End of Year

What have creationists done for science?

Creationists hear this type of argument all the time, “What have creationists done for science?”  I remember researching this a while back and coming across a list from www.creationinfo.com/list.htm.  I wanted to simply list it out here in this blog for you to see. Feel free to go to the article and to the rest of their site to see what is happening over there.

A list of creation scientists who are/were contributors to science

  1. Dr. Raymond Damadian – Inventor of the MRI device
  2. Dr. Raymond Jones – CSIRO Gold Medal; detoxified Leucaena for livestock consumption
  3. Dr. Keith Wanser – 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents (Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)
  4. Dr. Russell Humphreys – Successful planetary magnetic predictions (nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )
  5. Dr. Kurt Wise – Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard
  6. Jules H. Poirier – Designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar Landing Module
  7. Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa – Discovered seven new species of fish in the Congo
  8. Dr. Saami Shaibani – “International Expert” by the US Depts of Labor and Justice; 100 published articles; B.A. (Hon.), M.A., M.S., D.Ph.; physics professor and researcher

Intelligent design:

  1. Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III – Five-time Nobel nominee; professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia
  2. Dr. William S. Harris – $3.5 million in research grants; author of more than 70 scientific papers; Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint Luke’s Hospital; Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology; Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri

Others:

Dr. Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
Dr. David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
Dr. Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Ruminant Nutrition
Dr. Theodore P. Aufdemberge, Ph.D. Physical Geography
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. Physics
Dr. George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
Dr. Wayne F. Frair, Ph.D. Serology
Dr. John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology
Dr. Robert Goette, Ph.D. Chemistry
Dr. Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, Purdue University
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney
Dr. Don Batten, Consultant plant physiologist [degree?]
Dr. Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology/Geology, Ball State University
Dr. John Baumgardner, Los Alamos Laboratories
Dr. Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Physics, Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana
Dr. Eric Norman, Ph.D., Biochemistry, Texas A&M University
Dr. Clifford A. Wilson, Archaeologist, author of Crash go the Chariots
Michael Oard, M.S., Atmospheric Science, University of Washington, meteorologist
Keyoshi Takahashi, Ph.D., Botany, research published in Nature
Dr. Andy McIntosh, Reader in Combustion Theory, Leeds University, U.K.
Dr. George Marshall, Ph.D., Ophthalmic Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland, chartered biologist, member of the Institute of Biology
Dr. Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy, Indiana University, Associate Professor, University of South Carolina, Lancaster
Dr. David Menton, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Prof. Maciej Giertych, Ph.D. (Toronto), D.S.(Poznan), head of the Genetics Dept. of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Dendrology, Kornik, Poland.
Dr. James Allan, M.S. Agriculture, PhD., retired senior lecturer in the Dept. of Genetics, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
Dr. Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal Genetics, Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland, research scientist for the French government
Dr. Brian Stone, Ph.D., Head of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Western Australia
Dr. Donald Chittick, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Oregon State University, Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Puget Sound
Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti, Ph.D., geneticist and microbiologist, served as Professor of Genetics at University of Palermo and University of Perugia
Dr. Andre Eggen, Institute Nationale de la Agrinomique of France, working on genetic defect in cows known as the Bulldog gene defect
Dave Phillips, M.S. Physical Anthropology, California State University, working on Ph.D. in paleontology
Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., Ph.D. Chemistry, Victoria Univeristy, Wellington, New Zealand, New Zealand chess champion

Dr. Jack Cuozzo, orthodontist, D.D.S., University of Pennsylvania and M.S. Oral Biology, Loyola University of Chicago, original researcher of Neanderthals, author of Buried Alive [this book sets forth the thesis that human craniofacial structures continue to change with aging and that Neanderthals were humans who lived to be hundreds of years old (post-flood). If anything, humans are devolving.]

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, physiologist for the human engine of the Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross man-powered flight projects (reported in National Geographic), received doctorate from University of Iowa. Dr. Mastropaolo does not believe evolution qualifies as science.

Dr. Robert A. Herrmann. Professor of Mathematics, U. S. Naval Academy
Dr. Ian Macreadie, Molecular biology and microbiology researcher, Principal Research Scientist

From the past:

Kepler – Laws of planetary motion.
Francis Bacon – Contributed to formalization of scientific method
Linnaeus – Classification
John Ray – Founder of biological science
Robert Boyle – Founder of modern chemistry
Sir Isaac Newton – Gravity, optics, calculus
Blaise Pascal – Mathematics, calculating machine, air pressure
Charles Babbage – Invented “difference engine”; designed computer
Gregor Mendel – First studies of heredity
James Joule – Physics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin – Physics
Michael Faraday – Physics
John Dalton – Chemistry
Louis Pasteur – Immunization, disproof of spontaneous generation
Sir John Herschel – Mathematician and astronomer
James Clerk Maxwell – Physicist, developed theory of electromagnetism
Adam Sedgwick – Geologist
Andrew Murray – Entomologist
Richard Owen – Coined the term “dinosaur”
Louis Agassiz – Founder of modern glacial geology
Werner von Braun – Leader of early U.S. space program
James Irwin – Astronaut, walked on the moon
A.E. Wilder-Smith (deceased) – Three earned doctorates, master of seven languages, U.N. advisor

Leave48 Responses to testWhat have creationists done for science?

  1. Corey May 26, 2011 at 7:04 am #

    I would question this list as to whether some are or ever claimed to be a “creationist” such as Sir Isaac Newton.

  2. Carl M May 26, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    It would be inaccurate to allege a scientist, due to either history or personal belief, could not be a “creationist” and contribute to the mosaic of human knowledge. A more appropriate question would be, what has creationism done for science?

  3. John Bryant May 26, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    The belief in God and Creation is the basis of modern science. Many of the most honored scientists were/are creationists. Their belief in God and Christianity were the driving force behind their discoveries. The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

    The Christian concept of God supports scientific thought, therefore, because rationality, order, logic, reason, truth, law, unity, diversity, personality and purpose are built into the very fabric of the universe, having sprung from the mind of a Being characterized by these attributes.

    Because God is rational, and because we share some of His rational nature, having been created in His image, and because nature is governed by the natural laws He designed, each one of us can observe, gather data, do experiments, and obtain knowledge inductively about the natural world, without having to rely on tradition or authority.

    Armed with the scientific method and a Biblical world view, Sir Isaac Newton believed he was helping fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 12:4: “[at] the time of the end, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”

  4. John Bryant May 26, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Evolutionists are far more deserving of the disdain they regularly dish out to creationists. Read John Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome and wonder how intelligent people could ever bring themselves to believe that mutations would create progress in fitness, and continue to believe natural selection built all the wonders of life, decades after it was demonstrated by evolution-believing secular population geneticists to be unworkable. Re-read Jonathan Wells book Icons of Evolution and wonder at how intelligent people could continue to trot out such wimpy and fraudulent examples as evidence for evolution. Watch Darwin’s Dilemma and stand aghast at how a Darwinian theory so utterly falsified by evidence could be forced onto students as the only theory deserving of a hearing. Do you want to despise a group who believes myths, has an agenda, refuses to face facts, ignores falsifying data, accepts their world view by faith, is intransigent and pugnacious? Look no further than the Darwin Party.

  5. Jason Petersen May 26, 2011 at 10:31 am #

    “And, I’m sorry, but a religion that was KNOWN for bullying, murdering and torturing non-believers forfeits all claims. You do NOT get to claim how wonderful you are because some scientists were members of your religion when you forced them there on pain of death or worse.”

    I’m sorry, but your logic is flawed. If I were to apply the same logic to atheism I would say that atheism is a horrible philosophy because Joseph Stalin was a bad person. Atheists are bullying Christians all over the internet, luring them into lawsuits and whatnot. You guys do the very same thing but conveniently turn a blind eye for it. To put a whole group of people in the same basket because of the action of a few who completely disregarded The Bible is a fallacious argument and I am disappointed that atheists are still trying to sound this argument.

  6. Dark Star May 26, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    I think they meant to ask, What have occult alchemists and astrologers done for science? Sir Issac Newton, Alchemist, Occultist, Astrologer.

    Newton, was also an Arian, who did not believe that Jesus was God and he had to keep his views secret from the Church. Can’t imagine why? Oh yeah, they would have burned him to death for his heresy.

    And, I’m sorry, but a religion that was KNOWN for bullying, murdering and torturing non-believers forfeits all claims. You do NOT get to claim how wonderful you are because some scientists were members of your religion when you forced them there on pain of death or worse.

  7. John Bryant May 26, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe [sic] away.

  8. Geno Castagnoli May 26, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    IMO, Carl M. stated it correctly…. what has creationISM contributed to science. That is, other than the idea that a universe created by a rational mind could be understood rationally…. something creationists seem to forget all the time.

    So, among your list of scientsts, exactly what tenet of creationism did they use as they produced their discoveries? Let’s look at just the first 8, shall we?

    1. Dr. Damadian Inventor of the MRI device. What aspect of YEC did Damadian use in his development of MRI?

    2. Dr. Raymond Jones detoxified Leucaena for livestock consumption. What aspect of YEC did Jones use in his discovery?

    3. Dr. Keith Wanser 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents. What aspect of YEC did Wanser use in his papers and how did YEC contribute to his patents?

    4. Dr. Russell Humphreys Successful planetary magnetic predictions. What did YEC have to do with those predictions?

    5. Dr. Kurt Wise Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould. Merely holding a PhD is not, in and of itself, a contribution to science.

    6. Jules H. Poirier Designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar Landing Module. What part of YEC was important to his design?

    7. Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa Discovered seven new species of fish in the Congo. In what way did YEC lead to this discovery?

    8. Dr. Saami Shaibani “International Expert by the US Depts of Labor and Justice; 100 published articles. In what way did YEC contribute to his articles?

    The point is their RELIGIOUS views had NOTHING to do with ANY of their findings…. not one.

  9. Henry Imler May 26, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    Eric,

    Does the obsession among YECs with the term Dr show, reflect, or suggest that the YEC movement has capitulated to Modernism?

    Dark Star,

    I think it is too hasty to say that they forfeits all claims. Every single movement in the history of human kind has delved into that sort of deviant behavior and thinking at some time (Humanists, Buddhists, Xians, Communists, Muslims, etc). We’d be sitting in a sea of claimlessness (and committing the genetic fallacy) if we followed your prescription!

  10. Eric Hovind May 26, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Funny how you pick out one person out of the list and pretend that it negates the entire list. Face palm, Straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel. Well, evolutionists, you don’t disappoint do you?

  11. Henry Imler May 26, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Eric,

    To whom were you responding?

  12. Jason Petersen May 26, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    “It would be inaccurate to allege a scientist, due to either history or personal belief, could not be a “creationist and contribute to the mosaic of human knowledge. A more appropriate question would be, what has creationism done for science?”

    Theories and hypotheses on origins can not be directly applied, as they involve using other parts of science to research them.

  13. Caleb Fielding May 26, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Dark Star says

    And, I’m sorry, but a religion that was KNOWN for bullying, murdering and torturing non-believers forfeits all claims. You do NOT get to claim how wonderful you are because some scientists were members of your religion when you forced them there on pain of death or worse.

    ————————————————————————————-

    When did baptist do all this? You are thinking of the catholic religion, who also say evolution is true. You are thinking of other state church’s that all also say evolution is true, see religion did not do all those terrible things,state churches did those terrible things, but since all the funding for evolution “research” comes from the state you can not claim it was the state, because then you might lose your grant money.

    Shesh, I wish atheist would read a thorough history book sometime.

  14. John Bebbington May 26, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Eric,

    Good to have you join in.

    Another one in your list whose beliefs we would find strange today is Louis Agassiz who was a polygenist. Also, he did not believe in a world wide flood so, by your thesis, neither should you.

    The point we are all trying to make is that it isn’t creationism which has done anything for science but scientists who may or may not have been creationists.

    It would be quite easy to change “creationism” for “communism” and the list of scientists who had a greater or lesser belief in creationism for an even longer list of others who had a greater or lesser belief in communism but what would that prove?

    Do you believe in polygenism just because Agassiz did? Of course not. So why should I believe in YECism just because you can produce a list of creationist scientists from 200 years ago none of whom had the benefit of the knowledge of the last two centuries of scientific discovery when forming their belief systems?

    If you must employ the fallacy of the argument from authority why do you list only eight modern creationists?

    As for the two scientists listed under “Intelligent design” perhaps you could refer us to the peer-reviewed papers they have published on the subject.

    Finally, why do you include a list headed “Others”? If the scientists on the list are not creationists (such as Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti) why do you list them?

  15. Dark Star May 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    First of all you have completely missed the point I was making which is that their religious beliefs are no more to credit for their scientific contributions than Occultism or Astrology was for Newton. This applies categorically.

    Secondly, it is ‘Funny’ how you completely and utterly ignored the third paragraph. Surely you have SOME historical concept of how violently Christianity forced itself on nation after nation? And how it fostered a culture completely intolerant of opposition? And most can see how that would have forced many to believe where belief was otherwise unmerited.

    And furthermore, the entire premise of the list is some kind of fallacious appeal to authority (nobody argues that people who are religious cannot contribute to science, humans are famously good at compartmentalization).

    But you want more?

    The maltreatment of Galileo Galilei in the hands of the Church is well known (despite their far-too-little-too-late and backhanded apology) but what may be less well known is that Galileo got off easy compared to Giordano Bruno who was murdered by the Church.

    Copernicus suppressed his research due to the church, Campanella was tortured by the church repeatedly for supporting Galileo, Rene Descartes suppressed his research due to Galileo’s treatment, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, Adam Sedgewick, Robert Chambers, Charles Darwin… all scientists whose work was negatively affected by the actions of the Roman Catholic Church against the progress of science.

    And why?

    Because the Popes like Paul V and Urban VIII KNEW, with the full authority of apostolic succession, that facts like the Earth going around the Sun proved the Bible was a fraud. They were terrified of this fact and murdered to protect it and STILL failed. Their real failure was that they greatly overestimated the intellectual honesty of the average believer – or the tenacity of inculcated and indoctrinated beliefs.

    You can dither all you want over modern interpretations but these Pope’s KNEW the Earth was the immobile center of creation and they knew it with the full force and authority of ‘God’ and they were flat out wrong.

  16. Dark Star May 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    And just so I’m clear – in your ‘creation theory’ exactly which allele insertion, deletion, substitution, duplication or chromosome duplication, crossover, or modification do you assert is absolutely and unquestionably impossible that has formed a this barrier between the absolute fact of tens of thousands of observed modifications of every type and the genetic differences we observe between the different kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species or your ‘kind’?

    • CSE May 27, 2011 at 8:54 am #

      Mr./Mrs. Dark Star,
      Please read the policies to the left of the blog page, and then start posting with a real first and last name. Thanks!

  17. Pablo Cruz May 26, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    Belief in evolution and the millions/billions of years contributed nothing toward our advancement either technological nor for simply a better way of life. Did it put a man on the moon? Is it the reason why we have planes, trains and automobiles? Is it why we have cell phones? Of course not. Evolution is useless. A belief masquerading as science. It is the biggest hoax in the history of the world. Far bigger than the Piltdown man hoax.

  18. Malachi Hilkey May 26, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Corey, Carl, D-Star:
    I would like for you to find where in The New Testament where it says to punish people for believing in other gods or belief systems.

    –When Christ came along, Satan started acting fast to poison the Church of Believers.
    Many cults in the world exist because of this, and are very hard to see with the naked eye(wordly eyes and not from The Holy Spirit.)

    –Regardless of what you want to say about these Creation-Scientists; The fact remains they refuted the idiotic idea of evolution, knowing it was founded on LIES and is hardly even a hypothesis now-a-days, as it is a dying belief.. Though the lies are still pushed so heavily, “One day, this belief(of evolution) will be discovered as the worst hoax in Scientific History.” –Forgot who said this, but I’m sure there are plenty.

    Thanks for another list among many, DrDino.com :)

  19. andrew Ryan May 27, 2011 at 6:57 am #

    “Funny how you pick out one person out of the list and pretend that it negates the entire list.”

    Who said it negates the whole list? Who said that was the only name there was a problem with? I see you don’t attempt to DEFEND the inclusion of Newton. Does that mean you concede that point?

    Do you accept that one could make a similar list, including Newton, do defend alchemy or occultism?

  20. Geno Castagnoli May 27, 2011 at 10:04 am #

    One other thing that is worth note…..

    It was a scientific community dominated by young-earth-creationists that was persuaded BY THE EVIDENCE that a literal Genesis was wrong and that the Earth (and universe) were billions of years old.

  21. Alex Miller May 27, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    I updated my profile on your system: Alex Miller

    “Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science”, if you had to pick a religion that gave ‘impetus’ to science it would be Judaism actually. As a tradition they encourage challenges to their faith. Of course, vast numbers of Jewish people have become atheistic as a result – but such are the “dangers” of allowing free thought.

    Christians burned scientists to death for disagreeing with them, I fail to see how that is encouraging free investigation. So please clarify your claim.

    “atheism I would say that atheism is a horrible philosophy because Joseph Stalin”

    Let’s set aside the fact that the Jesuits were behind Stalin (they helped him escape from exile twice and he returned to Tiflis) and Hitler and ever other fascist regime of the era.

    “Practically every right-wing dictator of the period had been born and brought up a Catholic notably Hitler, Franco, Petain, Mussolini, Pavelic, and Tiso (who was a Catholic priest). John Cornwell – Hitler’s Pope (1999; p. 280), Google Books: bit.ly/kU9z8v

    Even IF Stalin was, in fact, a non-believer the difference is that I am not a member of his brutal Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The only thing I would have in common with Stalin is that we both disbelieve in a god.

    Can you say the same of yourself and the violent Christians?

    If you were Abraham would YOU raise your blade to sacrifice your own child if god commanded you to do so? Or do you reject that part of the bible?

    Was god being good & moral to command the genocide of nation after nation in Deuteronomy 7?

    1 …the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
    2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them

    Or how about Deuteronomy 13:6-9

    If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods … But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people

    If an atheist had a dogmatic book that said “Find every Christian and murder them” that would be pretty horrible.

    Now Malachi Hilkey asks that I find this in the “New Testament” – does that mean that when this is commanded by God in the Old Testament that god is wrong to have commanded this? Do you find such a statement as abhorrent as I do? If so, how do you excuse it?

    And Caleb Fielding asked “did baptist do all this”. Well the answer is yes.

    Martin Luther protested primarily about the issue of Free Will in the church.

    I can go into much more detail if you want

  22. Corey May 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    Would this list be revelant when the majority are Christian, white and male?

    Pablo
    Evolution has improved medical sciences. What has the belief in creationism contributed?

    Malachi,
    Evolution is not a belief/religion nor is it dying. As I have mentioned before, the number of people delcaring themselves Christians in the Western world has declined while the agnostic, atheistic numbers have risen.

  23. vitaly mylo May 27, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Why everody saing, that Kent Hovind is a Doctor?

  24. Henry Fiorentini May 27, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    So of the people in this list, how many of them used “Creation Science” in their scientific accomplishments? If none, then this list is meaningless: Newton believed in Alchemy, does that mean that the physics he outlined is unscientific?

  25. Carl M May 27, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Replies to comments which intrigued me.

    I would like for you to find where in The New Testament where it says to punish people for believing in other gods or belief systems.

    Interesting, the Ten Commandments have now ceased to exist?
    Exodus 22:18 – “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” – has now disappeared from Christianity.

    The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

    Don’t confuse correlation with causation. If there was a causative relationship between Christianity and science there would unlikely be a 1,600 year gap between the formation of Christianity and the The Enlightenment

    Atheists are bullying Christians all over the internet, luring them into lawsuits and whatnot.

    That is a very interesting allegation, to say the least.

    Belief in evolution and the millions/billions of years contributed nothing toward our advancement either technological nor for simply a better way of life.

    Apart from Evolution Theory being the “unifiying theory of biology”, the minerals and fuels industries depend on “millions of years” geology to build and power modern society. Additionally, we have the very powerful design tools provided by a method called Genetic Algorithms which use the mathematics of evolution to design everything from software to engines.

  26. Jason Petersen May 27, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    Darkstar-

    “And just so I’m clear in your ‘creation theory’ exactly which allele insertion, deletion, substitution, duplication or chromosome duplication, crossover, or modification do you assert is absolutely and unquestionably impossible that has formed a this barrier between the absolute fact of tens of thousands of observed modifications of every type and the genetic differences we observe between the different kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species or your ‘kind’?”

    I am not so sure that you understand Creationism if you ask a question such as this. Creationists don’t dispute change over time, we dispute common descent.

  27. Kenneth Tyner May 28, 2011 at 7:40 am #

    Wow, the atheist simply will not stop with the straw man arguments, red herrings and false analogies.

    A very simple and direct article showing that religion and science are not in conflict, and they can’t handle the truth.

    Scientific advancements/contributions have been given by people of many different world views, and from people in various nations around the world, throughout history.

    The scientific method is designed to eliminate any and all bias that would influence the logical conclusion of the scientific data.

    The problem is that biased people want to take over and control the scientific community, while abandoning the scientific method. The Catholic church and Evolutionists are clear examples of this.

    Narcissists have always attempted to control industry, politics, religion, economy and behavior of society, through force, deception and manipulation. Nothing has changed about this throughout history.

  28. andrew Ryan May 28, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    Pablo Cruz: ” Did it put a man on the moon?”

    Interesting you bring up the moonlanding. You could compile a big list of Nazis scientists who were employed by NASA after WW2 to contribute to the space program – Wernher von Braun being a prominent example among many. This would have no more value than the list Eric links to. It would not mean National Socialism was a good thing or that it in itself it led to good science. It’s no more relevant than Newton’s belief in alchemy or purported creationism.

    As for the good that has come out of evolutionary science, the lives saved by improved crop yields and disease immunisation – both of which depended greatly on evolutionary understanding – is immense.

  29. John Bebbington May 28, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    When Christ came along, Satan started acting fast to poison the Church of Believers.

    “When Christ came along” there wan’t any church. A number of sects developed in the first century whose members believed all sorts of mutually contradictory theologies and it took over 300 years of sometimes violent internecine warfare between them before it settled down into anything we would recognise today as a church with an agreed creed.

    Many cults in the world exist because of this, and are very hard to see with the naked eye(wordly eyes and not from The Holy Spirit.)

    I assume, Malachi, that you must be a member of the only one true sect.

    The fact remains they refuted the idiotic idea of evolution, knowing it was founded on LIES and is hardly even a hypothesis now-a-days, as it is a dying belief..

    What is your evidence for the statement? Perhaps you are unaware of the current progress in genetics which is currently being achieved all of which goes to further support neo-Darwinism.

    Though the lies are still pushed so heavily, “One day, this belief(of evolution) will be discovered as the worst hoax in Scientific History.”

    I think that there are a couple of far bigger hoaxes out there both of which have been around for over 1200 years.

  30. Leo Fullerton May 28, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

    5. Dr. Kurt Wise Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard
    Is that the Stephen J Gould whom Project Steve is named after?

  31. steve sikora May 29, 2011 at 7:47 am #

    What negative comments against Christianity. Do you realize the very idea of the free speech you exercise here comes from Christianity? Go post some disagreement against communism in China or North Korea today. Try it with the Muslims.

    Christianity redeems fallen people. Atheism has no such good work. Atheists have killed more of their own countrymen in a week in this century than all of Christianity’s oops’s. [estimated to be in excess of 200,000,000!] How many atheist went to concentration camps in Hitler’s Germany to save their fellow Jews? Get a grip. Jesus Christ has always changed people for the good.

    If you atheists know whats good for you, you would do everything in your power to support Jesus Christ and his Church, even if just for your own self preservation.

  32. Stephen Holshouser May 29, 2011 at 10:03 am #

    Geno,

    This response is from the “Fairytale Land” discussion. I wanted to respond earlier, but the discussion closed and the blog was inactive for a while.

    Stephen previously wrote:
    I hope that is the case about you teaching only the scientific facts. I just remember you talking about a list of evidence that supports a young earth, which you stated your 9th graders saw through (which, honestly, I find hard to believe unless they were coached).

    Geno answered:
    “Actually, several of those evidences are posted right here on the CSE website. Since it’s a CSE page, I’ll guess it will be OK to post the link:
    drdino.com/evidence-from-earth/ Specifically the assertions about Niagara Falls being less than 8400 years old; the Mississippi Delta being less than 30,000; and the Sahara Desert being 4000 years old. My students quickly pointed out you cannot determine the maximum age of the planet from these things but they could indicate a minimum age. There are a number of other claims on that page that are just as bad (Earth’s magnetic field, salts in the oceans, helium in the atmosphere, the polar ice caps), but would probably be beyond the ability of a 9th grader to spot.”

    Stephen responds:
    The Falls and the Delta, by themselves, are not meant to determine the maximum age of the planet. The discussion is specifically over the age of these landmarks, not the planet. You see, if you can show that these (not the planet) are 8400 or 30,000 years old, then it disproves YEC. It is argued that, if you do not take into account the flood, these features will naturally appear much older than they really are. If you assume that the erosion and deposition rate has always been the same, you will greatly overestimate their ages. The Sahara Desert is just listed to say, “Why isn’t there a desert older than 4000 years? Because it is hard to have a desert under a flood.” You (and your students) correctly observed that these landmarks cannot determine a maximum age for the planet, but incorrectly concluded that that is what this specific argument is about.

    ############################################

    Geno pointed out:
    “You are right that Augustine was a “young-earth” type. But he believed in instant creation, not six days. You are missing the point completely. His point was that when we make claims of the Bible that people KNOW from their own personal experience and observation are false and give those claims the authority of Scripture, those non-believers will treat our beliefs with ridicule and scorn and reject them. If you need the complete statement of St. Augustine, I’ll be happy to provide it.”

    Stephen responds:
    I understand what you are saying; I believe that science does not contradict the Bible or vice versa. Our place of disagreement is whether or not science has proven certain things to be untrue or not. I agree that if you accept some of the unverifiable assumptions that scientists base their conclusions on, you have evidence against a young earth… I just don’t accept the unproven assumptions as you do. But examine the argument you’ve made here; what if a person knows that it is scientifically impossible to raise someone from the dead, or instantaneously turn water into wine, or heal the blind, deaf, and dumb, or walk on water, or feed thousands of people with one basket full of food, or for the sun to stand still, or the sundial to return 10 degrees, or any other of the miracles listed in the New or Old Testament; Do you change what the scripture teaches? Geno, you treat the Bible, His commandments, and even your own religion like a buffet line… You take what you like and justify yourself in rejecting the rest.

    ###########################################

    After Geno referred Stephen to the Vatican’s website, Stephen wrote:
    I found this on the Vatican website, “Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken.”
    Do you believe this, Geno? Do you believe that man actually brought death into the creation, or had it always been there? What NEW consequence did Adam’s sin bring about? Do you believe the first man who brought sin into the world, Adam, lived 6000 years ago as the Bible states?

    Geno answered:
    “I believe physical death has always been here and that Adam’s sin led to spiritual death, not physical death. I believe what seperates us from other animals is our immortal soul and have no idea at what point God decided to grant us that gift.”

    Stephen responds:
    Then you disagree with the Vatican’s statement and the Bible’s teaching in exchange for the thoughts of your imagination. They explicitly state that the creation is subject to the bondage of decay as a direct result of Adam’s sin, and the consequence for Adam’s sin was returning to the ground (death and decomposition). If these things had always been around, why mention physical death as a consequence?

    The Bible says that the first man, Adam, was created in the very first week of earth’s existence, 6000 years ago. Adam and Eve were the first to sin and bring spiritual and physical death into the world.

    Hebrews 9:24-26 says;
    “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

    According to this passage, why would Jesus (hypothetically, according to the context) have to suffer from the beginning of the world if there were no men or sin or spiritual death in the world? I think the obvious answer is because the very first man and woman, created in the very first 7-day week, fell into sin.

    In Luke 11:49-51, Jesus said;
    “Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.”

    Why does Jesus associate the foundation of the world with the first murder? Again, obviously I think it is because the world hadn’t existed for eons before Cain and Abel… Their parents were created in the first 7 day week.

    If you have no idea when God gave man a living soul as you stated, the answer is found in Genesis 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:45. It isn’t too hard to figure out roughly when the man named Adam lived. I’m not sure why you would start believing the Bible now over your imagination, but the answers are there if you are interested.

    ###############################

    Finally, I am curious to find out if you heard back from your friend with a PhD in physics about Jason Lisle’s paper any word? If he has objections, I would like to know, specifically, to what.

  33. Peter Bilmer May 30, 2011 at 6:19 am #

    Every scientist is a “Creationist” even the evolutionism disciples. In their world view time, chance and natural process -for non of them they have an explanation of origin by the way- are the creative allpowerfull forces.

    Based on these false ideas a new fundamentalist religion came into existence which is defended by an international propaganda mill and many zealots which try to suppress the Biblical view of Creation.

    Thanks for the list Eric!

  34. Rickey Hicks May 30, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    to Dark Star
    Firstly, you just asked about evidence for micro-evolution. The argument against evolution isn’t for micro-evolution, but rather cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, and macro-evolution. You provided evidence for micro-evolution and tried to pass of the entire theory as correct when it isn’t. Go provide legitamate proof of the other 5 types and then post.

    Secondly, I will answer your rant with an example. Evolutionists will say that chimpanzees are closely related to humans. At one point it was calculated that there was 1.6% difference between them. Now they have found that there is over 7.7% difference and only 1/3000 of the genome has been decoded. When the difference was calculated (When people thought the difference was 1.6%) there was found to be a difference of 48,000,000 nucleotides. A change in 3 nucleotides kills an animal. There is NOOOOOO possibility of change between the two. This is with our “closest” relative–there obviously is no chance of change between us and our “less related cousins.” That part is impossible. Does that answer your question? God bless you. :)

  35. Rickey Hicks May 30, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    To Dark Star,
    Oh, and by the way, I didn’t know you had any sort of authority to tell us what we can and cannot do. Even if you did by your reasoning YOUR religion (Atheism/Evolutionism) should be considered to have their claims forfeited seeing as Hitler murdered 11,000,000 people and Stalin murdered 100,000,000 (They were both atheists and evolutionists). It seems to me that right now all you are being is a hypocrit.

    Also you said that the church forced:
    Kepler
    Francis Bacon
    Linnaeus
    John Ray
    Robert Boyle
    Sir Isaac Newton
    Blaise Pascal
    Charles Babbage
    Gregor Mendel
    James Joule
    William Thomson
    Lord Kelvin
    Michael Faraday
    John Dalton
    Louis Pasteur
    Sir John Hersche
    James Clerk Maxwell
    Adam Sedgwick
    Andrew Murray
    Richard Owen
    Louis Agassiz
    Werner von Braun
    James Irwin and
    A.E. Wilder-Smith into their religion. I would like to see evidence because that is a pretty big accusation. All you have said is a broad statement. Can you prove it?

    God bless you.

  36. andrew Ryan May 31, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    Rickey Hicks: “They were both atheists and evolutionists”

    Sorry, but no. Not only did Hitler believe in God, he also rejected the idea that speciation is possible, famously declaring “The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.”

    So Hitler was basically a theistic creationist.

  37. Geno Castagnoli May 31, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:
    I am curious to find out if you heard back from your friend with a PhD in physics about Jason Lisle’s paper any word? If he has objections, I would like to know, specifically, to what.

    Geno answers:
    I didn’t hear from him, but did have a fairly extensive discussion about Lisle’s ideas with a YEC. In doing so, I realized …..

    Many of us have a GPS in our car. If Lisle’s claims are true, GPS would not work as all receivers locked on to a particular set of satellites would calculate the exact same fix (if they were able to get a fix at all). Because GPS works, Lisle’s model does not.

  38. John Bebbington May 31, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Rickey Hicks wrote:

    Evolutionists will say that chimpanzees are closely related to humans. At one point it was calculated that there was 1.6% difference between them. Now they have found that there is over 7.7% difference and only 1/3000 of the genome has been decoded. When the difference was calculated (When people thought the difference was 1.6%) there was found to be a difference of 48,000,000 nucleotides.

    I doubt you understand what you are talking about so please would you let us have the reference.

    A 48 million nucleotide difference out of a genome size of over 3 billion is 1.6%

    A change in 3 nucleotides kills an animal.

    Not necessarily. It depends where in the genome the mutation has occurred and the nature of the mutation. You have far more than 3 nucleotidal differences to your grandparents but it seems that you have managed to survive so far.

    There is NOOOOOO possibility of change between the two. This is with our “closest” relative there obviously is no chance of change between us and our “less related cousins.” That part is impossible. Does that answer your question?

    As your answer is unintelligible it tells us nothing.

  39. John Bebbington May 31, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    Peter wrote:

    Based on these false ideas a new fundamentalist religion came into existence which is defended by an international propaganda mill and many zealots which (sic) try to suppress the Biblical view of Creation.

    Please may we have some evidence backing up the claim that zealots are suppressing Creationism.

    In May 1933 the Nazi Party commenced a campaign to burn all books which did not conform to its ideology. Charles Darwin was one of the authors on its list; the christian god was not.

  40. Geno Castagnoli May 31, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    With regard to the “evidence” of a young Earth presented at the CSE page at http://www.drdino.com/evidence-from-earth/:

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:
    The Falls and the Delta, by themselves, are not meant to determine the maximum age of the planet. The discussion is specifically over the age of
    these landmarks, not the planet.

    Geno answers:
    From the opening sentence of that page:
    “There are a number of factors from earth that limit the age of the universe or earth to within a few thousand years.”

    In other words, despite Stephen’s efforts at what amounts to an exercise in apologetics, the intent of the CSE page is clear. Specifically, these are examples that “limit the age of the universe or Earth to within a few thousand years.” (Emphasis Geno’s)

  41. Caleb Fielding May 31, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    alax miller said

    And Caleb Fielding asked “did baptist do all this”. Well the answer is yes.

    Martin Luther protested primarily about the issue of Free Will in the church.

    I can go into much more detail if you want

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………….

    I am not sure how to tell you this but Martin Luther was a cathlic then a luthern, not a baptist. Baptist have been persecuted by rome for the entirety of the dark ages (in fact they gave us the name baptist, and I can go further into this if you want). Furthermore the problems brought about by lutherns killing and imprisoning people came about later because of that whole state church thing, very very bad idea, and unfortunately now the public schools have become state churchs.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

    “Practically every right-wing dictator of the period had been born and brought up a Catholic notably Hitler, Franco, Petain, Mussolini, Pavelic, and Tiso (who was a Catholic priest). John Cornwell Hitler’s Pope (1999; p. 280), Google Books: bit.ly/kU9z8v
    …………………………………………………………………………………………..

    First I would say they were left wing dictators not right wing, second that is my point the cathlic church is the problem. Dont you think it is kinda weird how they are funding guys that push evolution instead of catholism? The Bible talks about it in revelation (I think it is chapter 17,or 18), calls her the great whore, go ahead and google it as there is not enough room on here to go over that large of a subject.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………..
    And just so I’m clear in your creation theory exactly which allele insertion, deletion, substitution, duplication or chromosome duplication, crossover, or modification do you assert is absolutely and unquestionably impossible that has formed a this barrier between the absolute fact of tens of thousands of observed modifications of every type and the genetic differences we observe between the different kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species or your kind?
    …………………………………………………………………………………………..

    The observation is that as time goes by everything gets worse, and tends toward chaos and weakness. In evolution theory every change makes things better (or at least there are more good changes than bad). In creation every change is bad. That said God built into us so much adaptability that we can cope with the change. According to evolution the best martial artist should all be asian because they have practiced it for thousands of years, but in reality the best one five years in a row was chuch norris.

    that said I am curious as to what explanation you can give for why birds instinctively know how to build next and beavers know who to build dams and lodges, but every human appears to be an empty vessel. My explanation would be God gave the birds and the beavers knowledge, but he is waiting for us to get to know him before he gives us knowledge.

  42. Jennifer Preston May 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Rickey Hicks wrote:
    “Firstly, you just asked about evidence for micro-evolution. The argument against evolution isn’t for micro-evolution, but rather cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, and macro-evolution. You provided evidence for micro-evolution and tried to pass of the entire theory as correct when it isn’t. Go provide legitamate proof of the other 5 types and then post.”

    Not this again! Okay, the theory of evolution only explains the diversity of life. It says absolutely nothing about how the universe got here. How the universe got here is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution by natural selection. What you think is that the Big Bang theory somehow manages to explain the diversity of life and it doesn’t even try to. The Big Bang theory says nothing about the diversity of life. To use the creationist terms, even though they are completely wrong, what happens is that scientists specialise in one particular type of what creationists dub “evolution” for example, one scientist will specialise in organic evolution, well, abiogenesis really, another will specialise in chemical evolution, well, nuclear physics really, but you cannot expect the chemical evolutionist (nuclear physicist) to know every detail from organic evolution (abiogenesis). You expect someone who works in macro-evolution to know everything about every other type of evolution. You expect someone who works in macro-evolution to know everything about cosmic and stellar evolution too. You want to take Biology, Chemistry and Physics and clump them all together under the collective term “science” and that’s not how it works. It’s like you expect everyone who works in science to have three degrees, one in each subject. You can go even further than just Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Biology can be split up into microbiology, zoology and biochemistry.

    But don’t expect anyone who has a degree in biochemistry to be able to tell you anything about quantum mechanics.

    Actually, when it comes to science it really doesn’t matter what anybody believes. The fact of the matter is creation science and intelligent design is not science. Evolution and cosmology are. Why? Because evolution and cosmology can be disproved. They can be tested and they can be proved wrong. Regardless of whether some people believe they already have been proved wrong, and regardless of whether there is actually any solid evidence for God, the point is you cannot disprove the existence of God or an Intelligent Designer. It’s impossible. What creationists try to do is take things from the Bible and try to make those testable, then claim that makes God testable when it doesn’t. If there was a global flood 4000 years ago (there wasn’t) it still says absolutely nothing about the existence of an Intelligent Designer. That comes down to belief, and therefore creation and intelligent design have no place in the science classroom. It is perfectly okay to teach them in a religious education classroom, but not in a science classroom. Evolution and Cosmology and Nuclear Physics, while people on this site may have their opinions about them, they can be tested and they can be disproved BECAUSE they say nothing about the existence of God or an Intelligent Designer, and that makes them science and they should be taught in the science classroom.

    In reference to the list up there, the one’s before 1859 don’t really count since Darwin hadn’t come up with the theory and it wasn’t widely known about, so there wasn’t really a choice. You could even go further than that and say anyone on that list before 1920 is irrelevant and should be discarded. I also feel Geno’s post above should be reposted:
    “It was a scientific community dominated by young-earth-creationists that was persuaded BY THE EVIDENCE that a literal Genesis was wrong and that the Earth (and universe) were billions of years old.”

    So here is my challenge to creationists. Tell me how you could disprove the exitence of God or an intelligent designer. In detail please. A repeatable experiment is a must.

  43. Carl M May 31, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    [Repost]

    Rickey Hicks

    A change in 3 nucleotides kills an animal

    This is why the Hovind ministry is so dangerous to public knowledge of science.

    The claim originates for a urologist (men’s plumbing expert) called Barney Maddox. Maddox claimed in a Young Earth Creationist newsletter that because cystic fiborosis if caused by three (specific) mutations therefore any three mutations must be fatal. See the flaw in the argument?

    Every human has dozens of unique mutations.

    and only 1/3000 of the genome has been decoded.

    That data is woefully out of date. The entire human genome has been mapped as well as few of the major primates.

  44. Pablo Cruz May 31, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    I’ve read your posts of how evolution or millions/billions of years contributed to our way of life today. But none of you answered my question. How does evolution helped medical science? Or how did the “billions of years” of geology helped power modern society?

    Here’s my point. Regardless of age of the earth, man used the elements found in this world to help advance ourselves for a better way of life. It doesn’t matter if the scientists were YEC or secular scientists. It contributes to nothing!! Still doesn’t explain how that belief specifically put man on the moon!!

    If you want to use math, genetic algorithms, this kills evolution as “chance processes”!! Since there is math involved, the fact that there is calculated information, confirms intelligent design!! Yes, there is math involved and we can calculate it. Where did that information originated from??

  45. Billy Joe Grace June 1, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    I have appreciated CSE and their efforts to encourage dialogue between both sides of the creation debate for many years. There is a lot to be said for a spirited debate between opposing minds. Sometimes, however things can kind of turn ugly. People get angry over a comment, or perhaps offended when disagreed with. Some folks make it there life mission to destroy that with which they disagree. I personally would like to see the state sponsored religion of evolution dropped from the public school menu. You don’t even need to teach the creation story. Just teach biology from an objective perspective. The state of course will not allow that. Better yet, drop the whole “public education” system altogether. I’ll chase that rabbit more later. Those that disagree with the Biblical perspective usually do not understand it. I have heard the whole “dark ages” argument for years. The folks that use that argument do not realize that historically, the majority of people who were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic system were Bible believing Christians who would not bow the knee to rome. It was not a war between Christians and somebody, it was a war on Christians. The Inquisition, by the way, has never officially ceased. The vatican has merely changed its tactics. Deception is now the watchword.
    I accuse the evolution system, and there is a system, of doing exactly the same. It is Christianity they seek to destroy. It is the mouth of the Bible believer they wish to silence. It is accomplished by indoctrinating children before they are able to think for themselves. Observe the “prominent” evolutionists of today. They spew forth not just an opposing view of reality, but an ardent hatred for the things of GOD, and His rule. You can read their own writings for the proof. I have talked at length with many university students, who display the same hatred. You have to be taught something like that.
    Go to richarddawkins.net. Go the the recommended reading section to the right, and find J.Anderson Thomson . He is a good way down the list. He has a very telling video of him lecturing a group somewhere. Watch the video to see him express his agenda. For that matter, look at the entire list of authors and there credentials. These are the people that greatly influence what children are being taught in the public education system.
    My point is this. There is an all out war for the minds of children. Children who will eventually become adults. Adults who will be ruled by someone. Some of these adults will do the ruling. Most of the adults will do the following. Who and what will they be following? Religion? Science? Both. Both are equally viable for the destruction of mankind. Religion produces the why, science produces the how. It will become rational to the mind of the atheist at some point, and many are already there, to destroy those with whom they disagree. It will be the dark ages all over again. I would not be surprised to see the Vatican at the top this time too.

    Why? Why would J.Anderson Thomson make it his life goal to to obliterate Christianity? Why would Dawkins, Sagan, etc..?

    Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,(humanism) and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    When a man hates GOD, he hates all to do with Him.

  46. Jack Napper June 1, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    What negative comments against Christianity. Do you realize the very idea of the free speech you exercise here comes from Christianity?

    Really, and which particular flavor would it come from? Perhaps you can back up this assertion for us.

    Go post some disagreement against communism in China or North Korea today. Try it with the Muslims.

    I was really hoping but instead you would rather revert to spewing fallacies.

    Christianity redeems fallen people. Atheism has no such good work.

    More blatant assertions.

    Atheists have killed more of their own countrymen in a week in this century than all of Christianity’s oops’s. [estimated to be in excess of 200,000,000!]

    Perhaps you could give us some figures? Don’t forget that Hitler, whether he believe in your particular flavor of Christianity, was on your side of the fence.

    How many atheist went to concentration camps in Hitler’s Germany to save their fellow Jews? Get a grip. Jesus Christ has always changed people for the good.

    So you think that only Christians were responsible for liberating the Jews? Tell that to the Jewish soldiers and soldiers of other faiths. You are aware that Hitler locked up and killed more than Jews right?

    If you atheists know whats good for you, you would do everything in your power to support Jesus Christ and his Church, even if just for your own self preservation.

    More fallacies and scare mongering I see.

  47. Duane Hamish June 1, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner May 28th at 7:40 am

    Wow, the atheist simply will not stop with the straw man arguments, red herrings and false analogies.

    A very simple and direct article showing that religion and science are not in conflict, and they can’t handle the truth.

    Scientific advancements/contributions have been given by people of many different world views, and from people in various nations around the world, throughout history.

    The scientific method is designed to eliminate any and all bias that would influence the logical conclusion of the scientific data.

    The problem is that biased people want to take over and control the scientific community, while abandoning the scientific method. The Catholic church and Evolutionists are clear examples of this.

    Narcissists have always attempted to control industry, politics, religion, economy and behavior of society, through force, deception and manipulation. Nothing has changed about this throughout history.

    The question is, “who are the narcissists?” Do we need to re-post the “Statement of Faith” yet again? It specifically says that evidence that does not agree with preconceived notions shall be disregarded. If you have this kind of demonstrable, codified bias, it’s really hard to accuse others of it just because you disagree with them. Creationists can bring up 100 year old hoaxes all they want, but that hoax didn’t inform evolution, it actually set it back and it was eventually dismissed by scientists who actively investigated it. Can religion say the same? Someone alluded to a (700+ year old – I think he meant since ~1200 CE, not 1200 years old) hoax presented by religion that is still trotted out as evidence decades after it was debunked. Even if you don’t subscribe to that branch of Christianity, the portraits of Jesus hanging on your wall were a direct result of that hoax. Religion has managed to infantilize its followers with fantasy stories and admonitions against questioning. Last week, we all witnessed the narcissism of religion. Obviously, none of you in here were fool enough to buy into Camping’s May 21st nonsense, but it goes to a bigger issue that I’ve been commenting on since I’ve been in here. I really wish you guys could step back and objectively look at the church’s rhetoric. How many times are we told the Bible is True, and to trust Jesus and, by extension, those that speak for Him. Jesus can’t lie, which means we won’t lie to you. Don’t question any of this nor expect any proof. Evidence to the contrary is actually manufactured by Satan. Repeat that verse about how those that believe without proof are blessed and you have a license to print money. How many millions did Camping bring in? Now that he has been shown to be a “false prophet”, he didn’t just give up, he doubled down. He still has followers, as do other fallen ministers. Followers have so much invested that they can’t admit when they are wrong and would rather deny reality than their fantasy.

    steve sikora May 29th at 7:47 am

    What negative comments against Christianity. Do you realize the very idea of the free speech you exercise here comes from Christianity? Go post some disagreement against communism in China or North Korea today. Try it with the Muslims.

    Christianity redeems fallen people. Atheism has no such good work. Atheists have killed more of their own countrymen in a week in this century than all of Christianity’s oops’s. [estimated to be in excess of 200,000,000!] How many atheist went to concentration camps in Hitler’s Germany to save their fellow Jews? Get a grip. Jesus Christ has always changed people for the good.

    If you atheists know whats good for you, you would do everything in your power to support Jesus Christ and his Church, even if just for your own self preservation.

    No, the free speech we exercise comes from the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Christianity has nothing to do with it. How many Atheists went to concentration camps to save ” their fellow Jews”? I’ll admit that it was probably less than the number of Christians that placed them in the concentration camps and put them to death in the first place.

    How about we stop with the Hitler/Stalin references. It is a despicable appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with Evolution.