. What they found was just scar tissue. The tumor was gone! This was looked at as an actual miracle. Thing is, she still had seizures after that for the next 20 years that I was witness to. She still might as far as I know. The body does heal itself on occasion. The state of the art in 1974 CAT scans might not have been able to tell scar from an actual tumor to begin with (watch the Exorcist for an example of what they were looking at). Or let’s grant God a miracle. He apparently is a bit of a slacker doing just enough to get by. If you are going to cure someone, why half do it? This is not a God worthy of veneration.

    “There is a tendency for some of the naysayers in these comments to sarcastically refer to God as the “sky fairy,” “bronze age desert deity,” or “invisible sky daddy,” implying that science relegates belief in Him to the equivalent of believing in mythical creatures. I thought it was time someone protested!
    If God created the universe He must exist outside the universe. Science can only answer questions about what’s inside the universe, so no amount of scientific study will ever answer the question “does God exist?” All an atheist can ever say is that they don’t believe God exists, which means that atheism is as much a belief system as theism. So atheists must find other ways to use science if they are to discredit believers.”

    What’s inside the universe is all we have access to. A $2 Bible is not a Tardis allowing you to visit outside the universe. It’s an instruction book on how to treat slaves and burn witches. It’s also against cheeseburgers and blended fabrics. Oddly enough, it’s not against abortion or birth control.

    “Biblical creationists believe that God created the heavens and the earth. This is seen as an easy target because it requires that creationists invoke the supernatural to explain observable phenomena. It also requires a belief in things that can’t be seen and can’t be measured. But simply scoffing at these beliefs is not enough. Atheists need to provide an alternative to special creation, one that does not resort to the supernatural.
    According to my dictionary supernatural means Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.”
    So how do atheists justify their scoffing? Apparently a big bang created everything from nothing, ignoring the First Law of Thermodynamics in the process. This happened so fast that the universe expanded to pretty much the size we see today in the first few seconds, trashing by a wide margin, Einstein’s theory which says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Then the product of this big bang organized itself, even though the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it shouldn’t have.
    Hmmm, sounds almost supernatural to me. And apparently none of this could have happened without dark matter and dark energy, which can’t be seen and can’t be measured.
    To say one theory is scientific and the other the equivalent of believing in an invisible sky daddy is to ignore the facts. Both theories are far-fetched and neither has any place in a science class”

    That’s right, science does not know exactly how that first singularity happened and probably never will. We have some ideas, but they are clearly labeled theoretical physics. We do have a model on how the physics of the universe works now on even the smallest scale, and can extrapolate back to nearly the beginning using that knowledge. The math we use has been confirmed to work in our understanding of the universe, so we are reasonably confident of its accuracy in describing the first few moments. Even then, it is clearly understood to be a model. No one has ever stepped up and claimed it is the end-all be-all answer to the ultimate question. In this model, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (and all the forces) were created in that first few pico-moments, so there’s nothing to violate. Plus, it’s not as fantastic as it sounds anyway. How much space does energy take up, anyway? If the original singularity was pure energy, then it can take up as little space as it needs. We know from Einstein (E=mc^2) that matter is actually energy in a different form. Even you are mostly empty space. There’s the space between the electrons and protons.

    We actually can measure Dark Matter in a way. We know about how much regular matter is in the universe and how fast it is expanding and how much gravity is needed to keep it at the speed it is moving. Turns out there is a discrepancy, so the difference is the dark matter and dark energy. It’s basically algebra. You take what you do know and can figure out what you don’t know. We just haven’t figured out exactly what that dark matter is. Science is actively looking for it. Science loves a mystery. What science doesn’t do is take the word of an ancient people and assume that is the answer and not bother looking anymore. The “God solution” has no predictive ability. We can smash atoms together and confirm our math. Outside of the word of followers who “feel it in their heart” what evidence do we have on any level of the “God solution”? What credibility do they have? They were convinced demons were causing mental and physical illness for centuries and still do today (check out Ray Comfort’s blog). Amputees never seem to get healed (it always seems to be those things we can’t see that get healed, like aches and such). When science got it wrong, they discarded it and worked towards the truth.

    Also, the speed of light is the limiting speed for energy, but not space. Space can expand faster than the speed of light.

    Now, I am not a scientist and this is merely a hobby/interest of mine. So any slight error is mine, not science. But then again, I don’t have a degree in Jesus that qualifies me to teach science.