Creationist Ken Ham versus the Truth

Announcing his upcoming debate with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham said:

This debate will help highlight the fact that so many young people are dismissing the Bible because of evolution, and even many young people who had grown up in the church decided to leave the church because they saw evolution as showing the Bible could not be trusted.

No, Mr. Ham, young people aren’t dismissing the Bible “because of evolution.”

Mr. Ham, the young people you strive to influence are dismissing the Bible because you’re telling them what it says and means, rather than letting them seek that out for themselves. You’ve decided that your particular (and particularly immature) interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one, and you’re making them choose between your view and reason. Guess what? They’re choosing reason.

No, Mr. Ham, people aren’t dismissing the Bible “because of evolution.”

Mr. Ham, people no more dismiss the Bible because of evolution than they dismiss the Bible because of the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, or general relativity. Scientific facts are scientific facts; the Bible is the Bible. That the Bible doesn’t contain our modern scientific understanding of the world simply means that it reflects the ancient worldview in which it was written (which hardly in turn renders it hopelessly irrelevant).

No, Mr. Ham, no one’s leaving the church because evolution shows that “the Bible could not be trusted.”

Mr. Ham, they’re leaving the church because of people like you: people who fervently create walls, erect barriers, establish rigid rules for what one must believe in order to be a Christian. They’re leaving the church because your version of Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with right practice, and everything to do with “right” belief. They’re leaving the church because by essentially demonizing everyone who doesn’t agree with you, you’ve made believing in Young Earth Creationism* more important than Jesus’ explicit commandment to love God and neighbor.

No, Mr. Ham, no one’s leaving the church because evolution shows that “the Bible could not be trusted.”

Mr. Ham, what the theory of evolution makes clear is that it is you and your cohorts who cannot be trusted. Evolution shows that you are either flat-out lying, or indulging in the Costanzian self-delusion: “Just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Either way, your aggressive disingenuousness and sophomoric chicanery stand in stark, pitiable contrast to the mountains of hard scientific evidence that prove evolution true.

Mr. Ham, I don’t know who will “win” the debate in February. But I am comforted by the assurance that, in the words of John Wycliffe, in the end the truth will conquer.

 

*The belief, born of a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis, that God created the world in six 24-hour days only 6,000 years ago.


Dan WilkinsonDan Wilkinson
Dan is a writer, graphic designer and IT specialist. He lives in Montana, is married and has two cats. He blogs at CoolingTwilight.com.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Keith Witty

    God, I just love the title of this. Spot on writing as well.

    • Ryanmd

      Who are you speaking to when you say “God”

      • Keith Witty

        My own expression of God. In this case, an expression.

      • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

        What business of yours is it who he’s talking to? If you’re asking, then you’re probably assuming that he was addressing you.

        It’s funny how fundies can’t see their idolatry of their own certitude.

        • Ryanmd

          perhaps it was an earnest question? Eric you seem very very angry, calling me names. Anything I can help you with?

          • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

            I don’t need any help from idolaters like you, Ryan. You have a nice day now.

          • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

            And since you’re claiming to understand my current emotional state, that’s just more proof that you view yourself as God.

          • Ryanmd

            Irrational, un-reason-able. I am speaking softly and you are still in a tirade. When you calm down and want to discuss something, let me know. I would be willing

        • Ryanmd

          Forgive me if this is posting twice.
          Eric, perhaps this was an earnest question?
          You seem very very angry calling me names. Is there anything I can do for you?

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

      Thank you Keith.

  • Herald

    Precisely, they are leaving because of narrow-mindedness, judgmentalism, hypocrisy, and the like. When Christ’s great command to love is obeyed and truth eagerly sought out they come in.

  • BarbaraR

    This. Absolutely.
    *Cue the people who will throw scripture around like spaghetti in a Three Stooges film in an attempt to disprove the article but wind up with exact opposite effect*

  • Dave

    So if we can throw out Genesis 1, why can’t we throw out John 3:16?

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

      Who’s throwing out Genesis 1? I’m certainly not.

      • Dave

        So Genesis is compatible with evolution?

        • http://www.enesvy.com/ Enesvy

          I think so. Because Genesis 1 is poetry in the original Hebrew. Our “24 hour day” was not even a concept back then. Who knows what a “day” is to God, who is eternal?

          • Dave

            Hebrew word for day is same in Genesis as in other parts of OT

          • http://www.enesvy.com/ Enesvy

            And? That still doesn’t mean that the poetry in Genesis 1 is speaking about 24 hours. It’s art, not fact.

          • Dave

            Genesis doesn’t read as poetry nor recorded that way

            Apparently I have been blocked. That is fine, though I find it a bit hypocritical to preach tolerance and then block someone for challenging the belief system of this blog respectfully.

            I will pray for everyone on here for faith in Jesus Christ that He died for our sins and that all who will submit their lives wholly to Him will be saved from eternal destruction. Please make Jesus the Lord of your life and He will give you a new heart and you will be a new creature.

            “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”

            2nd Corinthians 5:17.

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            Gosh, it’s hard to believe that you might miss the poetry in something, Dave.

          • buzzdixon

            Dave, the Bible pretty explicitly states that Genesis 1-8 are the best recollections of a drunken abusive illiterate Bronze Age farmer and his dysfunctional family. Noah is the bottle neck that all previous info has to be squeezed thru. How much did he know? Who told him? What was just a guess on his part?

          • Ruby Faraday

            Yes bronze age people who come up with scientific studies. For instance, Democritus understood the Higgs Boson 2600 years ago.

            Erastosthenes who used geometry to measure the Earth’s circumference & measured the tilt of the Earth’s axis by 23.5 degrees.

            Even Carl Sagan didn’t diss anyone from those ages but merely praised them.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            No…Democritus, theorized on the concept of atoms, which Higgs Bosun built on centuries later. He was way ahead of his time, but his theory at the time was utterly un-provable.
            No one is saying Bronze or iron age people were stupid, they just lacked the technical advances we take for granted today. Each generation has built on the discoveries or thoughts of past ones, often discarding what was found to be erroneous, as new discoveries have been made.

          • Daniel Webb

            Democritus didn’t live during the bronze age. He wasn’t born until around 470 BCE and the Bronze age was from 3300 BCE to 1200 BCE. Erastosthenes also didn’t live during the bronze age. He wasn’t born until around 276 BCE.
            Noah–however–did indeed live during the Bronze Age. Just wanted to help you out Ruby–you seem to suffer from that dangerous disease known as argumentum gluteaus maximum, which is commonly an affliction of politicians and creationists.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Genesis one is most certainly poetic in nature. The repetitive use of phrase, the layout of segments, with a close to lyrical feel. Its not poetry in a modern sense, but more an early version of free verse, where there patterns exist, but are not used stringently.

          • MikeHaas82

            Dave – I’m a Jew, take it from me. Much of the Hebrew Bible is poetry and quite a bit of it even rhymes. The Gospel of John in koine Greek is also poetry.

        • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

          Yes.

          • Dave

            How?

          • http://blog.debenny.de/ De Benny

            How is it incompatible? Genesis 1 is about God being the creator of all things. Nobody questions this.
            Evolution is about how living things created evolved into today’s forms.
            By the way: There are also bible verses colliding with Genesis 1: Ever heard of the Leviathan and the Behemot? They are not mentioned in Gen 1, but God wresteld with them before creation etc etc.
            Texts have an issue they want to bring across. In the case of Gen 1 this is rather the fact that God created everything than giving a historical lecture on what God made when.
            In how far would this even be of interest to us? How does it change your life knowing that gras was made before the sun and the moon, according to Gen 1?

        • Ryanmd

          Genesis is compatible with Jesus. Evolution is not compatible with the need of a Savior. Death entered after Adam’s sin, not before. Jesus paid the fine Adam caused. The fine was death.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Jesus is Adam’s fault? wwwaaat?

          • Ryanmd

            You seem to be irritated in all your comments. So I will do this once with you Allegro. Jesus came to pay the penalty for sin. The penalty was death. Adam and Eve sinned against God. The penalty for sin was death. Jesus (the Son of God) came to pay the penalty of sin (Death) once and for all. Anyone that believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. If Adam had never sinned, death would not have entered, Jesus would not have had to come to pay the penalty.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Irritated? Nah. I am familiar with that theorization of theology. I just, like many Christians, utterly reject the idea of original sin. It appears to make God a failure as the creator of people, seeing the glaring design flaw.

          • Ryanmd

            What is your “theorized” reason for Jesus?

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Different than your theory.

          • Ryanmd

            theory?
            “For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ,” Romans 5:15

            Your theory does not matter. My theory does not matter. Only scripture. Study your bible before you teach. Know the reason for Jesus. Pray about this before you teach the masses . teachers will be judged harsher than others

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I find it amusing and also sad that people assume that those who disagree with their views on scripture haven’t read it, and have simply come up with different conclusions.
            God is much more expansive in the divine interaction with humanity than what is confined in the views of those making assumptions.

            Scripture matters little if its used as a weapon, or as a means to demean, belittle, discredit or do anything that acts contrary to the concept of loving and respecting your neighbor. It certainly is of infinite lesser importance than the divine, of which scripture tries to grasp, through human lenses, and within the lenses of a time and culture quite foreign to us. Yes its valuable, it offers insight, and beauty, and also ugliness. It isn’t, however, the only things that matters, not even close.

          • Ryanmd

            Allegro I did not assume you have not read your bible. I said to “study” it. It is a mirror. You do not read it once. You read it until you die. Study it. Know it. Understand it. Toil it. Search it. Pray over it. It is infact a weapon. It is the sword of the Spirit. A double edged sword. It divides the heart and the intentions. This is scripture. But, not against you. It is for you. I used scripture not to attack you. But to attack satan and his lie. I gave scripture in Romans 5 to show you that evolution is incompatible with Jesus. It is clear. Not interpretations. it is clear. I am not attacking you, only giving you scripture to guide you to the truths that God has already revealed. I only remind you that teaching before you are certain is dangerous. That we should be careful teaching wrong things. We will be judged more harshly. WE

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I am certain, that my conclusions of what you say are quite different and will continue along that vein. Why? because I read, I ponder, I ask questions, I look at how others have thought about things. I use every means at my disposal to discover, discarding and picking up along the way. I’ve read scripture many times, still reference it frequently, as I do as many other books I can lay my hands on.

            The Bible is just a tool, I would never consider it as a weapon, its a book…or rather a collection. I see nothing in any of scripture…and yeah, I looked, repeatedly over the years, so see where evolution is incompatible with Jesus, and it, to me just is not there….

            Why? Because such a concept was yet undiscovered.

          • Ryanmd

            Allegro I must leave you with God on this. I pray that you will find the Bible as more than just any tool. But THE tool. Search it, study it. Seek Jesus. Repent as I did. Shalom

          • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

            What a bunch of double talk. “I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking Satan; you just happen to be standing in the way.” We all realize that the Bible is a weapon in the hands of fundamentalists and literalists. You’ve been attacking us with it for centuries.

          • Ryanmd

            Thank you for laying centuries on me Eric. Anything else you are upset with me about?

          • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

            How about the fact that you’re nothing but a troll?

          • Ryanmd

            You are laying centuries on my shoulders. Thats a lot to bear. Is there anything else you would like to add Eric?

          • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

            Spoken like a true literalist. If you can’t understand figurative language, then you should probably get off the internet

          • MikeHaas82

            Yes. If you can hate the sin but love the sinner, then I can hate the belief but love the believer. I wish I could take credit for that, but it was written by someone a lot wiser than I.

          • Ryanmd

            Mike, I like it. I think its a great quote. I can and do love the sinner and hate the sin. As I have been a lover of many sins in my past I certainly understand those that are still enveloped by its draw. I love the sinner, like a doctor loves his patient and hates the disease. This is why I have a hard time allowing anyone to walk by me with a terminal illness that I have already found the cure for. For me, death has now lost its sting. I will scream it from the roof tops while looking like a fool doing it. I will not be popular, I will not get a movie deal. I will mostly be broke, and shunned. Mike, if you can love a believer like me and hate my belief, well I still thank you kind sir. I wish many other felt the same. Bless you and your family today.

          • Ryanmd

            theorized?
            “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” Romans 5:12

          • Ryanmd

            “For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ,” Romans 5:15
            This is no theory. This is scripture. Please please read your bible tonight and study this. No the reason for the Cross

      • Ruby Faraday

        I find this odd! Firstly it is so clear that the context of evening and morning were used in Genesis 1 with the word “yom (day)” which is used in the whole of the OT. Normally people will dismiss this as poetic but I find it hilarious as the OT and the Big Bang theory do not collaborate in any way whatsoever.

        Those who say they believe in the Big Bang don’t even adhere that the Big Bang has many flaws. it can’t stand alone.

        1) The Monopole problem: A monopole is a huge magnet that has either a north or south pole, it does not have both. Unlike the dipole that has a south pole and a north pole, the monopole is said to have existed during the time of the big bang. This is because the Big Bang model postulates high temperatures during Plank’s time (the first few piko seconds of the BB). One problem with this: monopoles are stable and are able to last till today. So where are they?

        2) Inflation: this model was created to solve the monopole problem and other problems such as horizon and flatness (won’t be explaining it in this comment). The inflation model states that the universe went through a time of acceleration. sadly, no experiment or tests have been able to explain this. most of it are models using simulations (the variables are keyed in by scientist via their presupposition) and extrapolation.

        3) Antimatter: Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces equal amounts of antimatter; there are no known exceptions. Strangely, there are no equal amounts of matter and antimatter but the universe is seen to be built of entirely matter and small amounts of antimatter.

        4) Population III Stars: the Big Bang accounts for the 3 lightest
        elements: Hydrogen, Helium and small ratios of Lithium. Other elements are said to have formed from explosion of stars (supernovae). This explosion is said to fuse itself on 2nd and 3rg generations stars. So, question, if the first stars were created from the first 3 lightest elements, where are they? It is “calculated” that these stars “should” still be around, but they could not be found. There are ~100 billion stars in our galaxy but strangely, no Pop III stars can be found.

        I can say that even a few secular astronomers are dropping the idea of the big bang. For instance, New Scientist (2004) questioned the Big Bang model.

        “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed – inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way
        of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”

        It was signed by 100s of scientist & professors from many institutions. So if the Big Bang is eventually thrown into the dustbin, I would like to see how the compromising “Christians” react to it. God’s Word is never changing and eternal.
        Another admission by a secular scientist, “Big bang predictions are consistently wrong and are being fixed after the event” (Chown, 2005).

        Just how wrong are they? Chown provided part of the answer when he noted: “So much so, that today’s ‘standard model’ of cosmology has become an ugly mishmash comprising the basic big bang theory, inflation and a generous helping of dark matter and dark energy” (2005).

        The growing number of discrepancies caused this statement, “I can prove that the universe wasn’t born 13.7 billion years ago. The big bang never happened” (Chown, 2005)

        This is from a science website:
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061.800

        Now, let’s touch on EVOLUTION. Those who say it is compatible have not done their homework. Many speak of beneficial mutations but there are no benefits in evolution. It is normally confused for natural selection. Example: Huntington’s disease is a “progressive brain disorder that causes uncontrolled movements, emotional problems, and loss of thinking ability.”

        This is definitely not an increase in information if it destroys part of the brain yet increases muscle build up. It causes CAG trinucleotide repeat and this argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. It does not extend friendly numbers to the theory of evolution and math’s done on this study show an issue of running into the walls of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes.

        I’ve said what I have to say. It saddens me that people in the faith refuse to see how it has crept into schools and affected people. It has affected a lot of Christians and most of them have left church because of this compromise.

        It’s funny how you mention love thy neighbour but you are not even doing that to your own brother in Christ. Have a nice day!

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          Ah the joy of copy/paste…..
          sigh.

          • Ruby Faraday

            Copy paste? ROFL!! Answer it. I’ve got better things to do than reply to someone who loves to parade abusive ad hominem.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Answer what?

          • Daniel Webb

            Ruby, there wasn’t any ad hominem. An example of ad hominem would be if I said that everything you copy/pasted was wrong because you’re a stupid woman.

    • Ryanmd

      Dave, you question is accurate. To go further…..If death did not enter through Adam…. there is no need for John 3:16

  • Robert

    When I stand before God, the question He will ask me is not, “Did you believe that I created the world in 6 literal days?” No. The question He will ask is, “Did you believe in my Son and, in turn, love and serve people in his Name?” God gave us physics, math, chemistry, and all of the sciences to use to explore and discovery this incredible world and universe He made. The “literal” crackpots would have us throw out those tools and go back to believing the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us. For you “literalist”, could you please explain how the sun and moon were created on the fourth day (Gen 1:14 – “let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years”) yet, a 24 hour day is measured by the sun rising and setting. So how were days 1 to 3 measured? You can keep trying to defend a “young earth theory”, but it has nothing, WHATSOEVER, to do with the core and fundamental truth of Christianity.

    • Desi

      Robert, I’m not sure if I should take you literally or not. I don’t want to be a crackpot.

    • Ryanmd

      Robert the core fundamental truth of Christianity is Jesus. We agree. What is the reason for Jesus? The need? Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. What was the penalty? Death. When was death given as penalty for sin? The fall of man. Adam and Eve sinned against God and through their sin, “death” entered the world. Jesus paid the fine that Adam caused. —Robert, if evolution is true, then death entered the world long before Adam….no? Evolution requires millions of deaths to achieve successful natural selections. Robert, if “ONE” death occurred prior to Adam, then Jesus is not necessary. =Death did not enter through Adam. Jesus is not needed to remove the death penalty for man. Study and pray about this

  • buzzdixon

    Bravo, Dan!

  • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

    I’ll take INTERNAL PERSPICUITY for the win, Alex.

    [mad man Wilkinson knocks another cover off the ball].

  • Gijreb

    The issue of origins is outside the realm of science. If you think that evolution is science and proven, you have absolutely no clue as to the nature of knowledge.

    It is not Mr. Ham’s teachings that are the problem, it is people who do not believe that God is able to reveal how He made the universe.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      We’ve yet to discover how God made time, gravity, heat, inertia, velocity, matter, antimatter, etc, or how long they have existed. We know they exist, and it seems to predate the origin of the universe all those billions and billions of years ago. We know what was done, the how, we are still learning.

    • Sven2547

      If you think that evolution is science and proven, you have absolutely no clue as to the nature of knowledge.

      Evolution is science, and it has been proven as thoroughly as any scientific principle ever has.

      • Gijreb

        Science cannot deal with unique, unrepeatable, unobservable and untestable events.
        Can anyone do a Show’n’Tell of a fish turning into a crocodile?
        The same is true of Creation. Both must be accepted on Faith.
        Evolution= Faith in Nothing.
        Creation= Faith in God.
        Everything that is not of faith is Sin. Rom 14:23

        • Sven2547

          Science cannot deal with unique, unrepeatable, unobservable and untestable events.

          Then you concede that YEC is not, and never has been, a scientific hypothesis?

          Evolution= Faith in Nothing.

          I think you’re confusing the science of evolution with the philosophy of nihilism. They have very little in common.

          • Gijreb

            Since no one can observe what has taken place in the past, no theory of origins is in the realm of science.
            The answer as to where we came from must be based upon faith.
            If you believe in Evolution, you have placed your faith upon Nothing, because for you the universe came from Nothing.
            Nihilism is something else, although most nihilists would have to be evolutionists.

          • Sven2547

            Since no one can observe what has taken place in the past, no theory of origins is in the realm of science.

            Scientific observation isn’t limited to just directly eyewitnessing events. Paleontology, isotope dating, and forensics are all very valid scientific techniques.

            Think, for a second, how the use of fingerprinting and DNA evidence have improved criminal investigations. We can prove the culprits of crimes without actually witnessing the crimes themselves.

            If you believe in Evolution, you have placed your faith upon Nothing, because for you the universe came from Nothing.

            Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. You have no clue what evolution even is, do you?

  • DontB_Afraid2Think

    “They’re leaving the church because your version of Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with right practice, and everything to do with “right” belief.”

    Explain, please, how you can have “wrong belief” and “right practice”.

    Also, please explain, how you can demand that Mr. Ham follow the “explicit commandment to love God and neighbor”, but you don’t need to follow the commandment yourself, “essentially demonizing” him.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      “Right” belief is a norm deemed correct by a group, anyone not an adherent to that belief is of course wrong. For example I am terrified of spiders, and believe that one actually coming into contact with me and giving free access to my body, would soon cause my death. Insisting that everyone believe me and join me in spreading that belief and the companion action of eradicating all spider life from the planet,. and lambasting everyone who didn’t agree, as arachneretics would be an example of a “right” belief.

      Right practice is more personal. where we look at what we ourselves are doing, in our personal mindset and actions as we navigate through life. Its not something exactly set in stone, but has some wonderful guidelines.

      And no we aren’t demonizing Mr. Ham the man, who is trying to sway the mindset of Christians, while attempting to use tax credits and donations to make fistfuls of money to build his empire. We strongly disagree with just about everything he publically stands for.

      • DontB_Afraid2Think

        Thank you for your definition of “right belief”, but don’t you see that by your definition you are the “right belief” group?

        After all you are the group that is “lambasting” Mr. Ham because he is “not an adherent to that belief”.

        The underlying issue is one of standards.

        Mr. Ham has been very clear that his standard is Bible as it has been transmitted through time.

        I’m guessing, please correct me if i”m wrong, that your standard is not external (i.e. The Bible), but internal (whatever sounds “right” to you).

  • John Oliver

    Scripturally, people leave the church because they were never truly born from above (1 John 2:19). However, I do think the theory of evolution helps unbelievers assuage their conscience. I have been researching the competing theories – Creation/evolution for several years now, and they are not compatible, in my opinion. I find a boat load of evidence for creation, both from people like Stephen Myer, who is not a young earth creationist, and folks like Ken Ham. Those of you dissing his position, have you really grappled with the scientific evidence he presents? Really? The theory of evolution is not monolithic, there are vast numbers of versions, why? Because there are so many holes in the theory, and mathematically, it’s just not possible. The discoverer of the DNA said that, also not a young earth scientist. As for the oft repeated comment above regarding “mornings and evenings” before the forth day; it says that light was created on the first day. All you need for a morning is rotation and a light source. In the new heavens and earth the Bibke says we will have no night, but neither will we have a sun to light the eternal day. We are talking about God here. Is anything too difficult for Him? Whatever you feel about Ken Ham, he is a brother in Christ, and gentleness should mark our communication, especially with regard to a brother. My two cents….

    • Deacon Razorblades

      I have been researching the competing theories – Creation/evolution for several years now, and they are not compatible, in my opinion.

      The first thing to realize is that creation is not a theory. Period. So it’s not fair to say they are competing theories, when one of them doesn’t even fit the definition of theory.

      I find a boat load of evidence for creation, both from people like Stephen Myer, who is not a young earth creationist, and folks like Ken Ham.

      Stephen Meyer has been scientifically discredited numerous times and Ken Ham is an YEC apologist lacking any sort of understanding of the basics of modern biology. I fail to see how you find a “boat load” of evidence for creation when these two sources are your two sources. Have you cross reference their evidence with what scientists actually say?

      Those of you dissing his position, have you really grappled with the scientific evidence he presents?

      Yes scienctists have, and they’ve been discredited and shown to be wrong. At this time Meyers is just capitalizing on creationists/ID proponents on the same ideas that scientists have publicly shown to be absolutely fallacious.

      The theory of evolution is not monolithic, there are vast numbers of versions, why?

      There is not a vast number of versions of evolution. I’m not sure where you’re getting this information from, but it is clearly wrong.

      Because there are so many holes in the theory, and mathematically, it’s just not possible.

      I’ve said this numerous times. If you, or any creationist/ID proponent has actual evidence that evolution is impossible, then get your findings published and collect your Nobel, because you would be the first to disprove it. You would essentially show that ALL of modern biology is wrong. Good luck.

      The discoverer of the DNA said that, also not a young earth scientist.

      Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

      it says that light was created on the first day.

      It also says that he created a lesser light at night. This would be the way bronze aged people would see it when they didn’t know that the moon is bright because it’s reflecting the sun’s light, not that it’s producing it. We can’t use the bible as a scientific journal because it’s clearly not.

      • John Oliver

        Deacon,
        You and I aren’t going to see eye to eye on this one, and I’m quite sure I’m not going to convince you in a few brief paragraphs. I have read the rebuttals to creationists and IDers; I don’t find them convincing. And most often I have to wade through a sea of ad hominems to even find the real critique. Just saying someone is discredited doesn’t prove the point. Most people didn’t believe Jesus was God incarnate, I do.
        Here’s a quote from Crick. The quote is actually longer, and gets into the mathematics of the position.
        “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” – F. Crick, Life Itself, 1981
        In regards to my claim of multiple theories of evolution, I will give just one quote, but I could give tons of them: “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be,’It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight seems rather odd.” – Simon Conway Morris, in the peer reviewed journal, Cell. Again, I could give more, and ALL from evolutionists themselves.
        Again, I don’t think a few lines from me will cause you to rethink your position. But I am thoroughly convinced that what I wrote was accurate and can can be proven. Just google “Theories of Evolution”
        There are scads, literally scads of scientists, holding Ph. Ds in their respective fields who disagree with evolution on scientific grounds. You can easily find their books. You just have to look. And of course, you will always find those on the other side who disagree. We must all look at the evidence and make a decision based upon what we find. I just really hope we’re doing the hard job of looking it up ourselves, and not just parroting what someone else said

        • Deacon Razorblades

          I have read the rebuttals to creationists and IDers; I don’t find them convincing.

          If you don’t find them convincing then why are you using the same canards they do? It seems like you believe exactly what they do, while not wanting to be compared to them.

          Just saying someone is discredited doesn’t prove the point.

          This is scientific discrediting. Meaning that their points were dissected and found to be wanting or lacking and having serious misunderstandings of modern scientific principals and known facts.

          Most people didn’t believe Jesus was God incarnate, I do.

          That is a blatant lie. The absolute majority of the population in America believes exactly as you do.

          “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” – F. Crick, Life Itself, 1981

          This is an example of quote mining. Here’s the rest of that quote.
          “But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.”
          He isn’t discounting either one. Also, this doesn’t mean that he’s actually right when talking about lengths of time. A plethora of information is starting to be found concerning abiogenesis, which is what he’s talking about, not evolution.

          “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be,’It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight seems rather odd.” – Simon Conway Morris, in the peer reviewed journal, Cell. Again, I could give more, and ALL from evolutionists themselves.

          Tell me exactly how this is a claim of multiple theories of evolution. It’s not. He’s saying evolution happened, nothing about there being multiple theories of evolution. There is only one. Now there are multiple mechanisms described when talking about how evolution occurs, but there’s not multiple theories of evolution.

          But I am thoroughly convinced that what I wrote was accurate and can can be proven. Just google “Theories of Evolution”

          Did you even read any of the things that were in those links when you googled them? They discuss the MECHANISMS of evolution, not the MANY THEORIES of evolution. Like I said before, there is one theory of evolution while there are multiple mechanisms to how it happens.

          There are scads, literally scads of scientists, holding Ph. Ds in their respective fields who disagree with evolution on scientific grounds.

          Evidence please

          You can easily find their books. You just have to look. And of course, you will always find those on the other side who disagree.

          Do you mean the absolute majority of scientists in their respective fields, who agree that evolution is the means for the diversity of life we see on this planet today?

          • John Oliver

            But Deacon, different mechanisms are different theories. To say that evolution is fact, you must define what that fact is, and the various mechanisms are because various scientists disagree on how it happened, and come up with a different theory. This just seems like semantics to me.
            At the end of the day my evidence isn’t going to do a bit of good for you, because your presupposition is that I can’t be right, and none of the evidence I have can be right. Well, there’s no point in talking at that point. Are you a Christian? If so, great! I know that God will continue His work in both of us and finish what He’s started. And one day we will know how He did everything. If you’re not a Christian. I believe there is a spiritual blindness inherent in that position that would make agreement impossible. My words and evidence won’t do any good in convincing you. I just wish there could be more civility over these issues on both sides, and believe me, I mean both sides! Peace to you!

          • Deacon Razorblades

            But Deacon, different mechanisms are different theories.

            No they are not. This is the definition of evolution:

            “The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations”

            and here’s the rest of that very same definition discussing HOW:

            “which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.”

            To say that evolution is fact, you must define what that fact is, and the various mechanisms are because various scientists disagree on how it happened, and come up with a different theory.

            No, the various mechanisms are there because scientists are finding the various mechanisms that cause evolution to occur. That’s it, it’s really that simple. Scientists may be in disagreement over some very nuanced things, but they all very much agree that it is a fact that evolution has occurred in the past and that it is occurring right now. To deny that is to deny modern science.

            This just seems like semantics to me.

            It’s not semantics. You just don’t understand the theory of evolution while trying to discredit it. Semantics and what you’re doing is not the same thing.

            At the end of the day my evidence isn’t going to do a bit of good for you, because your presupposition is that I can’t be right, and none of the evidence I have can be right.

            No, no, no, no, no. I’m following what the evidence is actually showing without bringing any supernatural entity into it, which is exactly what unbiased scientists do. When your evidence doesn’t survive the scrutiny of the scientific community then your evidence is more than likely wrong.

            Are you a Christian?

            I’m an atheist.

            I believe there is a spiritual blindness inherent in that position that would make agreement impossible.

            I would disagree that it’s spiritual blindness when creationists/ID proponents actively dismiss anything the scientific community shows because it doesn’t fit their presuppositions. It’s disingenuous.

          • John Oliver

            You wrote: “No, no, no, no, no. I’m following what the evidence is actually showing without bringing any supernatural entity into it, which is exactly what unbiased scientists do”
            But don’t you see your presupposition in that statement? You START with a presupposition that there is no supernatural. This manifestly forces you to only look for naturalist answers to the questions. I believe, as the Bible teaches, that all people everywhere know that God exists, and that they suppress this knowledge. This is what I meant by an inherent blindness. We could sit down together and go point by point through the tenets of evolution, I could show you scientists who disagree with you, even ones who aren’t creationists. You would find a way with everyone to say that that doesn’t count, that’s not good enough, etc… When all along I believe you know that God exists, and that you have violated His laws. Your conscience tells you this, whether I do or not. Naturalism doesn’t come close to explaining what we know and experience every day. Only the testimony of God’s word does that. It tells me we were created in God’s image, which explains the wonderful creativity of the human race, and it tells me we are fallen, which explains the horrible pain and suffering in this world. I don’t reject science, not at all. But I find it utterly unsatisfactory to answer life’s biggest questions. I find the answer of God sending His only Son for sins eminently satisfying. I don’t know what else I can say…

          • Deacon Razorblades

            But don’t you see your presupposition in that statement? You START with a presupposition that there is no supernatural.

            Do you think I just up and said “Welp there’s no supernatural”? I didn’t. It’s the tenets of science that have led me to that conclusion, I didn’t start there.

            This manifestly forces you to only look for naturalist answers to the questions.

            I’m sorry but when the overwelming evidence points to there being no supernatural involved and instead points to natural processes then you are being extremely dishonest.

            I believe, as the Bible teaches, that all people everywhere know that God exists, and that they suppress this knowledge.

            I don’t believe that. I believe god was invented by humans to help them understand a world where there was little understanding and I’m surprised that people still hold on to that belief when we have scientifically advanced as far as we have.

            I could show you scientists who disagree with you, even ones who aren’t creationists.

            Show me then.

            You would find a way with everyone to say that that doesn’t count, that’s not good enough, etc…

            When you offer little to no evidence, or are directly contradicting modern science then yes, I will say that’s not good enough as anyone should.

            When all along I believe you know that God exists, and that you have violated His laws,Your conscience tells you this, whether I do or not.

            I don’t believe or know that he exists. I believe humans have made god up. You saying otherwise does not change my position. It sounds like your’re trying to make a strawman out of me because I don’t hold the same position that you do. Your beliefs are entirely illogical to me.

            I don’t reject science, not at all.

            Everything you’ve said says otherwise. You happily reject science because it doesn’t mesh with what you already believe.

            . I find the answer of God sending His only Son for sins eminently satisfying. I don’t know what else I can say…

            Yes, tell me all about how god sent himself to be sacrificed by himself to save a creation he doomed from the beginning because he is entirely not god enough to fix it without doing so.

    • Queen Alice

      When I began my journey toward God, by coincidentally leaving the church in which I grew up, and by renouncing God, creationism vs scientific “Big Bang” theory (I’m dating myself – but that’s what was taught when I was in grammar school) was one of the things that initially got me wondering if the Bible was the Word of God, or just a book written by a bunch of people. I will always thank God for Ken Ham because listening to his lectures first opened my heart to the truth of the Bible. The Bible is not intended to be a science book, but to paraphrase Mr. Ham, where it touches on science, it can be trusted. Once I trusted the Bible enough to take God at His Word, I began to read it and, as I’m sure all my brothers and sisters know, that’s when the Holy Ghost began to do His work of bringing my heart, mind and soul into right relationship with God.

      In that vein, as followers of Jesus, the Son of God, and the Christ, we must follow His teachings. He was, according to the New Testament, much more concerned with us loving each other as He loved us. If we can do that, we have done well. And I agree with another poster who said he doubts if God is concerned with what we believe about the literal creation (fact is, we wouldn’t be able to understand how He did it anyway-not with our earthly, dimensional, time trapped minds). I suspect it will be part of what we see when we enter into eternity with Him. The account in Genesis is probably the best account for us, who do not yet live in eternity.

      So, I must ask you not to bash Ken Ham, but rather applaud him as walking his walk with God in the way God has called him. He calls us all to be different parts of the body of Christ, here on this earth.

      Love you, brother.

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        So you have no problems with him using tax payer dollars to try to build a AiG empire, of which the currently open segments have seen loss of visitors and reduced revenue, yet still trying to get people to invest?

        So you have no problems with using the bible to reject reality and to paint those who don’t agree with him as apart from God.

        So you have no problem for Mr. Ham to ignore the complete lack of science in the bible regarding biology, geology, astronomy, physic, chemistry, etc, and its highly faulty use of history, understanding of archeology, and choose to believe that he states that the bible is all we need in regards to science?

        I don’t doubt that he is a nice man, is loved by his friends and family, but as a science expert, or as a theologian, his skills are woefully absent.

  • http://www.crossfitovercome.com/ Eric Pelletier

    How to do have both the Theory of Evolution and Creation co existing?

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      There are many Christians who have no problems connecting the two. We see that the universe and all that is contained with in is far more complex and vast than we yet know, much less the people who lived thousands of years to us. We can see a scientific rendering of how came to be, and still be awed by it, feeling that the handiwork of God still is beyond our abilities to define it.
      The ancients attempted to explain the origins of the world they knew, which didn’t include most knowledge of the planets we are now aware of, much less far off galaxies, of a lack of knowledge of the amazing array of flora and fauna, as well as creatures that cannot be seen by the human eye, They had no concept of things like gravity what causes events like weather, or earthquakes and volcanoes., etc. They just felt strongly that god, or the gods, depending on which culture the ancients found themselves in, had a hand in what they saw around them.
      we can still appreciate the beauty of what God has designed, still be amazed at its beauty and vast majesty, while understanding a whole lot better at how it all works.

  • Desi

    Ken Ham’s website has literally thousands of scientific and theological articles from experienced scholars and experts in various fields of study that explain and defend the young-earth position from both a scientific and biblical standpoint. Dan Wilkinson has conducted no research and not offered any proper refutation of this body of work. Who has the “immature” view here? Who’s lacking “reason”? Who’s denying “scientific facts”? Dan quotes Matthew 22:36-40, but I have to wonder whether or not I should take the verse literally considering how Dan treats scripture in Genesis.

    Judging by this article, Dan is the one guilty of “aggressive disingenuousness and sophomoric chicanery.” With all due respect to the IT specialist and his two cats, me and my house will serve the Lord. “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Timothy 4:3

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      Ham’s “research” has been discredited multiple times. He also has been shown to paint other scientific works to fit his model, or to find those who are willing to toe his line of reasoning.
      There is nothing in scripture to support a young earth stance. Zero evidence. Nada, Zip. Therein lies the problem, trying to take a book written in the bronze age, and iron ages, with understandings of the world around them limited by what they could see, hear, touch. The number zero wasn’t used in mathematics formulas until the 600’s CE. Telescopes in the 1600. Ancient calendars often had eight day weeks. They wrote myths to try to explain where they came from, not having a clue. Genesis 1 is a typical example.

      • Desi

        You’re making a lot of claims but not backing them up with real evidence and making a real case.

        It’s not just Ham’s research that you’re dealing with but also the contributions of many other scientists, scholars and researchers. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

        Everything in the Bible points to a recent creation including the supernatural method that God used to create, the timeline of history and events, and the genealogies of everyone including Jesus. In fact, Jesus, the Son of God that instantly turned water into wine and healed the sick, says he created in six literal days. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-days

        Because the Bible details historical events, its truthfulness and accuracy are subject to verification like any other historical document. Through both archaeological evidences and other writings, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best-documented book from the ancient world. The fact that the Bible accurately and truthfully records historically verifiable events is a great indication of its truthfulness when dealing with religious subjects and doctrines and helps substantiate its claim to be the very Word of God, not some myth as you propose.

        • Deacon Razorblades

          Desi, in the future it’s best to not point to a creationist site as a place for scientitic evidences.

          • Desi

            Where else are you going to find scientists making a case for biblical creation other than a creationist site?

          • Deacon Razorblades

            Where else are you going to find scientists making a case for biblical creation other than a creationist site?

            Here’s a hint, if they’re dismissing things that are in direct contradiction with what the scientific community knows and understands then it’s more than likely that they aren’t getting past their own presuppositions.

          • Desi

            There is no “direct contradiction with what the scientific community knows and understands.” There are sciences based on observation and experimentation which all scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, agree on. For example, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and technology. Then there are areas that fall outside of operational science and are really faith-based presuppositions about the unobserved past. This includes Big Bang cosmology, human evolution, age of the earth, and so on.

            Contrary to popular belief, there is no consensus about our origins. There are scientists that believe in evolution and others that believe in creation. And there are differing views within each of these camps. For example, there’s Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, punctuated equilibrium, transpermia, and so on. On the other side of the aisle is biblical creation, intelligent design, young-earth, old-earth and theistic evolution.

            What you have done is wedded yourself to one presupposition arbitrarily, declared it fact, and now use it to dismiss other perspectives. That’s not exactly an unbiased and objective way of approaching the subject. Many modern scientists make solid scientific cases to support the creationist perspective and do so by fully analyzing and properly addressing views apart from their own. You would be wise to do the same.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            There is no “direct contradiction with what the scientific community knows and understands.”

            When you purposefully misrepresent the known theories and facts then you are in direct contradiction to what the scientific community knows and understands.

            Then there are areas that fall outside of operational science and are really faith-based presuppositions about the unobserved past. This includes Big Bang cosmology, human evolution, age of the earth, and so on.

            The “because you weren’t there” canard is getting pretty old. These are not faith based sciences. They are literally thousands upon thousands of papers and journals dedicated to what we know about the big bang, evolution, and the age of the earth. Creationists are in DIRECT contradiction to these very things, because these scientists don’t tack on “and it was done by god” at the end.

            Contrary to popular belief, there is no consensus about our origins.

            Which origins, human or our planet and universe? Because I’m pretty sure there’s an ever growing consensus among the scientific community to those 3 things you just listed.

            What you have done is wedded yourself to one presupposition arbitrarily, declared it fact, and now use it to dismiss other perspectives.

            I’m sorry you see it this way, but you’re wrong. Sure there are differing views amongst scientists concerning very nuanced things, but when you’re very belief set contradicts the very understandings of science in favor of magic (that’s what the supernatural is), then maybe it’s you who is stuck behind a presupposition.

            Many modern scientists make solid scientific cases to support the creationist perspective and do so by fully analyzing and properly addressing views apart from their own. You would be wise to do the same.

            Please, I really hope you can do this, show me one peer reviewed article by a creationist that supports their findings. Just one in the field of physics, biology, cosmology or any other field that shows that there is a creator involved. I’ll be waiting.

          • MikeHaas82

            Notice how these guys skip over really well written replies like this one and only jump on those they think they can dissemble on? And of course, their self-declaration that, “GOD teaches X…are you disagreeing with GOD? Are you calling GOD a L I A R?” Inquisitors used this trick to send god knows how many people to the stake centuries ago and religious fanatics in many parts of the world continue to do so today.

            These guys don’t really believe this crap any more that Bill O’LIElly believes what he spouts on FOX. Its just a means to an end and that is the establishment of a theocracy in the US, starting with our schools and our children, where they can attack and crush their so-called “enemies” with the law. I honestly wonder if they really believe in God at all.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            I absolutely agree.

          • Daniel Webb

            The irony in your statement: “What you have done is wedded yourself to one presupposition arbitrarily, declared it fact, and now use it to dismiss other perspectives.” is just too amazing to pass by. What else would you call a belief in god as a means to “create” everything and the bible as his divine message than presuppositions that you have declared to be fact and used to dismiss other views at the outset? Ken Ham is famous for this…assume god first and disregard anything you feel disagrees with that. Astounding…

          • Desi

            Daniel, there are two differences worth pointing out. 1. Creationists fully disclose that the Bible influences their interpretation of evidence. 2. Creationists study, analyze, fully present and properly address the evolutionary worldview.

            As someone who spent the majority of his life on the side of the evolutionists, I can say that they don’t recognize and disclose their own biases and commitment to naturalism. Also, because evolutionists are unwilling to give creation science any serious consideration, they really don’t have a proper understanding of it and always refute and discredit it with straw man fallacies and ad hominem attacks. This article by Dan Wilkinson is a perfect case in point. Notice that he made no attempt to lay out Ham’s arguments or prevent any contradictory evidence. Dan used a lot of emotional language but never made any logical arguments.

            The question is not whether or not someone has a presupposition because EVERYONE has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence! The question is, which presupposition best fits the evidence and makes the most sense? I would encourage you to learn more about presuppositions, operational and historical science. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

          • Daniel Webb

            In sorry, I don’t buy that. The problem with point #1 is that presupposing the bible is true and the divine word of god is to assume the answer to the whole issue, not just a different influence. You can’t start your study by already believing that the bible is the word of god (whom you haven’t proven to exist) and then conclude that what the bible says is true and you can base creationism on it. The problem with point #2 is that creationists cannot objectively consider evidence if they already presume that their beliefs are true to begin with. Just watch ken ham explain it….http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtkhNRb-SM

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          if all you are using is AiG’s rhetoric, and links, then I don’t think you are making a case at all.

          • Desi

            What if I cite the work of Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton? How about geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling and professor of physics Dr. Don DeYoung? Would you consider the case made by Dr. David Menton, who earned his PhD in biology from an Ivy League School, Brown University, and was the Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri from 1966 to 2000? The Answers in Genesis website wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for the contributions of educated, experienced, Bible-believing scientists from around the world and throughout history. The fact that you would reject their work only on account of their belief in biblical creation shows your bias and lack objectivity.

    • Daniel Webb

      I’m confused at your willingness to wave the “literally thousands of scientific and theological articles from experienced scholars and experts in various fields that explain the young-earth position” while simultaneously disregarding the hundreds of thousands of scientific articles published in peer reviewed journals that completely discredit the young-earth position.
      You and your house are entitled to serve the lord as vigorously and nonsensically as you wish. Just don’t employ double standards in the volume of scientific work while whining about interpretation of a book and think anyone will take you seriously.

      • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

        Oh, come now, Daniel. Real Christians don’t suffer from confirmation bias. That’s how you know that they’re “Real Christians.”

        • Daniel Webb

          Silly me. I know I should just do a double facepalm instead of use my hands to respond to idiots.

      • Desi

        Daniel, I don’t disregard anything. I’ve been studying all sides of this debate for nearly 40 years. There’s nothing nonsensical about that. You’re the one with the double standard. You don’t hold the evolutionary perspective to the same level of scrutiny that you hold the other. You don’t objectively consider both sides either. If you did, then you’d realize that creationists understand science very well and make valid points that are supported by both science and scripture.

        • Daniel Webb

          Perhaps you’re confused…I actually do hold the evolutionary “perspective” to the same level of scrutiny as I do the creationist. That same level is called peer review. Peer review is a useful tool. Unfortunately, those creationist articles on Ken Ham’s site are peer reviewed by their own research journal (Answers Research Journal). They have never had an article peer reviewed by a disinterested party.

          Additionally, I have objectively considered both sides. I was raised (and born again) christian and got the “benefit” of homeschooling with AiG material and attending a private christian IFB school. It’s only been the last five years that I’ve even had the opportunity to study evolution.
          All of this is far and away from the point which I brought up with your earlier statement. You waved “thousands” of creationist articles around and expected that to mean something while somehow not letting it occur to you that those creationist articles and “theories” have been rebutted time and again by vast numbers of peer reviewed articles and studies.
          Just out of curiousity, what age did you start studying all sides of this debate? Your facebook photo (Desi Ricardo–found you because you were cut and pasting identical comments to pro-creationist pages) makes you look pretty young. Like less than 40 years old.

          • Desi

            Daniel, I would like to challenge you that you hold the evolutionary perspective to the same level of scrutiny as you do the creationist. I invite you to choose one piece of evidence that you feel supports the theory of evolution and we’ll discuss it.

          • Daniel Webb

            Common ancestry as shown through DNA

          • Desi

            In scientific terms, evolution generally means the change in genetic material between generations, which is also referred to as “descent with modification.” These changes are attributed to mutations, gene flow and drift, and natural selection, which are examples of observational science and can be shown to occur. However, the other aspect of evolution is the belief that all animals descended from one original ancestor. Evolutionists sometimes claim this “fact” is established in the fossil record, homology (similar structures), and genetic evidence. However, any evidence involving historical science (one-time events that cannot be retested) is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist.

            Mutations and genetic drift are often cited as the source of heritable traits from one generation to the next. While mutations do cause changes in the genome and genetic drift changes the frequency of those traits, neither process is capable of changing one kind of animal into another. More often, mutations have either no noticeable impact or cause degeneration.

            When evolutionary scientists claim that evolution is a fact, they are relying upon a fallacy known as “bait and switch” (define a term one way, but use it in a completely different way later). Often the claim is that since one can observe natural selection, then descent from a common ancestor must also be true. However, this presupposes that the current processes we observe could cause the origin of completely novel structures (e.g., giving rise to lungs or complex brains). Such a claim is contrary to information theory and the laws of nature.

            This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution and in support of biblical creation. It is THOROUGHLY covered on the AiG website. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/evolution

          • Daniel Webb

            Look, I hope you’ll understand that I don’t feel like it’s a worthwhile use of time to respond in length something you copied word for word from an answers in genesis article…especially when your plagiarized portion doesn’t even address what I talked about. You copied a part of an article that talks about genetic mutations and drift and how they pertain to natural selection.

            I wrongly assumed that you would respond to the actual point made above but it seems that, in your almost forty years of study, you didn’t learn reading comprehension. So that you can get caught up, here is an article from the Smithsonian (I know I know, it’s not as prestigious as the creation museum) regarding the subject of common ancestry shown through DNA. This way, maybe you can provide something that you’ve thought through critically instead of just copying answers in genesis’ definition of evolution. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

          • Desi

            Daniel, isn’t the whole point here that you question whether or not the Answers in Genesis organization properly addresses science as it relates to evolution? Why then do you object to me directing you to the information that they provide?

            You brought up common ancestry and DNA, subjects that require the discussion of related topics including genetics, heredity, adaptations, and mutations, among others. The article I directed you to provides an overview with links to more detailed pages on each topic.

            Regarding the Smithsonian article, the fact that living organisms share similar genes does not prove that we all descended from a common ancestor, which would require an observation of the process. The idea that humans and chimpanzees diverged between 8 and 6 million years ago is pure conjecture! http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/06/03/chimp-human-dna-what-does-it-mean

          • Daniel Webb

            1) No, the whole point was that you asked me for one fact that supports evolution. I gave you one. In return you copied word for word from an AiG article that could have been written by a teenager with Wikipedia about general aspects of evolutionary theory.

            2) I told you what I consider to be the standard for acceptance of a hypothesis in the scientific world. Peer review. Can you point to any peer reviewed creationist articles that can refute the overwhelming evidence of common ancestry as shown through DNA? Or are you going to copy another AiG article that doesn’t contain any original research, wasn’t fact-checked by disinterested parties, and is only hosted and publicized by the very site that needs so badly for it to be true?

          • Desi

            In fact, you’re welcome to send a message to my Facebook profile if you’d like to continue our discussion privately.

    • Sven2547

      The mission of any scientific organization should be to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without prejudice.

      In stark contrast: Answers in Genesis’ Statement of Faith says the following:

      By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

      They are proudly announcing that they will reject any evidence that contradicts (their interpretation of) scripture. In doing so, they are abandoning any semblance of objective scientific research.

      • Desi

        As I posted here to another user, there are two points to consider. 1. Creationists fully disclose that the Bible influences their interpretation of evidence. 2. Creationists study, analyze, fully present and properly address the evolutionary worldview.

        As someone who spent the majority of his life on the side of the evolutionists, I can say that they don’t recognize and disclose their own biases and commitment to naturalism. The question is not whether or not someone has a presupposition because EVERYONE has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence! The question is, which presupposition best fits the evidence and makes the most sense?

        Answers in Genesis has come to the conclusion that we cannot divorce science from scripture because the scriptures reveal the God who created everything and made science possible! I would encourage you to learn more about presuppositions, operational and historical science. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

        • Sven2547

          Creationists study, analyze, fully present and properly address the evolutionary worldview.

          I have never, ever, even once seen a creationist fully present and properly address evolution. Without exception, 100% of creationists I’ve ever met, seen, heard, or spoken to have misunderstand evolution in one or more fundamental ways. Ken Ham and AiG included.

          The science of evolution does not make the presupposition of “naturalism”. If there were evidence of the supernatural, then scientific theory would reflect that. That’s how science works: following the evidence. I am well familiar with AiG’s screed on “presuppositions” and “evidence”, and it’s really quite silly. Last Thursdayism is not a substitute for the scientific method.

          • Desi

            Evolutionists have a statement of faith of their own. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

            “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

            It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

            Why don’t you take a tenet of evolution and direct me to where Ken Ham and AiG fail to properly present it and address it. Then we can continue our discussion and do so in more detail.

          • Sven2547

            Why don’t you take a tenet of evolution and direct me to where Ken Ham and AiG fail to properly present it and address it.

            Your continued misrepresentation of science, as being presupposed on naturalism, is an example.

            The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence, and the evidence remains for all to see. Scientists know that their ideas must stand the scrutiny of other scientists, who may not share their preconceptions. The best way to do this is to make the case strong enough on the basis of the evidence so that preconceptions do not matter. And scientists themselves condemn preconceptions when they see them.

            The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, ice ages, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads.

            Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions; they do a good job, on the whole, of reducing bias. They do such a good job, in fact, that what creationists really object to is the fact that scientists do not interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions.

            (h/t Talk Origins)

          • Desi

            Can you give me an example of where scientists have observed evidence that demonstrates how time, space and matter came into existence? What evidence proves that life can arise from non-life? When has it ever been observed that one type of living organism can evolve the genetic information necessary to change into something completely different? Can scientists demonstrate the earth’s purported age of 4.6 billion years in a laboratory?

          • Sven2547

            Can you give me an example of where scientists have observed evidence that demonstrates how time, space and matter came into existence?

            Energy can be converted into matter, and vice versa. Here is an example.

            The observed expansion of the space-time of the universe, as well as the relative uniformity of the CMBR, strongly suggest that at a point in time 13-14 Billion years ago, it was a singularity.

            Can you give an example of where scientists have observed a deity *poof*-ing matter into existence?

            What evidence proves that life can arise from non-life?

            The Miller-Urey experiments made a lot of headway in this direction. Despite this, the science of abiogenesis is still an emerging field, with a lot of unknowns. I trust you are not ignorant enough to assume that an absence of data in this field is somehow an argument favoring theistic creationism? That would be the fallacious god-of-the-gaps.

            Now I ask the same question of you: What evidence proves that life can arise from non-life? After all, that is a major part of the creationist claim.

            When has it ever been observed that one type of living organism can evolve the genetic information necessary to change into something completely different?

            The wording of this question is confusing. Evolution never says that one type of organism evolves into something “completely different”. Rather, the many subsequent types of slightly-different organisms can eventually result in something completely different from the “starting point”.

            The fossil record is the best observation for this. There are many, many transitional forms linking invertebrates to vertebrates, jawless fish to jawed fish, jawed fish to bony fish, bony fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, and mammals to humans.

            Have creationists ever observed a brand new complex species spontaneously began to exist without any ancestry or related species?

            Can scientists demonstrate the earth’s purported age of 4.6 billion years in a laboratory?

            Radiological dating techniques can be (and are) performed in laboratories. The oldest known terrestrial rocks (some zircon crystals found in Australia) are at least 4.4 Billion years old. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions within meteorites that were formed within the Solar System have been found to be 4.567 billion years old. This puts an approximate age on the Solar System and the planets therein.

            Of course, not all observations need to take place “in a laboratory”. The composition of the Sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the Sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the Sun (and thus the Solar System) can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years.

            Can creationists demonstrate the Earth’s alleged age of <10,000 years in a laboratory?

          • Desi

            From your example:

            “rip apart a vacuum into its fundamental matter and antimatter components”

            “At the heart of this work is the idea that a vacuum is not exactly nothing.”

            “a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter particles and antiparticles …we cannot perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out,”

            So scientists can blast what God has created into its smaller and smaller components using energy. But they’re still starting with something. In order to create from nothing, you need to start with nothing and use nothing. http://www.getyourowndirt.com

            “The basic question of what is a vacuum, and what is nothing, goes beyond science,”

            That’s right!

            Turn the god-of-the-gaps fallacy around and you get the evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy. You admit that the science of abiogenesis is still an emerging field, with a lot of unknowns, yet you’re still assuming naturalism.

            That life cannot emerge from non-life through natural processes suggests that some other process may have been at play, like a transcendent cause. http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html

            “the many subsequent types of slightly-different organisms can eventually result in something completely different from the “starting point”

            How do you know? Have you observed this? What about known genetic limits and the fact that bacteria remain bacteria, fruit flies remain fruit flies, canines remain canines and so on? You’re extrapolating and showing your bias.

            “There are many, many transitional forms linking…”

            Fossils do not, cannot link anything. We find dead things. Whether or not these dead things left behind offspring that later morphed into something else is pure conjecture. Why would you think that organisms in the past could do something that they cannot do today? You’re assuming that similarity and progression prove homology, but this is not so. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/homology

            “Have creationists ever observed a brand new complex species spontaneously began to exist without any ancestry or related species?”

            No, not directly observed. But the Cambrian explosion sure seems to indicate that it happened. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/life-explosion

            The only way for scientists to empirically confirm that their dating methods are accurate would be to directly observe the long ages of time in real time which is impossible. Dating techniques are loaded with assumptions and based on the idea of uniformitarianism, a tenet of naturalism. So scientists are essentially assuming long ages of gradual processes before they calculate them. Dating methods require assumptions for extrapolating present-day processes back into the past.

            There is a research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. A team of scientists has discovered what they believe is evidence that refutes the purported long ages of earth history and supports the biblical timeline. http://www.icr.org/rate/

          • Sven2547

            So scientists can blast what God has created into its smaller and smaller components using energy. But they’re still starting with something. In order to create from nothing, you need to start with nothing and use nothing.

            You seem to be operating under a very common misconception of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory does not claim that the universe came from nothing. Every creationist, without fail, makes this incorrect straw-man claim. It is false. The Big Bang theory claims that the matter that currently composes the universe was originally energy, which is why I linked an article about converting energy to matter. That was the Big Bang: the creation of the current space-time plane, and the conversion of a lot of already-existing energy into matter.

            I note that you unsurprisingly ignored my question of whether scientists have ever observed a god creating matter. The answer is no.

            Turn the god-of-the-gaps fallacy around and you get the evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy. You admit that the science of abiogenesis is still an emerging field, with a lot of unknowns, yet you’re still assuming naturalism.

            There is partial evidence for naturalism (see Miller-Urey) and zero evidence for deistic creation. That’s not a fallacy, that’s following the evidence… something AiG deliberately refuses to do.

            That life cannot emerge from non-life through natural processes suggests that some other process may have been at play, like a transcendent cause.

            Is your “transcendent cause” life or non-life? Either way, it’s the fallacious circular logic of the long-rebutted Cosmological Argument.

            “the many subsequent types of slightly-different organisms can eventually result in something completely different from the “starting point”

            How do you know?

            The fossil record, the entire field of genetics, and the entire field of morphology, for starters.

            Fossils do not, cannot link anything.

            That’s the second dumbest thing I’ve heard so far in 2014. It is very strong geological evidence of exactly the kind of gradual morphological change that evolution predicts. Your refusal to learn from the fossil record is indicative of exactly why creationism is considered to be anti-science: you are just throwing virtually the entire field of paleontology out the window. It doesn’t agree with your pre-determined “conclusion”, so you have opted to disregard it outright. Shameful.

            Why would you think that organisms in the past could do something that they cannot do today?

            I assume you are talking about biological traits that gradually atrophied and stopped expressing themselves? Simple*. Because they were no longer useful for survival and in some cases actually became detrimental.

            Wisdom teeth are a classic example of an undesirable evolutionary holdover from our distant ancestors. As humans evolved to have smaller mandibles, the extra set of molars in the back have gotten too cramped to form in a safe and reliable way, so there is a very high incidence of impacted wisdom teeth that require removal. Due to modern medicine, almost nobody dies from wisdom teeth complications anymore, so there is extremely little selective pressure for wisdom-teeth-producing genes to weed themselves out of the human gene pool.

            No, not directly observed. But the Cambrian explosion sure seems to indicate that it happened.

            Putting aside the breathtaking hypocrisy of your selective acceptance / non-acceptance of the fossil record, I am amused that a young-Earth creationist is willingly conceding that 542-million-year-old fossils are proof of anything at all.

            The “Cambrian Explosion” was a relatively rapid increase in biodiversity, as evidenced by the fossil record you just rejected a minute ago. By “relatively rapid”, I mean over a span of millions and millions of years, not overnight. These species also have morphological relationships with one-another, indicating common ancestry, so you have still failed to provide an example of what I have asked.

            The only way for scientists to empirically confirm that their dating methods are accurate would be to directly observe the long ages of time in real time which is impossible. Dating techniques are loaded with assumptions and based on the idea of uniformitarianism, a tenet of naturalism.

            Wrong wrong wrong. Radiological dating techniques are based on a thorough understanding of nuclear physics. The nature of radioactive decay and isotope half-lives are extremely well-understood, highly-established sciences. These techniques are not “loaded with assumptions” as you claim. It is not an “assumption”, for example, to say that the Earth’s crust is not a breeder reactor. It’s a fact.

            There is a research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.

            Your breathtaking hypocrisy continues unabated. You have flipped, over the span of two sentences, from an outright rejection of radiological dating to a full-throated endorsement of radiological dating. That said, the “findings” you have linked have been thoroughly debunked. I won’t bother typing responses to all of them (I’ve wasted enough time with you already), but I will cover a bunch of them relating to polonium “haloes”. (You probably won’t understand this; you’re really only good at linking other people’s faulty work, you have shown next-to-no understanding of the subject material)…

            Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks

            * So simple that if you had even a rudimentary understanding of evolution, you could have answered that yourself. My 100% statistic of creationists-who-don’t-understand-evolution continues, to nobody’s surprise.

          • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com Kristen Rosser

            Science studies the natural universe and its workings. The “supernatural” is by definition other than that. Science should not (and usually scientists don’t) expect to have information beyond its own scope. To use science to obtain evidence of the supernatural is like using a ruler to measure air pressure; it is simply the wrong tool.

            The belief that science is the arbiter of all reality is a logical fallacy known as “scientism.” On the other hand, the Bible is not a book of science and should not be treated as one; the belief that the Bible is or was intended to be an exhaustive resource on every subject of human knowledge is also a fallacy.

  • eFUSION

    Here is some homework I did years ago that shows the INCOMPATIBILITY of
    Biblical History with Evolutionary History. They cannot both be true.
    They are incompatible.
    http://souljiers.webvanta.com/news-item/1639444-incompatibility-of-2-histories-of-the

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      Please study physics, before deciding to just accept Mr. Ham’s very erroneous theories at face value.

      • David W Smith

        What many secularists,
        anti-creationists do not seem to understand is that people who support
        creationism are not anti-science. We love science, and study it!
        What people who support creationism do not agree with is the incorrect or
        inaccurate interpretations and conclusions which are mixed in with scientific
        facts. These incorrect interpretations and conclusions
        are usually based on presuppositions as a result of a worldview
        or philosophy as opposed to observation.

        • GC1

          Copy and paste much?

    • David W Smith

      eFUSION, Great article about the INCOMPATIBILITY of
      Biblical History with Evolutionary History. This is worth reading for anyone interested in being informed in this matter.

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        I read it, and found it very flawed, lacking understanding of physics, or the broad scope of theological understanding that exists in Christianity. It was more, to me, a copy of the talking points touted by AiG.

        • eFUSION

          Can you give examples of both? The physics piece you mention. And the
          theological understanding in Scripture. I say “in Scripture”, not “in Christianity” because many
          Christians have non-Biblical views on things.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            The piece I found flawed was yours, It appears to be a compilation of statements typically found with young earth theorists and just fail to offer a serious look at what science has to offer, and just flat out ignores that it never attempts to deny divinity.
            This is a link to the theories of thermodynamics, which do, of course, support evolutionary theory, contrary to the claim of your piece.
            http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics

      • Michael Rigby

        I tried reading that website but it causes my laptop to crash. Strange. Anyway, what I did manage to read was very basic and misses quite a lot of points out. The Bible says the fish and the birds were created first. Please get your facts 100% correct before trying to dismiss something. And what is the “Big Bang” if not the point of creation? It was the beginning of space and time after all.

        • eFUSION

          I don’t get what you are saying about fish and birds. How did the materials for the Big Bang get here? That cannot be “the beginning”. And what caused it? Sorry the site made your laptop crash.

  • Shawn Atchison

    Dump science and believe the Bible. Science is the fancy of men while the Bible is every single word of the Living God, perfectly preserved and inspired for us to read.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      Uhm. If you want to really dump science, then please turn off your internet, disconnect your electricity, dig yourself a well, using hand tools that are made of iron or bronze, or better yet stone and a stick, as discovering metals as having such a use is a scientific discovery…..ok just find a creek.

      , Get rid of your car, bicycle or other modern means of transportation, all your clothes that were machine made, move out of your house, make a tent out of the skins of the animals that you now need to survive on, any cooking implement made of steel, plastic, aluminum, throw away your watch, or any jewelry containing zirconia, platinum or tin, Get rid of your books, all of them, and anything containing paper. Throw out all medications, and toiletries, or food needs to be kept cold, or that has been processed, packaged or not grown, in your neighborhood
      Now you still want to dump science?

      • Shawn Atchison

        I agree that science has brought us some wonderful things in life. However, none of the things you mentioned above were created by, through, or because of evolution. Evolution has not influenced any scientific discovery, technology or otherwise.

        • Deacon Razorblades

          You do realize that the entire foundation of modern biology rests on our understandings of evolution, right?

          • Shawn Atchison

            If that’s what you want to believe, then go ahead. We can understand physiology and biology without evolution. I believe in a 6 day creation. There was a big bang, God spoke, and bang! it was.

            You realize the Universe means “single spoken sentence” right? Uni=single verse=spoken sentence.

            Genesis one gives us a factual account of the birth of the universe and everything in it.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            If that’s what you want to believe, then go ahead.

            It is what I believe because it’s factual.
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/b/biology.htm

            We can understand physiology and biology without evolution.

            Sure, you can do rote memory and observations, but unless you can make predictions then it doesn’t help bolster biology. That’s what evolution does, it helps us make predictions and understand the mechanisms of how things get to where they are.

            You realize the Universe means “single spoken sentence” right? Uni=single verse=spoken sentence.

            I don’t care if that’s what it means. That’s not what it is. Also, given the size of the universe, why is it that the staggering amount of it is uninhabitable by humans if god made it for humans?

            Genesis one gives us a factual account of the birth of the universe and everything in it.

            You mean to tell me that the amount of information in genesis trumps that the hundreds of thousands of scientific journals describing the universe and it’s birth? I’m sorry, I disagree completely.

          • PN8891

            Well, the Bible says, “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” That verse makes no exceptions for those who have their Ph. D. and have published journal articals. Also, when it comes to biology, you can do FAR more than rote memorization without evolution. Because evolution is a study of origins, and the rest of biology is a study of the way things are in the present, it is possible to understand biology quite completely–even making predictions just as well as the evolutionists do–without evolution.

            Actually, the origins sciences are not held to the same standard of proof as observational sciences that are geared toward studying the present. In observational sciences, the standard for proving something involves extremely meticulous observations. The standard of proof for evolution, on the other hand, is made lower, because the former standard would require people to actually observe something that is said to take millions of years. Origins scientists (evolutionary or otherwise) simply can’t observe how the first organism came to exist, or how any individual fossil is related to any other fossil, because they weren’t there. Thus, origins scientists–no matter their views–cannot be held to the same standard of proof as other scientists, because that would preclude them from proving anything!

          • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com Kristen Rosser

            The problem with “Let God be true and every man a liar” applied in this context is that “our reading of Genesis 1-2” is being conflated with “God.” “Let our reading of Genesis 1-2 be true and everyone else a liar” is really what’s being said.

          • MikeHaas82

            Shawn – do you know anything about red-shift and parallax? Would you have us believe that our understanding of cosmology, celestial mechanics and physics allowed us to upgrade a spacecraft called Voyager from millions of miles away and send it on a grand tour of the solar system in the 1980s, but we’d get distances to the stars so totally wrong? We figured out the speed of light in the 19th century. Paired together with red-shift, our nearest stellar neighbor is just over 4 light-years away and our farthest that we can accurately measure, MILLIONS of light-years away. You want us to believe that our understanding of geology and paleontology which have allowed us to estimate the age of the planets in our solar system from great distances and accurately determined the atmosphere of the Saturn’s moon Titan and the existence of lakes of liquid methane through spectral analysis, have totally failed us in estimating the age and nature our own?

            You want us to believe that some guy nearly two-hundred years ago who came up with a dopey biblical timeline that included a belief in a 900 year-old man that serious theologians and biblical scholars long ago debunked should replace our understanding of the Universe we live in? You have to be joking.

            Guys like you DON’T want to teach “Creationism” in our schools as an “alternative”, nor do you want to “bring God back into the classroom”. You want to use it as a prelude to ultimately force YOUR VERSION of Christianity down our children’s throats, regardless of our Nation’s current religious diversity based on an equally dopey idea that our Deist and even Atheist fore-fathers wanted a “Christian” nation, despite every piece of documentation such as CONTEMPORARY newspapers and books that demonstrated, with sources, otherwise. You whine about “Sharia Law” but would introduce a theocracy based on YOUR beliefs in a New York minute. We are NOT fooled!

          • Shawn Atchison

            Nope. I’m not advocating teaching creationism in schools, nor am I advocating becoming a theocracy.

            All I think Christians in this world are called to do is lovingly share the gospel with people to try and save those we can from the fires of eternal damnation. I don’t think a government run by a religion, any religion, would work out well. I don’t believe forcing anyone to convert to any sect or belief is the right approach either.

            I do believe the earth is less than 10k years old, sure. I trust the eye witness that was there and was kind enough to tell us about it, God. I do believe people lived hundreds of years, so what?

          • Mag Enta

            On the surface you are right, but I understand evolution of humans to have started from random chemicals which would make life a continuance of random chemicals with no direction. How in the world did intelligence develop? When were humans aware that their minds could remember things and when did they realize they could trust their senses and where did these senses come from? I found answers in “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” – Dr. Jason Lisle.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            On the surface you are right, but I understand evolution of humans to have started from random chemicals which would make life a continuance of random chemicals with no direction.

            Evolution of humans started from a divergence in the evolutionary chain a long time ago. These changes are derived from natural selection, which is anything but random.

            How in the world did intelligence develop?

            There’s still a lot of work to be done in that field, but a lot of scientists believe it to be an emmergent property.

            When were humans aware that their minds could remember things</blockquote.
            Probably when they started to remember things.

            I found answers in “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” – Dr. Jason Lisle.

            Wow, why did I even reply to you when an any form of honest discourse probably won’t happen when you finish with that. A blatant book promotion.

          • MikeHaas82

            And in fact Deacon, there are no other competing theories for the creation of life on Earth – evolution can be demonstrated to be true so thoroughly and beautifully that competing theories have never been necessary. Kind of like the “theory” of Gravity and the “theory” of Radio. Other than componentry, radios have been designed and built by the same theory laid out prior to about 1926 ever since then.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            I agree, and the absolute denial of that is kind of terrifying for any sort of scientific progression.

    • Michael Rigby

      God gave man intelligence to use. The evidence for an old earth far outweigh the evidence for a young earth. In fact, the evidence for a young earth is so tenuous, it is embarrassing to even think we could believe it. God does not play practical jokes on us.

      • Ryanmd

        Michael study the cross. Study the reason Jesus came. The reason Jesus died. What did He pay the penalty of? Death. Death that entered through Adam. If death entered prior to Adam (evolution) then Jesus did not pay the penalty for it on the cross. Evolution is incompatible with the need for a Savior.

        • Michael Rigby

          Guys, I’m taking mark Twain’s advice and I’m out of here. Goodbye

        • Robert Long

          Try this on. In Gen 2, first thing god says to man is a lie “the day you eat of it, you shall surely die,” while the first words spoken by Satan were truth “you shall not surely die…the day you eat thereof your eyes shall be opened, you shall be as gods.” How do you know God was lying? Verse 22: “Behold the man has become as one of us…now, lest he reach forth his hand and take of the Tree of Life and eat thereof and live forever…” Man is condemned to die not because of sin or the serpent, but by the lying incompetence of your dead god.

          • Ryanmd

            Robert you are only here to upset. I see your words and your heavy accusations towards God. I will not answer you twice. You are not ready to humble, just as I was not by 28. I hope and pray He has mercy on you. God did not lie. Adam did surely die. He returned to the dust from which he came. Before death entered, Adam could have lived for ever. Same with you. You have the same choice today. Chose wisely

          • Robert Long

            God: “THE DAY you eat it, YOU WILL DIE.”
            Satan: “No, your eyes will be opened and you’ll be like him.”
            God: “Crap! Man’s eyes are opened and now he’s like us. I better not let him access that tree of life or he’ll live forever.”

            If you read it *humbly* without interpolation it is VERY obvious who the villian is.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I read Job that way too. God and Satan place a bet….things go very badly for the “horse”

          • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com Kristen Rosser

            This, too, is an over-simplistic reading of the text through assuming that it was intended to be taken absolutely literally. This is actually the same sort of reading as the one that insists “day” must mean “24-hour period.”

            What I really don’t understand is why a young-earth creationist will insist that “day” must be taken literally but “die” should not be. To me, the presence of this clear non-literalism in the text is one of the indications that it was never intended by the original writer or understood by the original readers as literal historical fact. There are other clues as well that symbolic/metaphorical meanings were intended: what does a “knowledge of good and evil” fruit look like, for instance?

            The point is that it’s clear in the text that God is the good guy and the serpent is the villain. There are plenty of textual clues supporting this. So if, in order to maintain a reading consistent with that, the meaning of “die” must be understood non-literally, why should we not read the rest of the text metaphorically?

      • Shawn Atchison

        He also doesn’t lie. He agreed with the six day creation account as did every other new testament author.

        There is no old earth creation. It’s a lie of Satan to deceive the very elect if possible.

    • MikeHaas82

      Sure, Shawn. Lets “Dump” science. Let’s go back to treating evil humors with bleeding and burning. Throw away that laptop – its an evil spawn of science, along with your radio, television, satellites, cell phone, Internet and the fuel injection system in your car. Let’s dump weather and earthquake early warning systems. Lets forget about traveling the world by aircraft and speaking of which, lets go back to the bow and arrow against our attackers who send missiles from Space. Let China and India colonize the Moon and Mars. Let disease run rampant again because its God’s “will”. Lets pretend that races we don’t like are inferior, especially the “spawn of Cain”. Lets go back to cheap, brittle iron and ditch cold hardened steel. Lets live like the Amish. Let’s eat tainted foods and dump our chamber pots right into the muddy, horse-manure laden streets and drink the fetid water from our sewage infested water supplies. Lets return to an average life-span of about 35-40 years so we can get to Heaven quicker. Let’s return to those bygone days when we got to watch our children die or become crippled or blind by polio, measles, mumps, and scarlet fever. And of course, please dear God let us rejoice around the burning bodies of the victims of smallpox.

      Who needs to believe in the existence of Satan when people who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible walk right here amongst us?

      • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

        Mike: that was pretty awesome.

        • MikeHaas82

          Thanks, John. See you at the barbeque. 😉

  • Gijreb

    John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.”

  • David W Smith

    What many secularists or anti-creationists do not seem to understand is that people who support creationism are not anti-science. We love science, and study it!
    What people who support creationism do not agree with is the incorrect or
    inaccurate interpretations and conclusions which are mixed in with scientific
    facts. These incorrect interpretations and conclusions
    are usually based on presuppositions as a result of a worldview
    or philosophy as opposed to observation.

    • Sven2547

      What many secularists or anti-creationists do not seem to understand is that people who support creationism are not anti-science.

      Belief in young-Earth creationism amounts to the wholesale dismissal of the entire fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, genetics, general relativity, geology, paleontology, dendrochronology, and morphology. This is not a pro-science position. Far from.

  • Gijreb

    There is No truth in science-
    Truth is found only in the Lord Jesus Christ.
    Learn the Natures of Knowledge and Truth before delving into the issue of origins.

    • Ryanmd

      I can agree. Although I love LOVE science. I know that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Prov 9:10
      Without this as your core belief, everything else will be skewed in understanding. I came to the knowledge of Christ at 28, not before.

  • Gijreb

    The whole premise of this website in Anti-Scriptural.

    Love is Not the highest good, it is Truth.

    To Truth Jesus gave the first place… The first place does not belong to love or mercy or pity. It belongs to truth.

    Robert Speer; (1867-1947); The Principles of Jesus; 1902; p177

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Rabid fundy troll. Fail.

    • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

      I Cor 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

      So, … ummm … by all means, quote your 20th century theologian who tried to redefine Christianity and accuse someone else of being anti-Scriptural. But just know that you’re going up against Scripture.

      Good luck with that.

      • Gijreb

        The greatest of THESE THREE, faith, hope and love, is love.
        Is Love the greatest good? No-
        Truth is the greatest good.
        To deny that is self-defeating.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          Ok
          Who else is thinking of something a long dead provincial Judean leader once asked?

        • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com Kristen Rosser

          But love IS truth, because God is love.

          • Gijreb

            The verb IS can have at least four different meanings, which one them are you using??
            1- The IS of Existence
            2- The IS of Predication
            3- The IS of Class-Inclusion
            4- The IS of Identity

            You also have not defined “truth”, “God” or “love”

          • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com Kristen Rosser

            This is getting way off-topic and is also getting in its own way. Some things actually can become obscured by trying to pin them to a card and dissect them with words.

          • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

            So, … ummm … it depends on what the meaning of “is” is? :rimshot:

          • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

            Now, there, Kristen, is TRUTH.

          • Gijreb

            God = love
            Love = truth
            God = Truth?

        • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

          You might consider reading the whole chapter, dude.

          Let’s go a little earlier, such as verse 2:

          2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

          So, fathoming all mysteries and all knowledge seems a whole lot like truth, doesn’t it? But it’s nothing compared to love.

          So, you’re up against the Bible again. Can you even throw a proof-text at me? Anything, but some guy who contradicts Scripture?

          • Gijreb

            Is it true that Love is the Greatest good?
            You say Yes.
            Then you see that Truth is sitting in judgment of Love.
            Nothing judges Truth.
            Truth judges everything.
            Truth is Above All.
            There is Nothing greater than truth, including love.

          • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

            So, no. You can’t find anything in the Bible that supports your argument.

            It is you, not anyone else, who is anti-Scriptural. You can’t even dispute my interpretation of I Corinthians 13, which plainly elevates love above every other single virtue, including knowledge and understanding (which are dispensed even before you get down to faith, hope, and love … “truth” doesn’t even make that cut).

            It was for love that God did everything in the Bible. Why did He take His people out of slavery? Not for doctrinal purity … for love.

            Did God so desire that the world properly understand theology that He sent His only begotten Son? Nope. That was love, too.

            Your position is plainly contrary to the weight of Scripture. I’m sure that it feels good to you, since it lets you elevate yourself in your wisdom over people who “just” love, but … well, … that’s pretty much the definition of a 1st century Pharisee or Sadducee, isn’t it? But there you are. No Biblical support for your position, but eagerly trying to kick other people out of the Christian club based on your say-so.

            That’s very sad.

          • Gijreb

            Is what you just stated True?

          • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

            Uhhh … yes. Yes, it is.

            Can you show so much as one thing which I got wrong, based on anything other than your circular logic and a quote from a 20th century book, plainly not Scripture?

            Can you poke so much as one hole in it? I’ve shown you Biblical passages. What have I got wrong, other than the fact that you don’t like it?

            You’re looking for fallacy? Look at your own argument.

            I Corinthians 13 very clearly seems to elevate love above everything else. The fallacy among 1st century leaders whom Jesus rebuked was to fail in love. What have I got wrong?

            If you can’t show anything that I’ve got wrong, but can’t accept the truth of what I’m saying, then maybe truth isn’t as important to you as you think it is.

          • Gijreb

            Who do you worship, Love or God?

          • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

            Whom do I worship?

            I worship God. Love isn’t a being in any way, and wouldn’t be addressed as a “who.” Neither is “truth,” by the way, so I’m really not sure what point you think you’re making. Then again, you’ve more or less descended from making points to asking one-liners.

            Now, instead of trolling, how about you answer a question of mine? You seem to want to ignore everything that I say, which pretty much demonstrates an inability to answer it. My request to you: Find one flaw in my logic or interpretation. Look at the chapter, work through what it says, and see what I’ve got wrong, using itself or other Scripture. Or concede that you don’t really know Scripture as well as you think you do, which is probably a good reason not to run around calling people anti-Scripture.

            For that matter, even if you think I’m wrong … might it be a matter of interpretation? Is it possible that two people might honestly reach valid conclusions, even if they don’t agree? Perhaps name-calling and haughty pronouncements aren’t the way to go?

            I worship God. A God who said that He values love far more than self-righteous proclamations of superior wisdom or doctrinal purity. Or even obedience.

            That would be the God of the Bible.

          • Gijreb

            So then God is greater than love, is that right?

          • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

            You’ve descended into gibberish.

            If you can’t even answer a basic question, then we’re done. But at least anyone else reading will see that you can’t even try to hold up your end of a conversation.

            Au revoir.

          • Nathan

            Jesus said, “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life…” (John 14:6). Jesus also said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).
            John 10:30 “I and my father are one” (Jesus speaking).
            John 8:32 — “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

            Conclusion:
            (1) Jesus and God are “one”.
            (2) Jesus was the “truth”. As He was one with God, thus God is both “love” and “truth”.
            (3) The “truth” is the only thing that makes you free.
            (4) Per John 3:16, the reason you have received the truth is because God so loved the world.

            Thus, love without truth would result in mankind not being made free by God. And how can there exist “true” love without “truth”?

            I cannot find comprehensive support for elevating either, for one without the other is incomplete.

            In regards to 1 Corinthians 13…do not forget that the only reason he could talk to them about love, or address any fallacy of 1st century leaders about love, was because they had already accepted “the truth”.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Ah truth…the world is flat…cept it ain’t. The sun revolves around the earth, cept it don’t, man will never gain access to the moon…cept they did. It is possible to turn another metal into Gold, cept you can’t.
            Truth is often not as set as we assume.

  • Rich Wendling

    Do you have any documentation to support your claim that no one’s leaving the church because evolution shows that “the Bible could not be trusted?” The research I’ve seen – both from AiG and elsewhere – strongly supports Ham’s claim. Could you please link to the research that supports your view?

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Innocent query troll. Fail.

    • spinkham

      I’m afraid I can only offer anecdotes, but they are true of most of the ex-fundamentalists I know.

      I left my faith tradition for exactly the reason the article states: “Mr. Ham, what the theory of evolution makes clear is that it is you and your cohorts who cannot be trusted.”

      I found out I was lied to about evolution, lied to about some basic facts about the Bible, lied to about archaeology, and for me, worst of all these lies were ultimately being used to demonize other people in defense of the tribal identity, rather then to love all humans.

      This did not immediately cause me to leave Christianity altogether as I recognized my faith tradition was not the only one, but in researching other faith traditions I could find no compelling reason to accept them either.

      If my faith tradition was loving and not deceptive and demonizing, I would still likely be in it: Leaving your tradition does have high social and emotional costs, especially in more high certainty claiming traditions, and it’s not something I did lightly.

      The story of mainline decline is similar, and that one can be backed up by research: It’s largly because mainliners just haven’t had many babies relative to other groups, but also seems to be because more children leave the church than leave more “high certainty” faiths as they find it hard to find anything “special” about their group they can’t get elsewhere.

      http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/05/001-mainline-churches-the-real-reason-for-decline-8

      IMHO, the church is doomed to shrink like it has in other countries(if the economy/aggregate health/income equality and other measures of social stability don’t get too much worse): If you go the conservative route and lie to your kids, they leave when they find out you’re liars, and attempts to shelter kids that have worked in the past are more and more difficult in the information age. If you go the liberal route, you lose your kids because they find little of value in your religion over other alternatives.

      The hard truth is that we don’t know with any great confidence what life’s about, but we do know with good confidence that high certainty beliefs cause demonization of the other and violence.

      If you prefer religious language, I’ll point you to the work of Rene Girard, if you prefer scientific language I’ll point you to Terror Management Theory, which is well explained in this award winning documentary which streams free on Hulu(for Americans anyway).

      As a teaser, I’ll leave this quote from a book Richard Beck wrote on the topic:

      This is the dynamic described above, a retreat into a new
      absolutism that allows us to escape from the existential burden of a
      relativizing pluralism. This is the allure of fundamentalism in
      modernity. Fundamentalism helps us cope with the anxiety caused by the relativizing encounter with Otherness in our pluralistic world. At the
      end of the day, fundamentalism is embraced for the existential
      consolation it provides.

      As Berger and Zijderveld summarize: This is the great refusal of
      relativization. The proponents of the various versions of neo-absolutism
      have very seductive messages: “Do you feel lost in the ‘patchwork’ of
      religious possibilities? Here, surrender to the one true faith that we
      offer you, and you’ll find yourself at peace with the world.” Comparable
      messages are on offer to allay the vertigo of choice in morality,
      politics, lifestyles. And the message isn’t lying: Fanatics are more at
      peace, less torn, than those who struggle daily with the challenges of
      relativity. This peace, however, comes with a price. (2009, p. 47)

      We already know what this price is: worldview defense, the
      stigmatization of Otherness and difference. These suspicions about
      out-group members scale up to affect the whole of society. Society
      becomes ideologically balkanized, with individuals seeking ideological
      reassurances from the like-minded. These ideological groups and their
      suspicions about each other make modern societies increasingly unstable and prone to conflict. As Berger and Zijderveld describe it, “The final outcome may be all-out civil strife, between radicalized subcultures and the majority society, and/or between/among the several subcultures
      themselves” (2009, p. 86).

      –Beck, Richard (2012-01-10). The Authenticity of Faith: The
      Varieties and Illusions of Religious Experience (pp. 256-257). Abilene
      Christian University Press. Kindle Edition.

      (and if you’re curious, the book contains TMT experiments done with Christians and defends a type of Christianity that can be beneficial to the world.)

  • Nathan

    It’s ironic that people do not want to allow the same credence to views by scientists who support creation versus scientists who support evolution. Your answer for “why” is based in your belief that they are wrong because they don’t support evolution. So in other words…creationists should accept the views of evolutionary scientists, why? Because you think they are right? And we should all dismiss the view of creationist scientists, why? Because they couldn’t possibly be right?

    Your method of dismissing other views without consideration, based on the fact that it doesn’t agree with your predetermined opinion…is the same thing you accuse creationists of doing.

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Logic troll. Fail.

      • Nathan

        John – I just find that people believe what they believe, and defend it as truth without actual evaluation. Then they make arguments that a high school debate team would destroy. No debate is reasonable if the basis of the argument is so backwards, regardless of whether it is a creationist or an evolutionist.

        • GC1

          Just because I believe I can fly doesn’t make it so. People can believe whatever they want but it goes against actual, hard scientific evidence, then seriously, those beliefs are ludicrous.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            But you can fly. Science has allowed us the ability, through airplanes, helicopters, hang gliders, etc. In fact one man has made a glider suit, that is quite small, and works amazingly well. We now have no problem believing in the ability to fly, because it is now possible. That dream, that goal has been achieved.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            He means the innate ability to fly. Through our intelligence we’ve developed means of flying, but on our own we’re biologically incapable of doing so.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Oh, I know that Deacon. The fact remains that thanks to eons of scientific advancements, what was once impossible, is now a normal reality, just as generations, eons in our future will wonder how we got along with our crude methods and understandings.

          • GC1

            I meant on my own without any aids like suits or planes.

          • Nathan

            I think there are multiple layers to this debate that are not being clarified. There are “young earth” creationists, but there are also creationists who accept that the 6 days were not literal days as we interpret them now. So is the debate about young earth, or is it about evolution vs creation?

            I think that is where people are also failing in these discussions. But keep in mind…as some have said below…what you believe is hard, scientific fact today may indeed be disproven tomorrow.

  • Nathan

    Both “theories” require faith. And yes…creation is an accepted theory. A theory is simply a system of ideas intended to explain something. So those dismissing creation as a theory…if people believe it, then it is a theory. Get over it!
    For those stating that pointing to creationist websites for proof of creation science is invalid…then you stop pointing to anti-creation websites for proof that creation is not valid. Come on guys…Are we so ignorant that we don’t realize that people, organizations or websites are going to support a given theory, and that is where you will go to get your support? Would you go to the local atheist group to get support for belief in God? Being in support of something does not invalidate you or your information. Data is unemotional. The issues are with the presupposed constructs that we utilize when we analyze data.

    And guess what? Most people only look for data that supports their argument. Few people are honest enough to consider the data as a whole and let it take them where it will. Biblical accounts require faith to believe first in God, then that He was powerful enough to speak things into existence. Evolution has obviously scientifically proven gaps where you have to believe every imaginable correct circumstance came into perfect alignment, all at the same time, all without the most minute variation from perfection…in order for the theory to have viability. Both require faith.

    • GC1

      Re: “A theory is simply a system of ideas intended to explain something.” Are you serious? From livescience.com, “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.”
      So no, you’re absolutely not correct. The testing for evolution has advanced enough to be considered a theory. The idea that creation is advanced to that level of science is ludicrous.

      • Deacon Razorblades

        You know you’ll scare them away with facts right?

      • Nathan

        What exact “testing for evolution” has resulted in a recreation of the beginning of life from nothing? To use your logic here, there has to be repeated testing that proves your hypothesis.

        For evolution, the only incontrovertible testing would be the ability to truly recreate this “big bang” process of expansion…but that isn’t happening. So evolutionists use the filter of presupposed evolutionary theory when they analyze and evaluate new findings, as it is the only conceivable theory in their minds. Similar to how most creationists also tend to evaluate all new data from the standpoint of the only conceivable theory being creation.

        The challenge for evolutionists are the unanswerable questions. For instance, the entire original premise of evolution is that NOTHING existed at one point…then our universe sprang into existence as a “singularity”. What is a ‘singularity’ and where does it come from? No one knows. These supposed zones defy our current understanding of physics. They are believed to possibly exist at the heart of black holes. Then, long periods of heating, cooling, expansion and contraction (the actual “big bang”) led ultimately to the existence of the planets, stars, perfect living conditions of earth, carbon-based life forms out of nothing (remember…nothing existed at one point), etc.

        Unique life forms living on a unique planet that is circling a beautiful star clustered together with several billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, in the middle of an expanding universe that began as a infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere and nothing, for reasons completely unknown.

        In other words…we think it started from this…although we don’t really know where those came from…and they must exist in black holes…although we don’t really understand them…and everything must have perfectly aligned at just the right moment for life to spontaneously occur…and we can’t recreate it…but, yeah…it’s a scientific fact.

        The further challenge, within the evolutionary community itself, is the fact that, indeed…survival of the fittest is at work. In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed that the previously fully supported “big bang theory” was founded on a faulty paradigm that he claimed was inconsistent with empirical data. So, as beliefs change within the evolutionary community, they discard the beliefs that they defended the day before and evolve their statements to say, “Now, THIS is scientific fact.”

        Again…this is why both continue to be theories…with varying degrees of belief in their accuracy. And definitely just waiting on the next new evolutionist theory to say that the past belief is faulty and wrong interpretation. Thus…new theory versus consistent fact.

    • Barbara Heller

      A scientific theory does not require faith in order to be true. It requires scientific evidence. If someone believes something, then that thing is by definition an article of faith. There is a world of difference between science and faith, and there is absolutely no reason to try to use one to destroy or refute the other. I am a scientist. I am a Christian. I know that Creationism is a myth that was developed thousands of years ago to explain part of the mystery of our creation before we had the scientific means to explore it. Science does not require faith. It requires intelligence, cognitive flexibility, critical thinking, analysis, interpretation of facts, and a host of other things. Rejecting the Creation Myth does not diminish my faith in God. The Theory of Evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt long before I was born and proof of its validity has been mounting for over a century. Trying to reframe the creation myth into a theory just by calling it a ‘theory’ is like putting lipstick on a pig. It’s ok to accept that the Creation Myth, like so much of the Bible, was always meant to be something that we can reflect upon to better explore/ bask in awe about/ reflect upon the mystery of an unknowable unfathomable God. Making it into something other than that is not only unnecessary, it keeps people from moving forward, deepening their faith, and developing wisdom.

      • Nathan

        Barbara – When scientific theories have gaps that cannot be answered, or reasonable questions about them, it does indeed require a “leap of faith” to bridge that gap. In fact, the interesting thing about the “theory” of evolution is that the theory itself keeps evolving. People take a stand that “this is what happened”…only to have a discovery a year or two later completely change that stance. Why? Because it is a theory, and the amount of data that is not yet known is still massive.

        http://www.todayonline.com/world/americas/discovery-oldest-human-dna-raises-new-questions-evolution

        How do you know creationism is a myth? Because you believe in a big bang theory? Sadly, there would not be scientific debate about this theory if it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that one segment of the population fully believes it does not make it beyond a reasonable doubt. The world was believed to be flat at one point…those folks would have said it was so beyond a reasonable doubt.

        I do not disagree that things “evolve” in a general sense. In fact, I don’t disagree with the idea of natural selection. It is quite easy to see how introduction of a foreign species into, say, the swamps of Florida leads to the extinction of a local species. That is essentially survival of the fittest. But believing those things does not lead to a “natural” conclusion that God did not create the world. Rather…the belief that there is no God, or that God didn’t create, drives the evolutionist to seek evidence that disproves the idea of creationism.

        The reality is this…no matter where you stand on evolution or creation…you still have to believe in the perfect alignment of a gargantuan amount of critical things in order for evolution to even be a consideration. And that is a scientific fact. One small variation would have caused complete collapse. We can’t recreate it…but because people definitely don’t want to believe in the idea of God and creation, they MUST believe that this impossible coincidence of events took place. That is faith.

        • Barbara Heller

          Nathan, there is a difference between rejecting the Creation Myth as stated in Genesis and saying that God had no role in the creation of the universe. Don’t conflate the two. The use of ‘leap of faith’ in bridging a gap in scientific knowledge is another use of the word ‘faith’, as you know. You’re right: The Theory of Evolution is evolving — as is the world and everything on it including homo sapiens. The fact that something is evolving doesn’t detract from it’s validity. Having a massive amount of unknown data doesn’t invalidate the conclusions that can be drawn from the massive amount of data which has been collected to support the Theory of Evolution, and it’s disingenuous at best to imply that it does. There many reasons why I know creationism is a myth; most of them have absolutely nothing to do with “belief” in the big bang or evolution. For instance, I’ve studied the purpose and development in creation myths in multiple ancient societies. For instance, I understand that from a purely biological perspective it is fully impossible to create a viable population of any type from a starting point of 2 individuals. For instance, I understand the intention of those who wrote the Bible and their use of myth to explore mystery.

    • Sven2547

      And yes…creation is an accepted theory. A theory is simply a system of ideas intended to explain something. So those dismissing creation as a theory…if people believe it, then it is a theory. Get over it!

      In science, a theory is supported by the evidence, has explanatory power, and is falsifiable. YEC is not supported by evidence, has essentially zero explanatory power, and is not testable or falsifiable in any way.

      In other words, young-Earth creationism is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. A failed hypothesis, at that.

  • CroneEver

    The Big Bang = “Let there be light.”

    We are biologically animals: we share huge amounts of DNA with chimps and the great apes. We have Neanderthal genes in us, and some other homonid types.
    Every time a farmer or rancher or dog breeder breeds for a better vegetable or animal, they are practicing practical evolution.

    Why this plain fact threatens so many people, I have no idea – God works with us as we are. And God revels in mystery and metaphor. As C. S. Lewis once said, “People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs.”

    • Nathan

      Eve – I don’t disagree with your idea of practical evolution, as outlined above. But I hope you are also agreeing that those examples all utilize a “creator” to design and implement the process (e.g. farmer, rancher, dog breeder).

      • CroneEver

        Sure I do. “Let there be light.” But I hope you also agree that after that, a whole lot of education also came in: people learned how to farm, to make tools, to breed for preferred types, to make a catapult, a combustion engine, a vaccine, an antibiotic, a computer, etc., and then taught it to their children. Science is the application of the mind God gave us to enhance our life and solve as many of the difficulties we face as possible.

  • truecreation_dot_info

    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

    “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

    – St. Augustine of Hippo, 5th Century AD (considered by some Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation)

    – See more at: http://truecreation.info

    • Barbara Heller

      Thank you!

  • truecreation_dot_info

    John Calvin wrote, “If the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishment for our sloth.”

    • Barbara Heller

      Maybe that “If” is just too big for some people…

  • PN8891

    About the author’s accusation that Ken Ham is trying to tell people how to understand Genesis rather than letting them read it and make up their own minds…

    He’s actually trying to defend the conclusion to which anyone would come if they read it for themselves without trying to make it fit something else…

    When I was a kid, my parents never told me, “This creation story is meant to be taken literally; it says that God created everything in six days, and it’s referring to six literal days when it says that.” Somehow, I got that idea on my own. Now, if you tell me that evolution is true and that Genesis isn’t literal, you’re really telling me, “Don’t bother reading the Bible for yourself. Even the parts that seem clearest and most straightforward may not mean what they seem to mean; the Bible is really difficult to understand, and quite esoteric, so why would you even bother to read it?”

    This is how evolution silently influences people to leave the faith, when it appears they are doing so for other reasons: They view the Bible as a book of “soft truths” that may or may not mean just about anything! It’s not hard to adopt a worldview that runs more and more counter to the Christian faith as a whole if the Bible is a book of fuzzy logic that you can’t count on yourself to interpret correctly, no matter how certain you feel.

    • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com Kristen Rosser

      What “evolution is true and Genesis isn’t literal” is actually telling you is that it’s not a bad thing, when the plain-sense reading of a biblical text doesn’t fit in with reality according to reason and knowledge, to look for another way of looking at the text rather than having to choose between a false either-or dichotomy which sets up an irreconcilable conflict between your faith and your reason/knowledge.

      • Nathan

        Kristen – The problem with using your idea of evaluating something as to whether it fits “with reality according to reason and knowledge”, is the idea of reality, reason and knowledge.

        Ask someone from centuries ago whether mankind would ever be able to fly. Or whether that shiny orb in the sky at night would ever be walked on by mankind. Or whether a man would ever be able to travel a distance of 2,000 miles in a matter of hours.

        You see, what our “reality” is, or what our current “reason and knowledge” is does not correlate with truth. It is only a snapshot in time of what we think we know right now. Thus, using that reality, reason and knowledge as the basis for determining that we should read the Bible differently…well, that’s just a completely unstable method of evaluation.

        You mention a comparison at the end of your statement…faith vs reason/knowledge. I don’t think many people find that to be a conflict. The reason is that Christianity, at it’s pure core, is willing to believe that there are some things that we don’t fully understand at this moment. It also believes in the power and might of God…and His ability to speak things into existence (which is no greater leap of faith than believing the universe spontaneously sprang into existence out of nothing for evolution). Both belief systems have to start with NOTHING leading to SOMETHING, for reasons that evolution cannot explain…only guess at and propose.

        If you believe in God and His power to create, then you don’t feel the need to constantly look for a pre-supposed interpretation of data and events to fit the evolutionary theory. But if you are unwilling to have that faith in God’s ability to create, then you are indeed correct…the only thing that makes sense is that things evolved…although you can’t really explain how they started.

        People of faith don’t have to deny reason or science. But embracing science doesn’t mean you have to ignore the idea of faith and only interpret things through your current level of understanding. That is FORCING a belief on ones self because “there can’t possibly be any other explanation”. And thus it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and filter through which we evaluate everything to fit the model that we believe. Honestly, that usage of science is just the same as faith…both viewing what they find through their preconceived notions that give them “a-ha” moments.

        • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com Kristen Rosser

          I’m in agreement with much of this, but what I don’t see is why this means I have to read Genesis 1-2 literally when so many indicators in the texts support a symbolic/metaphorical meaning, AND when the evidence of the natural universe also supports a symbolic/metaphorical meaning for these particular texts.

          I believe in God and that God created the universe. But as far as I can see, God used an evolutionary process to do so, and the first two chapters of Genesis don’t actually contradict this when we stop anachronistically forcing our post-Enlightenment scientific mindset upon these ancient biblical texts.

    • Dr. Paul Logasa Bogen II

      “the Bible is really difficult to understand, and quite esoteric, so why would you even bother to read it?”

      You could make that response about any hard to understand written work. You could make that response about higher learning. Its a cop-out to claim that if something is difficult to understand and esoteric that it isn’t worth reading.

  • Elsa

    Actually, the first time I left the church it was, in big part, because of evolution. Evolution was obviously true, as we can observe it in life forms that live very short lives – we can watch them evolve. After 25 years, I went back to church, finding no difficulty believing that God directs evolution – I still don’t understand how that’s a problem for anyone.
    However, I left the church again, about 5 years later, because I could not stomach (or heart) the rigid, fearful, self-righteous world-view. Nothing to do with evolution. Everything to do with intolerance and lack of compassion.

    • Ryanmd

      I am very sorry you felt this way in church. I would never argue that there is hypocrisy in churches. But, what about Jesus? Did you repent and receive forgiveness? Did you ever meet Him?

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        This really isn’t the place or topic to proselytize. One’s understanding of who and what God is, is not the question, and it is utterly up to the individual to draw their own conclusions, whether, we like or agree, or not. If we are to love our neighbor, then we should understand that we all see things from individual lenses, and respect that we will often see things quite differently.
        and I can’t figure out how come I’m typing in italics.

        • Ryanmd

          Allegro, I thought this was just the right place to proselytize. Any time befor death is the perfect time and place. Are you Christian or not? I was saved while smoking a bong and a friend busted into my house saying he just met Jesus. Soon after that I got saved. Believe me, if there was not a time to proselytize, it was then. Praise God He did.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            We have people from a wide variety of faiths, and we also have a fair amount of people who are regular visitors who have been deeply hurt by what Christianity has had to offer them. To attempt to proselytize in this setting, simply demonstrates either a lack of knowledge of the broad spectrum of mindsets represented, arrogance so that the proselytizer gets another Jesus notch in their belt, or an honest, yet mistaken idea that all settings are perfect to try to save people.
            I don’t know where you stand on this, but please respect this environment and all who visit here, by refraining from proselytizing.

          • Ryanmd

            Allegro, Forgive me for my confusion. this is my very first day on this site. I was under the understanding that people here were Christian. I am possibly very ignorant to the way this works. Jesus said go into All the world and proclaim the Good news. He was stoned often for doing this in places it was not welcomed. If you are tossing me out, I understand. I get this often in many places. But, as long as people are dying without Jesus, I will proclaim the great news that I received. Thank you for your candor. Please do as you feel is best for you and your people. Bless you

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            People here are Christian from a wide range of denominations, and agnostic, and Jewish, a variety of other faiths as well. I will respect support and defend anyone’s right to believe what they choose about God, I will also stand in defense against those who feel that another’s way of faith is not good enough.
            It is sufficient to be content with what the divine has done for each of us, be grateful for the gift that is this life, and practice the gospel of loving others as we feel we deserve. That to me is our commission, our gospel, our purpose.
            Peace to you.,

      • Elsa

        Jesus was the reason I left. Most of the churches I’ve been in preach the exact opposite of what Jesus preached – they emphasize guilt and condemnation, intolerance, fear, attitudes of superiority over “the godless”. The emphasis on Jesus’s death, rather than on his life and the example he gave us, is disheartening and just wrong. In my mind, following Jesus means doing as he did and said, rather than “believing in him”.

        • Ryanmd

          Elsa, “believing in Him” is paramount. But I asked if you met Him? I agree the churches today are not following Him. Are you? You are more important than they are right now. I care nothing about what they, them, or those do or did. What are you doing to make sure you are following Christ. I dont aim for an answer openly. Just consider it. Allegro, I will answer you directly.

          • Elsa

            Thanks for your concern, Ryan. Yes, I met him. At least, I had a very profound experience that lasted several years (the emotion of it). Every morning I woke up, thrilled to start the day with God, the bible, prayer. I wept at every church service, with joy at what Jesus had done for ME. During that time I pushed aside the inconsistencies in both the church and the bible. I didn’t have the same values or outlook on life as the people in the church. I didn’t take my kids there, because many of theirs were so nasty.
            After about 5 years, or so, I could no longer handle the contrast between what Jesus was, and what the church (that believes in him) lives. I believe that I was led to the church (through a chain of “co-incidences”) and then back out again. He leads, I follow, things happen.
            But, Allegro is right. This article is about why people leave the church, which is not evolution. Initially, evolution gave me an excuse to leave an institution that did not fit with my value system. I later left solely because of the value system.

          • Ryanmd

            Thank you very much, Elsa.

      • Dr. Paul Logasa Bogen II

        Never? At all? Seriously? Thats just absurd. Hypocrisy is a natural human failing.

        • Ryanmd

          DR. I am afraid you are pulled back like a rubberband. I hope you understand that I was saying I would Never argue against hypocrisy in the church. It is rampant

          • Dr. Paul Logasa Bogen II

            My apologies. Your comment was poorly worded. You meant “I would never argue that there is not hypocrisy in churches.”

  • Patrick DeHoff

    To young earth creationists, I ask this: If science proves positively that evolution is true, will it terminally disrupt your faith? Is God big enough to work within natural methods (evolution)? Has a literal interpretation of a single chapter become an idol?
    I was raised fundamentalist. I work now as a nurse up to my elbows in bacterias that have evolved around our best antibiotics. I can accept God being bigger than a bronze age priest could understand. If we evolved over billions of years, that’s okay. At the end of the day, God is still the creator. Crafter/breeder/husbandman, it’s okay, He is still my savior.

    • Ryanmd

      Patrick. Thank you for your question. He is your savior of what? What did He save you from?

      • Patrick DeHoff

        Imperfection/Sin/Destructive choices/harming others for selfishness I suppose would be the short answer.
        Part of fundamentalism is the belief in a fall. I would put that we are a broken race, frequently selfish and destructive to ourselves and our surroundings. I was “saved” young, and as many raised solidly in the faith, its hard to answer that in the obvious ways. But I do struggle with anger, cynicism, guilt. If we accept that God is perfect, an archtype (God is Love, but He is also the sum total best of emotion, peace, sadness, even just anger) and we accept that the perfect cannot bear imperfection, Christianity’s answer is that the Perfect became Imperfect to bridge the gap.

        • Ryanmd

          I must be ignorant to “fundamentalism” although I have been a Christian for sometime. I did not know until today that there was any other belief than the “Fall” in Genesis and confirmed in Romans 5.
          As you confirmed and we both agree, Jesus did not take away our sins. We still sin, we still harm others, we still tell fibs, we still get angry, we still lust. Les than before, yes, but we still do them. Jesus did not die to take these away. He died to take away the penalty of sin. Death. The second death mentioned in Rev 20:14. Patrick we all struggle with what you said you do. I know I do. But the penalty was taken away. We stop sinning because we are in a relationship with Him that does not sin.

          • Patrick DeHoff

            Thank you kind sir. I have enjoyed our discussion. You do well at drawing out calm, rational responses (I have skimmed your other postings to get a feel as to who I was responding to). I do not find you “trollish” at all, and I’ll keep a further eye out for your posts.

          • Ryanmd

            Your response shows me Who is in you brother. Thank you. Bless you and your home. Shalom

          • Patrick DeHoff

            I think that the second fall/second repentance philosophy would be a product of the heavy Calvinistic background common to fundamentalist churches. We can’t truly trust that we are in a that relationship with He that Does not sin, we can’t walk in a confidence that He won’t leave us, because we are in too much fear that we somehow have left Him. (using the general we to refer to many christians today, many who may not be reading this particular blog, and certainly my former church background).

          • Robert

            “He died to take away the penalty of sin. Death.”
            Then why do people who accept Christ die? If He took that away, why are we not all becoming immortal? You keep contradicting your own argument.

    • Rick K

      “Has a literal interpretation of a single chapter become an idol? ”

      Bingo! That sentence is a winner.

      Biblical Literalism is idol worship – worship of a human-created idol – that blinds people to the truth.

  • Ryanmd

    Since I have been accused of trolling, I will post directly. This is to Christians alone.
    The incompatibility with evolution and Christianity is this:
    Christians are saved by the death of Jesus on the cross at Calvary. The messiah(Jesus) paid the penalty for sin for all mankind. The penalty for sin was death. This penalty was given to the Adam and his offspring for sinning against God in the Garden of Eden. God’s promise of death could only be broken by God Himself. Not by simply changing the promise, making Him a liar. But, He sent His Son to earth and paid the penalty in death.
    The very reason Jesus was sent was to pay the penalty of Adam’s sin and to remove death that entered through Adam. So, then if death did not enter through Adam, there is absolutely no need for Jesus to die on the cross. No need for a Savior. No need to be Christian.
    —If Evolution is true, then death came before Adam. Evolution requires millions of deaths to push forward a successor via natural selection. This puts Adam after death entered the world. Evolution is not compatible with Christianity because it removes the very reason we needed Jesus to die.
    This is confirmed in the following scriptures.

    “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” Romans 5:12

    “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ,overflow to the many!” Romans 5:15

    If evolution is true, then this scripture is not. I pray that you all pray about this and search the scriptures for Truth. Shalom

    • Robert

      Since I am a Christian saved by Christ, then I guess it’s OK for me to respond. All of those passages do not speak of physical death but of spiritual death (separation from God). Christ died so that we could once again stand in the presence of God.

      So, if you want to be completely literal about it… If physical death did not exist before the Fall, then decay did not exist. Therefore, Adam and Eve, and all the animals, ate nothing because to eat even a plant would cause death to the cells of the plant before they were digested. If they did eat the plants then they would end up with a ton of living plants in their stomach because there was no such thing as death. And if they didn’t eat, why did Eve eat the apple? She couldn’t digest it! And if they didn’t eat, digest, and poop (byproduct of digestion), then why were they created with an anus? Or maybe we developed those after the Fall, too!

      To take everything in the Bible as completely literal is absurd. You end up down a rabbit hole. As for Bible verses:

      “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world… But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ…” Ephesians 2:1,2,5 (Spiritually death and rebirth)

      “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” 2 Corinthians 5:17 (Funny, I don’t remember getting a new physical body in 1978 when I accepted Him and believed on His Name!)

      “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16 (Um, why has every Christian physically died since Christ rose? Oh, maybe because John is talking about spiritual life…)

      By the way, no one answered my question about how the sun and moon (according to Genesis) could be created on the 4th day, yet, you are using a 24-hour revolution of the earth in relation to the sun as your definition of “a day”. How were days 1 to 3 measured?

      Shalom

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        Interesting. I’d never thought of the scenario of lack of decay that people try to fit into the Eden story. It does make people have to jump through some rather suspicious biological hoops doesn’t it.

      • Ryanmd

        Robert, thank you for your response. We can clear up a little bit of misunderstanding of Genesis in your statement about the apple. There was no apple. This is a tale given to children. The Bible tells of no Apple.
        “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”” Gen 2:17
        –Robert the “apple” was knowledge. It was not trusting God alone and asking questions themselves. This gave them knowledge of good and evil(sin). There was no apple mentioned. Yes, Eden lacked any type of decay, whatsoever. The lion laid down with the lamb. I fear we are taking of the “apple” today by not trusting in God’s Word alone and searching for truths outside.

        • Dr. Paul Logasa Bogen II

          Wait so the whole story in Genesis is literal except the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Talk about cherry picking. You can’t have one without the other. If the fruit is figurative, why isn’t the entire story?

          • Ryanmd

            DR, please research the original words in this passage. To eat is not always to ingest and digest. In Daniel and in Revelation, both men were told to eat the book. It was sour on their stomachs because the information was not happy. Yes, somethings are used as analogies, like Jesus said He was the door. This did not mean He was a literal door with hinges. It means He is the way to the Father. I believe common sense can be used. They partook of the tree. They did not place something on their tongue. This is not a matter of interpretation as it is translation.

          • Dr. Paul Logasa Bogen II

            So let me get this straight none of the story of creation and the Garden of Eden is an analogy, except for the fruit because that part doesn’t make sense to you?

            Genesis 2:17
            הִמְטִיר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה:יז. וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת:

            אֲכָלְךָ means to eat or consume not to partake. The verse quite literally says place on the tongue.

            You need to critically evaluate your faith and ask yourself why you need to perform such mental gymnastics to justify it to yourself. Why can’t your faith stand up to a figurative creation story?

          • Ryanmd

            Paul, I thank you for attempting to translate the scripture I hold dear. Gymnastics are not needed much. Only common sense to see what is figurative and what is literal. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil accompanied by the tree of life. The tree of life is obedience to God and everlasting life. research the tree of life. Jesus is our tree of life. If the tree of life is not a literal fruit to place on our tongue, why would the tree of knowledge be a literal fruit with leaves? Jesus also said to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Was this literal? Or was He the bread of life? I pray that one day you will partake of that bread and of that blood.

        • Queen Alice

          indeed.

        • Robert

          “The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat FRUIT from the trees in the garden…” Genesis 3:2

          So you’re saying that this verse isn’t supposed to be taken LITERALLY? Wait, what?

          Respectfully, I know you truly believe these things but you basically have to twist scripture and make things up to justify your “truth”.

          • Queen Alice

            right. fruit from the other trees.

    • Rick K

      Ahh… so evolution is false because of its IMPLICATIONS, not because of how it objectively fits the evidence.

      I see.

      So if I’m afraid of the IMPLICATIONS of nuclear waste and atomic weapons, then the right response is to deny Atomic Theory.

      Got it!

      • Ryanmd

        I gave only a reason Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Not a reason it is false.

        • Rick K

          If Evolution (and geology, astronomy, physics and all the other sciences that are incompatible with Adam and Eve) is true and it is incompatible with a particular interpretation of Christianity, then that interpretation of Christianity is false.

          Augustine would have something to say about that.

          • Ryanmd

            I would say that to hold geology, astronomy, physics, and any other science as comparative stone to which one tests the Word of God is false. Instead we should hold the Word of God as the foundation of truth and test all other “interpretations” against it. You say an interpretation of Christianity. I say it is one’s interpretation of geology, astronomy, physics that could be false instead. All evidence is the same. It is ones interpretation of that evidence that can be wrong.

          • Rick K

            Again, I defer to Augustine who rightly pointed out that God speaks through scripture AND through nature. Nature is also the Word of God. And if what we see in nature is incompatible with our interpretation of scripture, then our interpretation of scripture is wrong.

            If it is a choice between thousands of fossils, millions of bits of DNA, a vast geologic record, moving continents and the laws of physics versus your interpretation of a translator’s interpretation of Paul’s interpretation of the words of a man he never met, then I’m going to bet on the evidence from nature.

          • Ryanmd

            We simply agree to disagree. This is what it is meant (in my world) to be Christian. I will not hold nor defer to Augustine or Nature to interpret the meaning of scripture. I will allow the Holy Spirit to help me discern what is spiritually discerned and hold all else into the light of it. It is a world view. I hold the Bible most dear. You hold nature and man’s wisdom. We agree to disagree. I hope you go in peace.

          • Rick K

            And that’s fine until you try to teach someone that the Sun and stars orbit the Earth, that cancer is the result of insufficient faith or that current species didn’t evolve from earlier species. Because to me, any faith that requires lies to support it is ultimately damaged and damaging.

          • Ryanmd

            i think we are done here. I assume you are intelligent. I give you that. Then you must see where this is going. Best wishes

          • Queen Alice

            Agree with this. Look how often science has to redefine things: .

          • Queen Alice

            what I said at the end, which somehow printed out strangely: I was thinking of the poor little ex-planet Pluto and of the Big Bang theory which was taught as fact, not so long ago.

        • Sven2547

          IF they are incompatible, then that is Christianity’s problem, not evolution’s problem.

          • Ryanmd

            Sven, I have to agree with you.

    • Richard Forrest

      Evolution is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory. It is a fact that evolution occurs.

      Evolutionary theory is an explanation of how evolution works. It is the product of centuries of research and is one of the most robust and exhaustively tested theories in any field of science.

      These are the facts.

      If your particular version of Christianity is incompatible with the facts of the universe you believe your God created, your God has created the universe with a false impression of a great age, and an earth populated with life which the evidence shows is the product of billions of years of evolution. Your beliefs cast your God as a liar who has deliberately deceived his creations.

      You chose to worship a bundle of paper covered with ink marks rather than accept the reality of creation. Your God created a small, brief and incompetently made universe which needs constant tinkering to function. The universe revealed by scientific investigation is vast beyond comprehension, unimaginably old, and filled with wonders beyond our wildest imaginings.

      If you chose to close your eyes to this wonder, I pity you.

      • Ryanmd

        thank you for your opinion Richard. Best wishes

        • Richard Forrest

          Perhaps you should thank me for the facts I have offered you.

      • Queen Alice

        So how exactly have we replicated life in the laboratory from . . . nothing?

        And what evidence shows billions of years? It is all in the interpretation of that body of evidence. Obviously you need it to be billions of years so that “evolution” can take place.

        The universe created by God is vast beyond comprehension, and, amazingly enough, coincides with science when science does what it does best – describes what it sees and observes. Everything else is just . . . theory.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          cloning…from cells….its been around…believe it or not since the late 1800’s. It started with lower lifeforms, then evolved as science learned more about cells, and genetics

          billion of years is shown in the universe in the form of the distance it takes light to travel from one location to another, other things can be measured by distance for time as well.

        • Richard Forrest

          So how exactly have we replicated life in the
          laboratory from . . . nothing?

          We haven’t yet. We have replicated evolution, not abiogenesis. For a biology teacher, you seem remarkably illi-informed on the subject. Having said that, we are getting closer to creating artificial life in the laboratory all the time.

          And what evidence shows billions of years?

          Radiometric dating, astronomical tuning, calculations from observed rates of tectonic plate movements, DNA chronology, calculations of rates of formation of sedimentary structures.

          It is all in the interpretation of that body of evidence.

          Quite so. If you have a better, testable interpretation for that evidence feel free to offer it. You won’t find such an interpretation in creationist sources because they ignore most of it, and misrepresent or promote falsehoods about the rest.

          Here is my analysis of a number of creationist sources identifying many such misrepresentations, distortions and outright falsehoods:
          http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/
          Feel free to address this evidence for dishonesty in such sources.

          Obviously you need it to be billions of years so that “evolution” can take place.

          No, you don’t. We know that evolution takes place because we can observe it in action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory. Evolution occurs in populations of organisms over successive generations. An example of this is the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria – which, contrary to the falsehood promoted in creationist sources, is evolution by definition.

          The age of the earth is determined almost entirely from evidence from physics, geology, chemistry and cosmology. Are you seriously suggesting that physicists, chemists, geologists and cosmologists have been falsifying their data for several centuries to support arguments in favour of the existence of a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory?

          The universe created by God is vast beyond comprehension, and, amazingly enough, coincides with science when science does what it does best – describes what it sees and observes.

          So why do you chose to tie yourself to a shallow and dishonest dogma which denies this wonder?

        • Richard Forrest

          So how exactly have we replicated life in the laboratory from . . . nothing?

          What on earth has this to do with the validity of evolutionary theory, which is based on hundreds of thousands of observations of evolution in action in the natural world and laboratory experiments?

          And what evidence shows billions of years?

          The evidence which has been investigated by several different branches of science including physics, geology, planetary science, chemistry and palaeontology. There is no honest – and I stress the term “honest” – interpretation of the evidence which would lead to any conclusion other than that the earth is very ancient and that life on earth is product of billions of years of evolutionary processes.

          Obviously you need it to be billions of years so that “evolution” can take place.

          Are you seriously suggesting that for several centuries most of the scientists working in many different fields have been falsifying their data to support the existence of a phenomenon which can be observed in action in the natural world and replicated in the laboratory?

  • http://www.churpedia.com/ Pastor Todd Demoff

    This is a very childish response to a really important topic within our culture today. You spent more time taking school yard jabs at Ken Ham than you did establishing a real position on the matter. You also revealed your own state of confusion when you used the phrase, “Theory of evolution” and then combined it in the very same paragraph with your own person comment saying, “Either way, your aggressive disingenuousness and sophomoric chicanery stand in stark, pitiable contrast to the mountains of hard scientific evidence that prove evolution true.” Proven true? Well then it certainly wouldn’t be a ‘theory’ would it? The only chicanery I can see here is your own attempt to mask your knowledge of scripture and understanding of what truth really is. It is clear that your faith rests upon man’s wisdom above that of God’s revealed Word.

    • Deacon Razorblades

      Proven true?

      Yes, evolution has been shown to be true. It happened in the past and is happening this very second.

      Well then it certainly wouldn’t be a ‘theory’ would it?

      I really hope your not under the impression that theories becomes laws, because that’s absolutely not how it works, or are you using the colloquial use of the word theory?

      • http://www.churpedia.com/ Pastor Todd Demoff

        I reject your belief that evolution has been proven true. The only thing that has evolved is the theory itself. The human architects of this theory have worked hard to overcome the growing problems with such an idea. I will admit that it takes a great amount of faith to believe such a tale. However, I can also appreciate the differences in opinions among people unlike many advocating evolution. My only point right now is that you cannot attempt to square the Word of God and remain consistent with true Biblical Christianity while holding to a man made theory that has been devised to eliminate God from the equation. I believe, in the beginning God and it seems you believe, in the beginning dirt.

        • Deacon Razorblades

          I reject your belief that evolution has been proven true.

          I absolute do not care if you reject it. It’s still one of the most accepted and tested theories of our time. If you reject evolution you might as well go ahead and reject medicine as well.

          The human architects of this theory have worked hard to overcome the growing problems with such an idea.

          Yes, tell me all about the growing problems of this theory. Let’s see how many fallacies you can inject into this conversation.

          My only point right now is that you cannot attempt to square the Word of God and remain consistent with true Biblical

          I’m not trying to. I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in your god or your religion.

          Christianity while holding to a man made theory that has been devised to eliminate God from the equation.

          Your god was only removed when you attempted to bring it into the scientific realm.

          I believe, in the beginning God and it seems you believe, in the beginning dirt.

          Don’t be dishonest and make up straw men, Pastor. If you want me to take you seriously then talk like an adult and attempt to have reasonable discourse.

          • http://www.churpedia.com/ Pastor Todd Demoff

            “I’m not trying to. I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in your god or your religion.”

            There you go…I’m glad we’ve established that. All you’ve presented are the same talking points that I’ve debated time and time again. I’m sure you have as well. I am not intolerant of your world view and you should not be of mine. I make no apologies for my belief in God nor the infallibility of Scripture.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            There you go…I’m glad we’ve established that. All you’ve presented are the same talking points that I’ve debated time and time again.

            If debating to you is what I’ve seen so far from your replies then I’m not entirely impressed.

            I am not intolerant of your world view and you should not be of mine.

            I become intolerant when individuals, such as yourself just now, attempt to dishonestly paint science as having some sort of agenda against your god. When you attempt to make fallacies of the incredible things that humans have found through the scientific method, then I become intolerant.

            I make no apologies for my belief in God nor the infallibility of Scripture.

            Your scripture is far removed from the realm of infallibility. To be infallible means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong, and there is so much wrong with your bible is makes the head spin.

          • http://www.churpedia.com/ Pastor Todd Demoff

            I’m glad you can admit you’re intolerant. That’s a great place to start.

            I will also say that there is a big difference between observational science and historical science. Most avid evolutionists miss this completely because they don’t teach this in most schools. Historical science is laced with presuppositions on both sides of the debate. So when evolutionists start bantering about how evolution is proven and true, you just look silly and uninformed. I know you disagree with this but I thought I’d say it anyway. Here’s a wonderful article from the organization in question above.

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/10/feedback-historical-observational-science

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Science historically tries to look at all sides of an issue, in trying to determine answers. Scientists will make errors, in their conclusions or in their testing methods. BUT they eventually get things back on the right track, and everyone learns from it. Its agenda is to find more about something, be it how to cure a disease to how planets formed, to how we are genetically linked to other species. Authentic science does that, whether it be observational, or historical, or any other method.

            When science is manipulated to try to discredit or disprove proven results while telling others to ignore or deny it for a theory where the only proof is a non-scientific book, such as has been the problem with AiG, then its no wonder when people see problems with it.

          • mindy

            Pastor, unless you’ve “debated” second graders, I can’t imagine you succeeded. The Bible is not infallible. THAT is fact. That doesn’t mean is not rich and lovely, but it is most definitely fallible.

        • Rick K

          Evolution is not “a man made theory that has been devised to eliminate God from the equation” any more than geology or astronomy or atomic theory are devised to eliminate God’s hand from creation. Evolution is just a fact of nature – species evolve.

          It is up to YOU to fix your faith if you can’t deal with the truth that species evolve.

          Come on – you can do it. Christians survived heliocentrism. Christians survived the heresy of “Atomism”. You can survive Evolution.

          Try to stop being afraid of the truth and just embrace it.

          • http://www.churpedia.com/ Pastor Todd Demoff

            You know nothing of my faith, nor my God, nor of the scriptures. You place your hope in man’s wisdom. You have not observed anything so we are not discussing observational science. You are simply repeating what you have been told for many years. You have tested nothing, witnessed nothing. You choose to look at the world around us with your own presupposition that there is no God…no creator. I choose to look at the world with my own presupposition as well. That there is a God, that His Word is true, and that He created everything just as the Bible declares it to be. I would applaud your arrogant confidence if I believed you had made a single point towards proving anything. You have a strong belief that you were made from the stars. You have an unbelievable faith that somehow order came from chaos. Your belief transcends every lack of observation, every failed idea, every single deceptive attempt to make evolution stick. This includes the need to keep adding millions more years on to somehow explain how life crept out of a primordial soup. In which, you believe exploding stars made the soup though you can’t explain the origin of the stars. I know…just give you more time. In your worldview, you are nothing more than an animal with instincts to care only for yourself. In your worldview, everything came from nothing and yet all of it is so brilliant that any other idea or faith is ridiculous. I refuse to debate the facts because your faith in nothing requires you to find escape mechanisms and crazy hypothesis that given more time, you’ll eventually understand. Your faith in man, or for that matter, star dust, is no more enlightening than my faith in a very real Creator God. Our world views are distinct and oppose each other for sure. I believe in God and you do not. I would ask that you stop being so intolerant and hateful in your attack on God and Christianity. If you feel you’re right…then own it. Thats the position I stand on.

          • Rick K

            Wow, I struck a nerve it seems.

            You’ve so totally missed the mark that it is truly sad.

            I believe that the human mind is capable of amazing feats of self delusion. Therefore, I believe evidence and testing are the path to truth. Why? Because I’ve seen it work. Most of us wouldn’t be alive if it didn’t.

            Like Emily, you are ignoring the direct words of God and instead you commit idol worship of a man-made creation – a book written long ago by people who heard stories from other people, which were later translated by other people.

            I’ve looked through the telescopes and microscopes. I’ve seen the fossils. I’ve studied the DNA. I LOOK at nature and I see a story more glorious than the Bronze Age campfire tales in the book you hold so dear.

            You choose to walk with your hand over your eyes for fear of what you might see. I walk with eyes open and am not afraid to absorb new inputs, new evidence that leads to new understanding. You’ve chosen to stop learning. That’s fine – that’s your choice. But don’t berate others who choose a different path.

            And if you ever find yourself unfairly placed in the defendant’s chair in a criminal trial, you better hope that the jury is full of people like me – critical thinkers who value evidence. Because if you are judged by those whose minds are made up by faith alone, and they don’t share your faith, well…. good luck with that.

            There are none so humble as those who follow the evidence to wherever it may lead. And there are none so proud who assume they already know the answer because it was written 2000 years ago in their favorite book.

            By the way, where do you stand on the topic of atoms? Have you accepted the newfangled idea, or do you stand with your brothers from a few hundred years ago who were certain that atoms were incompatible with Genesis?

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Assuming much?

    • Rick K

      Pastor Demoff

      Has the Theory of Relativity been proved beyond reasonable doubt? Yes. Is it still called a “theory”? Yes.

      Has Tectonic Plate Theory been proved beyond reasonable doubt? Yes.Is it still called a “theory”? Yes.

      Has the Germ Theory of Disease been proved beyond reasonable doubt? Yes. Is it still called a “theory”? Yes.

      Are you ignorant of the term “theory” in science? I think you’ve proved that beyond reasonable doubt.

      Has Evolutionary Theory been proved beyond reasonable doubt by many separate and independent lines of evidence. Yes. Is your doubt about Evolutionary Theory reasonable? No – not if you’re educated in the topic.

      Are you ignorant of the topic, or just unreasonable? Is being unreasonable a virtue? I’ll leave that for you to answer.

      • mindy

        Yes, the Pastor is painfully ignorant of what the word “theory” means in scientific inquiry. That is a common response from those who are uneducated and ignorant. Sad. More people making Christianity look awful.

  • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

    Getting back to Mr. Ham’s claim that young people are leaving the church because of evolution…which is not exactly true.

    People are leaving because of rigidity, or the lack of people to ask honest, questions, those tough ones that make one think, the ones that challenge the status quo. They want to know why, and instead are either being dismissed outright, or they are told to look in the bible for the answer, or that their beliefs are ungodly, etc.

    To put it more clearly, they are not getting answers.

    Sure evolution is one of the questions, but its just one of many.

    Then there is the rigidity in culture. The church tends to behind the curve in accepting new ideas. whether it be social, or scientific. They may cling to an ideal, that has been repeatedly shown to be inferior, while lashing out, sometimes dangerously so to those who do not agree. We have a long history of how the church tends to treat nonconformists. Sadly we’ve not yet learned from the lessons of our forefathers.

    Finally it is inconsistency that drives people away. Its preached to love your neighbor, and its practiced to look down on others not of your ilk. It is preached to give to the poor and consider the widow, orphan and foreigner in your midst, and its practiced to ignore them or blame them for their plight, It’s preached that Jesus loves us all and welcomes us, its practiced that we keep away those we’ve decided are unworthy, like the drug addict, the homeless guy, the gay couple, the atheist neighbor.
    THAT is why people leave the church.

    • R Vogel

      I am not talented enough to do it, but someone needs to do a post by Pope Urban VIII discussing how Heliocentrism is causing young people to lose faith in the Bible and leave the church!

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        That would be something rather fun to write.

  • R Vogel

    Well written, Dan. I am deeply vexed that this circus barker and his sideshow debate is getting as much ink as it is. Frankly, I am disappointed that Bill Nye would waste his time participating in such foolishness. It does nothing but gives the appearance that Ham is anything other than a snake oil salesman. We don’t debate the holocaust with holocaust deniers or astronomy with flat-earth believers, yet we continue to acknowledge young earth creationists as if their mystical beliefs somehow rival the conclusions of science. It does nothing but give the impression that there is something there worth debating.

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

      Thank you R. I’m on the fence about whether or not Nye should bother with something like this…but perhaps something positive will come out of it.

  • Rick K

    Millions of people know who Bill Nye is. A fraction of that number know who Ken Ham is. Therefore, only Ken Ham can benefit from this debate. I’m sorry that Nye is doing it.

    That said, if he’s going to do it, he must take a different approach that prior Ham debaters. Don’t argue rationally about science and evidence – Ham isn’t honest or rational.

    Perhaps Nye could compare Ham to the people who for centuries denied that matter was made from atoms because they were convinced God wouldn’t make stuff that way. He could compare Ham to those who denied a heliocentric solar system because they were convinced God wouldn’t do it that way. Demand to know what Ham is afraid of – why he is so afraid of the truth? If faith survived atoms and a Sun-centric star system, faith can survive evolution.

    If Ham talks about the IMPLICATIONS of evolution (no Adam, no Eve, no Original Sin, no reason for Christ’s sacrifice), then again – then point out how childish this is. Most people are afraid of the implications of nuclear energy, but only a child would respond by denying Atomic Theory. Most people are afraid of earthquakes – should they deny the existence of tectonic plates?

    Don’t make the debate about science, make it about Ham’s character. That’s a target-rich environment.

    But in the end, this debate can only benefit Ham more than Nye.

    • http://thethreews.wordpress.com/ Ken Leonard

      You know, I was thinking the same thing. I wish that this wasn’t even happening. Ham’s audience doesn’t care what anyone else says, no matter how well founded, and there’s no way that Nye’s preferred audience is going to be swayed, either.

      I assume that this is intended for publicity for both of them as media personalities (note how I don’t assume that the stated purpose is the real purpose), but I don’t see how this benefits them equally by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Emily

    In response to Barbara Heller comment, I too am a scientist–a H.S. Biology teacher. She states that scientific theory takes evidence to be true. I agree. However, she is terribly mistaken with the comment that there has been mounting evidence confirming that the theory of evolution is fact. Barbara and the general population are forgetting a fundamental truth in science: in order to for a theory to be considered true, the hypothesis has to be able to be tested and verified. This is impossible to do regarding both creationism and evolution. It will NEVER happen. Therefore, they are both theories. Both require faith. So, the ultimate questions is do you want to place your faith in man? or God?

    Also regarding the comments of church people and their self-righteous ways, etc. Sadly, it is true that churches are filled with people who think they are better than others. That is unfortunate. But, attending a church that only discusses love and compassion without addressing the fact that God is also a just God and will hand down the final judgement to people for their sins is just as important. These days, no one wants to feel uncomfortable or told that they are wrong. No one wants to feel CONVICTION. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians and have the mouth of a sailor, are not committed to their spouse, drink heavily, etc. They want to do what they want yet have the title of Christian as if it is an insurance policy for getting into heaven. Well, guess what? Jesus didn’t suffer terribly on a cross so we can just do whatever we want and get a free pass. Remember, “Wide is the gate leading to death, narrow is the gate leading to eternal life.” I think some people are going to be surprised when Jesus says, “I never knew you.”

    • Deacon Razorblades

      However, she is terribly mistaken with the comment that there has been mounting evidence confirming that the theory of evolution is fact.

      I’m not really sure if you should call yourself a scientist because you teach H.S. Biology while at the same time rejecting one of the most understood theories to date, especially one that concerns what you teach.

      Barbara and the general population are forgetting a fundamental truth in science: in order to for a theory to be considered true, the hypothesis has to be able to be tested and verified

      Evolution has been tested and verified since Darwin proposed it. It hasn’t failed yet and is still being scrutinized to this day. The fact that it hasn’t failed or that it hasn’t had an alternative theory with equal merit says a lot about its credibility.

      This is impossible to do regarding both creationism and evolution.

      With creationism it is impossible, not so with evolution. Again, you’re supposed to be a teacher. I hope you’re not doing your students a disservice.

      Therefore, they are both theories.

      Creationism isn’t a theory, evolution is. I’m astounded that you don’t even seem to know what a theory is. As a non-teacher, it saddens me that I know more than you do about your chosen field.

      • Emily

        I get it, you’re an angry atheist.

        Evolution has been tested and verified since Darwin proposed it.

        Please tell me where and how evolution has been tested and verified? Has the formation of planet earth and universe been tested? Has evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled organisms been tested? The answer is no. They haven’t. In fact, the theory of how earth and the planets came into existence, how life was formed on earth, dinosaurs died, etc. has changed quite a bit over the years…because no one knows!

        It hasn’t failed yet and is still being scrutinized to this day.

        Neither has the Bible.

        • Deacon Razorblades

          I get it, you’re an angry atheist.

          I’m actually a pretty happy atheist, but go ahead and assign me whatever image you want to make yourself feel better.

          Please tell me where and how evolution has been tested and verified?

          For goodness sakes. You’re a teacher, you should know these things.

          Has the formation of planet earth and universe been tested?

          Ummm, yes. Have you had your head in the sand when it concerns the academic and scientific world? I’m going to be honest, I think you are absolutely lying about being a teacher so that you sound more credible. You’re not fooling me though.

          • Emily

            For goodness sakes. Your a teacher, you should know these things. Ummm, yes. Have you had your head in the sand when it concerns the academic and scientific world?

            Uh-huh. Just what I thought…no good answer. We’ll just leave it at that.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            Uh-huh. Just what I thought…no good answer. We’ll just leave it at that.

            I’m sorry, are you that lazy to research YOUR OWN FIELD OF STUDY? Am I to do your work for you? There is an entire world of scientific papers discussing the exact things you have a problem with, yet you want me to find it for you. How sad and disengenous.

          • Queen Alice

            She’s not being lazy, she’s asking you to defend your position. She has been defending hers.

          • mindy

            Alice, she hasn’t defended anything. She’s asking questions that already have answers and she’s stating falsehoods. She’s not citing sources or giving anything to back up her mistaken beliefs. It’s scary to converse with someone so rigid and convinced of . . . . nonsense.

          • Emily

            Not rigid, rather grounded in faith.

          • mindy

            Faith? I don’t believe that, Emily. I believe you and those like you are grounded in fear. You are afraid of change, of differences, of questioning. You are afraid of a vengeful God. If you didn’t live in such paralyzing fear, you’d have no trouble USING the mind God gave you to better understand our universe, our planet, our land, our bodies. You wouldn’t be so afraid that anything that veers off your tiny, narrow path might be dangerous. You wouldn’t fear to such great depths that your fear leads you to insist everyone live by your interpretation, and then explain everything else away as “one of God’s mysteries,” and everyone else away as not faithful enough. I am grounded in my faith in a loving God, in a mystically beautifully connectedness of all humankind. And I don’t fear knowledge. I don’t fear change. I don’t fear anything at all, really, but willful ignorance.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            Yes she is being lazy. She has said that she is a high school Biology teacher, yet has very little understandings of the basic principles of science. She’s not defending her position, she’s just parroting the same refuted nonsense that most creationists tend to rely on. She’s being absolutely dishonest.

            As for defending my position, why not refer to the other above posters refuting her. I believe fully what Richard Forrest and Rick_K are saying.

        • Richard Forrest

          Please tell me where and how evolution has been tested and verified?

          In hundreds of thousands of scientific experiments, studies of populations of organisms in nature, computer modelling of populations, detailed and systematic studies of the fossil record and many other ways. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the subject.

          Has the formation of planet earth and universe been tested?

          What on earth has that to do with evolutionary theory?

          Has evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled organisms been tested?

          Yes, in studies of DNA and evidence from the fossil record. There is a substantial body of scientific literature on the subject.

          The answer is no. They haven’t.

          Actually, the answer is yes, they have as anyone can find out for themselves by visiting reputable scientific sources on the internet, reading books written by people who understand the field or taking courses at educational institutions.

          In fact, the theory of how earth and the planets came into existence, how life was formed on earth, dinosaurs died, etc. has changed quite a bit over the years…because no one knows!

          That’s because science is a tool for finding such things out. We have science not because of what we know, but because of what we don’t know, and if the evidence shows that current explanations are wrong, the explanations are revised to rejected. That’s why science has advanced our knowledge and understanding of the universe vastly more in the past couple of centuries than in the previous hundred millennia of humanities existence.

          The Bible isn’t evidence. The fact that there are as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are Christian sects – or even Christians – shows that its content is so ambiguous that it can and has been used to support not just work to improve the lot of man, but the worst atrocities humans can devise. It is pretty well a blank slate onto which individuals and groups can impose their prejudices.

          • Emily

            You are correct. There are thousands of papers published by the scientific community showing evidence of changes in living things…minute changes, not major changes. If you can produce a resource proving–not just suggesting–that complex multicellular organisms evolved from bacteria, now that would be something to consider.

            You are also correct in that science is a tool useful for finding things out. Explanations are revised and rejected just as you said. But if explanations regarding how life evolved are always changing, then how can scientists (and you) say evolution is fact when it has yet to be proven?

          • Richard Forrest

            There are thousands of papers published by the scientific community showing evidence of changes in living things…minute changes, not major changes.

            Evolution proceeds by small changes. It makes predictions about larger scale changes and we can test those predictions against the evidence.

            If you can produce a resource proving–not just suggesting–that complex multicellular organisms evolved from bacteria, now that would be something to consider.

            Science doesn’t offer proof. It offers provisional explanations for phenomena we can observe and measure. All theories in all fields of science are subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. That is the fundamental nature of science, and it because of this that science is always advancing.

            But if explanations regarding how life evolved are always changing, then how can scientists (and you) say evolution is fact when it has yet to be proven?

            It is a fact that evolution occurs. It is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory – and in our hospitals, where bacteria are evolving antibiotic-resistance. This is evolution by definition.

            Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how evolution works.

            Gould explains this clearly here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

            I suggest that you read it.

          • Rick K

            You don’t have to explain the origin of life for evolutionary theory to still be true.

            Chemistry is true, chemistry works, the periodic table was well understood LONG before we knew where the elements actually came from.

            Stop pointing to gaps in our knowledge and saying “God could have done that!”. That has been a failing strategy for over 2000 years.

        • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

          I’m not angry or an atheist and I agree with everything that Deacon Razorblades said. The truth is the truth, regardless of the source.

        • Rick K

          “Please tell me where and how evolution has been tested and verified?”

          Please tell me how General Relativity was tested and verified? You must teach this to your students, no?

          Did Einstein create a black hole? Did he create a gravity well? Or did he make predictions then test them against the available data found in nature?

          Actually, his predictions were tested and verified by other people, just as it has taken other people to truly verify the depth and strength of Darwin’s hypothesis.

        • Rick K

          “Has the formation of planet earth and universe been tested?”

          Ahhh… you think Evolutionary Theory includes the Big Bang.

          You’re not a science teacher. You’re just a poorly informed creationist fibbing to give yourself more credibility than you deserve.

          An actual science teacher would at some point in her career, would have cracked open her science textbook to the chapter on the Theory of Evolution and would have found no mention of any element of cosmology.

          Tsk tsk…

          • Deacon Razorblades

            That’s exactly what I realized.

        • mindy

          Oh, Emily. Oh my. That someone with such a gap in her understanding of how evolution has been tested and verified teaches H.S. biologiy is yet another example of the failing of education in the U.S. That is simply terrifying.

          • Emily

            Mindy, thank you for your prayers, but somehow I don’t think were praying to the same God.

          • mindy

            There is only one God, Emily. I’d think you’d know that.

        • Daniel Webb

          A high school biology teacher who refers to evolution as including the formation of planet earth and the universe? Curious indeed…usually when people use evolution incorrectly after listing credentials to justify their ability to speak on the subject, it can be assumed that they’re full of crap.

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        I believe Emily, that she is a high school biology teacher. What hasn’t been asked, is where she teaches. That is what I wonder,..if she teaches in public school, or in a private Christian school that uses curriculum from AiG or Bob Jones, or another such source. If so, then her assessment would certainly make sense,

    • Rick K

      You said: ” in order to for a theory to be considered true, the hypothesis has to be able to be tested and verified”

      Um… that’s not entirely accurate. A hypothesis has to be tested against the data. It does NOT have to be re-created in a lab.

      Every fossil that fits into the nested hierarchy of species is a TEST of evolution.

      The predicted pattern of endogenous retrovirus insertions in primate DNA (including humans) is a test of evolution.

      Every species separated by an obvious, quantifiable set of genetic and chromosomal changes is a test of evolution. You don’t have to re-create the species to prove it happened any more than a jury has to witness a crime to determine guilt or innocence.

      Lenski’s experiment was a test of evolution.

      The search for Tiktaalik was a test of evolution.

      Shall I continue?

      Evolution has been tested, over and over, for 150 years.

      We didn’t have to create a black hole to prove the General Theory of Relativity. We don’t have to build a new planet to prove Tectonic Plate Theory. And we don’t have to re-live the past billion years to prove Evolutionary Theory.

      If you’re going to call yourself a scientist and you’re going to teach science to children, please try to clearly understand the above facts.

      • Emily

        Ahh, yes. You must be a science professor at a university somewhere. But, let it be known that the starting point for all of your scientific observations begin with evolution. Fossils, geological formations, etc. also prove the young earth theory if one uses that as a starting point. So, regardless of what you are trying to prove–evolution or young earth creationism–there is bias from the beginning.

        • Richard Forrest

          Fossils, geological formations, etc. also prove the young earth theory if one uses that as a starting point.

          No, they don’t, and anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or lying.

          The evidence from the natural world shows clearly and unambiguously that the earth is very ancient, and that life on earth is the product of billions of years of evolution. This conclusion is drawn not only from the science of biology, but of palaeontology, physics, geology, chemistry, cosmology and pretty well every other field of science. If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested using the tools of science, feel free to offer it. It would demolish not only evolutionary biology, but most of what we have learned over two centuries of research in many different field.

          If your faith demands that you reject science, fine. It’s up to you. But if you claim that it is supported by empirical evidence, or that it is in any way compatible with the evidence you are flatly wrong. Contrary to the outright falsehood promoted in creationist sources, the Biblical account of creation is incompatible with the empirical evidence.

          You may chose to believe in a God who deliberately plants false evidence, and sets out to deceive honest researchers investigating his handiwork, but I suggest that a God who is a liar is not worthy of worship.

        • Rick K

          Of course any evidence fits Young Earth Creationism, because God’s magic can do anything.

          God made the hundreds of geologic layers all over the world so they looked like they were millions of years old.

          God made the continents just LOOK like they had moved around.

          God distributed the fossils so that they LOOKED like they match the movement of the continents, which He also faked.

          God distributed the simplest fossil species in the rock that he made look older, and the more complex fossils in the rock he made look younger.

          God messed with the radioactive atoms in the rock so they just LOOKED like they decayed for different periods of time.

          God set all the light from the galaxies in motion so it LOOKED like the universe was billions of years old.

          God inserted bits into our DNA that just made it LOOK like humans and chimps had common ancestors who suffered from retrovirus infections.

          And God has made every natural phenomena we’ve ever studied just LOOK like it has natural causes so we won’t catch on to his deception.

          Given the power of God’s magic, any evidence fits Young Earth Creationism.

          And THAT is where Young Earth Creationism and Evolution differ. There are tests that would disprove Evolution if it failed the test. There is no test that would disprove creation through God’s magic. So you’ve just proved yourself wrong.

          Judging by the evidence, Emily, you are not a science teacher, you are not honest and you are not credible.

          • JenellYB

            Thanks Rick. My steam was building, I was just about ready to come off on her. You state the obvious more nicely than I could have.

        • Sven2547

          Fossils, geological formations, etc. also prove the young earth theory if one uses that as a starting point.

          This is nothing but Last Thursdayism.

  • hkameya

    Do creationist parents forbid their children to major in physics, biology, geology, zoology? Do they instruct their children that the hordes of scholars in those fields are teaching falsehoods!!???

    • Deacon Razorblades

      The indoctrination starts early on and unfortunately not a lot of them grow out of it. If they did this type of logic and misunderstanding wouldn’t be here today.

      • Queen Alice

        LOL! Sorry to disappoint, but I grew INTO it as I was agnostic/atheist for most of my early adult years!

        • Deacon Razorblades

          Excuse me if I go ahead and don’t believe a word you’ve said.

          • Queen Alice

            LOL! alrighty then.

    • Rick K

      Look at Emily’s posts below. She has no trouble believing those hordes of scholars are teaching falsehoods.

      • Emily

        Yes, you are correct. Proudly raising 5 children to believe in the Word of God, not man. After all, He is the one whom I’ll have to answer to one day. Best wishes.

        • Rick K

          If you are teaching your children that evolution and science are false, you’re not teaching them to believe in the Word of God.

          If you believe the Bible over the evidence in nature, you’re not teaching them to believe in God.

          The fossils weren’t made by the hand of man. The DNA in every living cell in nature was not made by the hand of man. The geologic layers were not laid down by men. The light from distant galaxies was not set in motion by men. Men’s hands don’t make the continents move or the Earth rotate around the Sun. If God created nature, then all of nature is the unfiltered Word of God.

          But every single letter of every single word in every single holy scripture in history, every Bible in every church, came from the minds and hands of men.

          You’re teaching your children to value the words of men over the language of nature. You’re teaching them something, but it is not the Word of God.

          Best wishes to you too.

          • Emily

            I don’t recall saying the God is not observable in nature. He absolutely is (hence my love of biology!). God’s fingerprints are all over. But I also believe the Bible is the “inspired Word of God” as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God breathed is is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” Of course, that doesn’t mean anything if you don’t believe in it.

          • Queen Alice

            Amen, Emily!

          • Deacon Razorblades

            don’t recall saying the God is not observable in nature. He absolutely is (hence my love of biology!)

            Someone who has a love for biology, and supposedly a teacher of it, would not have the numerous misunderstandings that you have shown repeatedly through this forum.

            If you truly believe that the bible is the inspired word of god then why do so many scriptures point to women remaining in their place? Was god a misogynist?

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            What part of the Bible? Consider that when 2 Timothy was written, there was no bible, much of what later became the New Testament had yet to be written.

        • hkameya

          I’m glad that we live in a society where we are able to state our beliefs, whether hurtful to others or not. I also appreciate that our society encourages the asking of questions, especially by younger people observing the world and comparing beliefs of others to their questions and common sense.

        • mindy

          I pray, sincerely, that your children will grow up to question everything you are teaching them. I pray that they learn to understand that you did the best you could, but that you simply weren’t capable (apparently) of greater understanding. I truly and sincerely fear for children like yours, Emily, and their effect on our world. Ignorance is NOT bliss, and what you are doing is, truly, inexcusable. I have had long conversations with many people who were raised as you are raising your children, and they have, in turn, been angry, confused, hurt, humiliated and dumbfounded at what they were taught, and not taught, as children. You are keeping from them the wonder of SCIENCE – which is not incompatible with a loving God. You are keeping from them valuable knowledge and critical thinking skills. You are not preparing them to live in this world. Posts like yours scare the holy nonsense out of me.

          • Queen Alice

            Since you don’t know Emily, you really don’t know how she is raising her children.

          • mindy

            Responding only to what she says she is doing. She may be a wonderful mother in many ways, but teaching her children that the Bible is infallible and not teaching her children a great respect for real science puts them at a distinct disadvantage as adults. And I find that sad.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            As do I. I grew up in a faith that strongly discouraged critical thought, of exploring outside the church sanctioned teachings. I’ve taken an opposite tact ever since I left it, and keep discovering new things I find wonderous.

          • $24533877

            If you’s study the Bible in depth, you would realize that it and science are not incompatible.

          • hkameya

            I’m pressing the “Like” button on this!
            A friend highly recommended to me the book “Thank God for Evolution!” by Rev. Michael Dowd. Highly rated by Amazon reviewers, it promises to tie creation, evolution and God, creating a ‘unified field theory’ so to speak. I’m still on the first chapter, so can’t say more about it.

          • $24533877

            Your self-exultation and hubris would be unbelievable, if they weren’t so blatantly apparent. Someday you’ll be accountable for your blasphemous nonsense.

    • Ryanmd

      If I told you that I disliked tomatoes, would you assume that I do not eat food? Dispite what the common thought is, evolution is only a tomato in the fast number scientific fields and studies. One does not have to buy into it to understand any science. Evolution is only a very small portion that attempts to explain how something in front of you may have gotten there . Physics is not effected by it whatsoever. Nor is my understanding of physics. I would not forbid my children from majoring in those fields. I will hope that they do.

      • Rick K

        Those who are advocating Young Earth Creationism in this thread are challenging many more fields than just evolution.

        A literal interpretation of Adam and Eve is incompatible with:

        Evolution
        Biology
        Geology
        Astronomy and Cosmology
        Physics

        And probably a few more if I thought about it longer.

        The Bible is poetry, not journalism.

        • Ryanmd

          What happened in the beginning is not answered by evolution. As I am very well read, I am not certain there is a field of study that offers perfect theory to explain the origins of the universe. As we are still working on these, until then, I do believe that in the beginning, God.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            Why conclude that something you cannot show evidence for must be the cause in favor of an answer that science is still working on? That seems a tad bit disingenuous.

          • Ryanmd

            Deacon, I met the God of the Universe in my hallway at 2am when I was 28. I was alone. I was awoken from a sleep as an alcoholic, fornicator, womanizer, druggie, yet functional in society. I was an arrogant know it all. The next day I was sober completely, no more smoking, I respected women, and humility began to come to me daily. What did this after years of attempts on my own? The God of the universe came into my house and woke me up. He told me I would follow Him from that day on, or never. Although its tough to explain, I saw Him, heard Him, and felt Him that night. It was more real than you are to me. I speak to Him daily and He speaks back. He tells me to trust Him as He leads me each day. I believe His word because I personally know Him. I cant tell you how to prove Him without repenting. But, this is why I put this book and His words before anything else. I would be a Fool to stop believing in whom I personally met.

          • Rick K

            I’m very happy for you. Congratulations on your transformation.

            But to assume that it is the result of a personal touch by the creator of the universe (and not your own mind saying “enough!”) demonstrates a level of hubris of which I cannot fathom.

            Millions of people have reported hearing, seeing and feeling apparitions – ghosts, aliens, demons, The Prophet, God, people who weren’t there. Those who are familiar with waking dream states (more common when intoxicated) can even start to control them. The voices in a schizophrenic’s head are no less real than what you saw. Did all these people really see aliens? Ghosts? Demons? Were these apparitions physically present? Or are they deluded where you were lucid?

            Are you familiar with a song called “Thank You God” by Tim Minchin?

            Your story is very inspirational. But you’ll have to forgive me if I give you the credit and if I don’t jump to the assumption that space aliens traveled billions of miles to visit you, that the government doesn’t have a special program designed to control your brain, or (most absurd of all) that the creator of the universe didn’t manifest itself just for you.

            No, I’m going to assume you did it all on your own.

          • Ryanmd

            Rick, in one sentence you give me credit to doing what millions of other people in the world cannot do, sobriety, change, humble, quit smoking tobacco, smoking pot, etc. Then the next you undermine my brain as delusional. Perhaps you think I am autistic? Having one side of me that is stronger than many, but challenged on the other side. Ill consider it

          • Rick K

            Look at it this way, if God told you to get sober – if I am to believe that such visions are actually externally produced by the creator of the universe, then I must also believe that God told Tammi Estep, Ron Lafferty and Warren Jeffs and others like them to do what they did.

            All these visions (yours included) are either real communications from God or they are all created in the mind. Since we know that the mind is capable of quite effectively producing a reality to the person that is completely different from objective reality, then I’m going to go with delusion.

            Otherwise, the creator of the universe is one twisted deity.

          • Ryanmd

            If a person is hearing from “God” to do something not in line with scripture, then you do not assume it is God. You assume it is just what the bible says it is. Demonic influence.
            “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” 1 John 4

            I will not go any further with you Rick. I do not believe you are looking for answers. You are already convinced in your mind. I leave this between you and Him from this moment forth. I will pray for you, like it or not :) Bless you and your home. Best wishes

          • Deacon Razorblades

            If a person is hearing from “God” to do something not in line with
            scripture, then you do not assume it is God. You assume it is just what
            the bible says it is. Demonic influence.

            No, we probably assume that that individual isn’t mentally stable. The bible has nothing to do with it, unless it fortified his already unstable position, which we do see happen.

          • $24533877

            Ryanmd, I join you in prayer, remembering that we can only plant the seed. Conversion itself is effected by God.

          • Ryanmd

            Karinetta, thank you for the reminder. This is something He is working on me about.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Millions of people do find sobriety, change a bad behavioral habit, give up an addiction, decide that a life of crime is just not worth the risk anymore.. They do it every single day. They do it using a variety of means, including medicine, counseling, support groups, religion, sheer stubbornness, the help of friends and family.

            Yet they all remember the struggles it took to achieve that gain, they know that it is very easy to relapse, and often they do, repeatedly, before conquering it finally. But they do.

            Sadly others never manage to overcome the hurdle.

          • Deacon Razorblades

            Deacon, I met the God of the Universe in my hallway at 2am when I was
            28. I was alone. I was awoken from a sleep as an alcoholic,
            fornicator, womanizer, druggie, yet functional in society.

            Great bit of anecdotal evidence that doesn’t really mean anything to me.

            The next day I was sober completely, no more smoking, I respected women, and humility began to come to me daily.

            Great, you changed, a lot of people do that on a daily basis.

            The God of the universe came into my house and woke me up. He told me I would follow Him from that day on, or never.

            So he gave you the follow me or else speech. Nothing like a god that requires you to follow him in order to get in his front door. I mean, gods require human affection right? That doesn’t sound like a human need at all.

            Although its tough to explain, I saw Him, heard Him, and felt Him that night.

            And I’m going to continue to say great bit of anecdotal evidence, but it doesn’t do me any good.

            I speak to Him daily and He speaks back. He tells me to trust Him as He leads me each day. I believe His word because I personally know Him.

            Some might say that that is the very definition of something that would get you “looked” at.

          • Daniel Webb

            Ladies and Gentlemen, the 13th apostle. What did he look like? Did he sound like James Earl Jones?

          • Daniel Webb

            Wait a second…in your comment a little further down on this post, you said you were doing bong rips when a friend came in and told you that he saw Jesus–and that was the beginning of your transformation. In this version of the story you were alone and asleep. Which one is your true testimony? You’ll bend over backwards to defend YEC by you’ll lie about your conversion to make it seem more impressive? Cool…

          • Ryanmd

            Daniel, you first ask me “which one is your true testimony” then you call me a liar before I answer. Daniel, why do you use “?”. You dont actually want answers. Not only can you simply read my original post, but you can read your own for the answer. “and that was the beginning of your transformation” Your words.

            First off, the rest of this story may not be suitable for minors.

            The day I was “ripping a bong” was the very beginning. The rest of the testimony of my complete conversion took another 2 weeks wrestling with God each day. I kept hearing Him over and over. I would smoke more and more to kill the feeling. It was a convicting feeling. Like I owed my life to someone. Something. Although I was functioning and had fun hobbies, I was not happy in life. I could tell I was being offered something much more fullfilling, something with purpose. Something that was intended for me from the beginning. Like it was the true meaning of life. But, I knew, just as everyone knows, that it would require serious change. Change that I did not want to happen. It would require quitting things I liked. I was simply not ready for this. So I smoked to kill the feeling. But the higher I got the more anxiety I got. I smoked for years and never felt this way. Same thing the next night. For two weeks its all I though about. After several things happened, including a flash flood, a hurricane, and another long night… I went to bed. To which I awoke from a very real dream of me dying. I dreamed I walked to the front room and plugged in the tv that was unplugged because of the storm. I was shocked so hard that I woke up. It was not a simple 110v bite as I would expect. I remember feeling like it was enough to kill me. Thats when I heard Him. I cant explain how or why I ended up on the floor in tears and snot. But, I did. The impression I got was that this was the last time He was going to offer this gift. He reminded me of a time I was offered this before in my youth. But, in order to say yes, I had to repent of all my sins. One by one I repented. I didnt just say sorry. No, He made me get up and flush my weed. Flush my booze. Cut and trash photos, tapes, delete files, etc. I must have gotten up from the floor 6 times to get rid of something before He would continue. The last impression was that I must follow Him. this meant my own path was nolonger handled by me. I remember this part took a long time wrestling. When I finally said yes, I felt an instant release of everything on me. Instant freedom. (There was more, but I am trying to keep it short as possible) After 3 hours on that floor, He was gone. Not away for good, but the force that put me to the floor released me. I was so tired I went straight to bed. I awoke to a new day. The sun was brighter. The birds were loud. I thought differently. I walked into the living room and went to plug in the tv. But, I stopped and saw water on the wall and around the socket. The wall was facing the rain and wind. It was soaked. I was barefoot and I now noticed the carpet was soaked. I was standing in water. I really dont care what anyone thinks about this….I believe I was gonna die that day. For a dumb reason. But, instead I was given life. Eternal life. I never smoked again. I never drank again. (5.5 years sober) The next 6 months was hard. I told God, “OK, I know you exist, but you have to explain dinosaurs to me!”
            You see, I loved science. Not just botany. :) I loved all science. I was a reader and an intellectual. Of sorts. The next 6 months and really ever since I have studied Genesis and science to help me believe the Bible. God answered every question I have had. I was that kid in school that asked a million questions. I still do. I had many to answer. I now have thousands of pieces of evidence in my brain that helped me grow my faith in Him.
            But, with all that worldly knowledge I gained, my faith still solely rests on Him. He came into my room that night. I didnt deserve it and still have no idea why He chose me. There is not a friend or relative that didnt see the crazy instant change in me. AA could not help me, jail didnt, people didnt, Dui’s didnt, fighting didnt, parents couldnt change me. I quit drinking 7 times, and failed.
            One night, one instant.
            Am I lying to sound cool? I think I sound ridiculous. I was a coward. No real good to anyone or society. I was getting by. Ignorant to true wisdom. I am embarrassed by who I was. I thank God that He chose this coward. I am not fixed. I am not perfect. I still sin at times. But, now when I sin I am convicted to tears. I repent and feel forgiveness. Each day moving towards removing every sin. I am a sinner saved by grace. I am still a sinner. But I thank God that He forgave me. I repented and believed. I know it sounds foolish to many of you. But, First I believed, Then he gave me proof. Backwards I know. I am logical. But, for some reason this is how He likes it. Who am I .

            Daniel, I am not mad at your accusations. i wish you would have known me before. You would see why I kinda like it.
            Your name comes from the Bible. Daniel was a prophet that received His words from God by way of visions. Dreams specifically. I pray that you one day will be given a similar dream. That He chooses to pop into your life and wake you up like He did me. I hope this helps you put together my testimony a bit more. BTW, that was just a story about 2 weeks. I have been walking with Jesus for around 6 years now. I have loads more stories. Sorry for all the space used. Bless you Daniel and anyone reading

          • $24533877

            When I was in my twenties, I kept looking for God. Now I see Him everywhere; however, a superficial Bible study won’t do.
            It will take in-depth study and meditation.

      • Deacon Razorblades

        If I told you that I disliked tomatoes, would you assume that I do not eat food?

        No, I would conclude that you disliked tomatoes. There’s no reason to go any further with as little evidence as you gave.

        Dispite what the common thought is, evolution is only a tomato in the fast number scientific fields and studies. Evolution is only a very small portion that attempts to explain how something in front of you may have gotten there .

        So if you’re going to make an analogy of size of tomatoes compared to the level of scientific consensus and understanding of a theory, then we are talking about a planetary sized tomato in relation to evolution. A tomato so large that you would have to be blind to not see it.

  • Alethinos95

    You
    can’t measure this level of stupidity without advanced math I’m
    afraid… And since Jesus didn’t do any Differential Calculus let alone
    any of
    log_b(xy) = log_b (x) + log_b .
    we’ve no way to even measure Ham’s idiocy. Quite the conundrum.
    What’s Jesus say about conundrums? Oh, that’s right, He never mentioned
    them. So apparently they don’t exist! Crap! Where is this rabbit hole
    leading ?!?!?!

  • http://www.ex-christadelphians.com/ John Bedson

    You say that the Bible “reflects the ancient worldview in which it was written.”
    That’s because it was written by humans in ancient times. There is no evidence at all that it is inspired by God. That’s why modern science flatly contradicts the Bible.
    To say that God allowed his Bible to be written with an ancient worldview which was both incorrect and pagan in its cosmology is nonsense. It just proves that God did not inspire the Bible.
    That’s the answer to this whole science/Bible problem. Science is right and the Bible is wrong because it was written by humans who did not understand modern science.

    • Jonathan Pogson

      Therefore if God did choose to author the Bible in 21st Century terms – referencing 21st century scientific evidence and understandings – we could also conclude that God does not exist, the Bible is a fraud. Quite what previous generations might make of it is anybody’s guess. Bottom line, to judge the Bible against 21st century science is not just an exercise in futility but about as provincial and shallow as a human can think.

      • http://www.ex-christadelphians.com/ John Bedson

        ” to judge the Bible against 21st century science” is to judge it against the best we know. It is to judge it against the gold standard of understanding about origins. It is to judge it against objective reality. It is to judge it against what the best minds in humanity have shown to be true. The Bible fails this test.
        Genesis could have been written in a timeless way that could never be disproved by the advance of human understanding. But that did not happen, because it was not inspired by God, only invented by ordinary Jewish scribes. There is NOTHING in Genesis that would convince anyone that a supernatural power inspired its creation.
        Instead it is a patently man-made narrative full of contradictions, mistakes, pagan cosmology and primitive morality. A snake talks. Death is the punishment for eating the wrong kind of fruit. Women are condemned to extreme suffering in childbirth for a trivial reason. The entire population of the world is murdered in a flood genocide that God lives to regret. (Gen 8:21). The whole account reeks of a human only origin and there is NOTHING in it to even remotely suggest that it has a paranormal origin.

  • Joni Loring

    I left the church because I do not see lives changed. People are not friendlier, more loving or more helpful. Christianity among those I’ve met, only makes them smug in their beliefs.

    • $24533877

      I used to share your opinion until I came to a church, where “love your neighbor as yourself”, as taught by the Bible, is practiced. Keep looking!

  • Emily

    Alas, it’s time for me to sign off and cook dinner for my family and prepare for our 10 hour Bible study (jk). It’s been fun participating. I do thank you as my children have read many of your responses and have seen the same old tactic of belittling those who don’t agree with you as well as the same old arguments against the Bible–a very good teaching lesson.

    And so you who oppose God’s Word can sleep peacefully tonight, I do encourage my children to ask their teachers and professors lots of questions and test it against what the Bible says. After all, their schools are run by the government and have their share of problems.

    Perhaps I’ll see you on the other side of eternity!

  • Guest

    This aggressive Christian opposition to evolution baffles me. I grew up in a small conservative town in Texas. My parents were conservative and raised us in a Southern Baptist church, and we attended the public school with children from other conservative families where we were taught by conservative teachers, mostly Protestant and many Baptist. In other words, my upbringing was about as conservative as it could possibly be. You know what, though? I was NEVER taught that creationism and evolution were mutually exclusive–not by my parents, not by my pastors or Sunday School teachers, and not by my teachers at the public school. I was ALWAYS taught to believe in both creationism AND evolution. When did this all change–and WHY???

    • germcheck

      Ken Ham has a big business to protect. His business span from Dinosaur fun ground to home schooling textbooks, selling false “science” to children of parents deficient in formal science education. In the process, he made millions of dollars. The last thing Ken wants is to educate our American children. He came from Australia.

  • $804043

    So Ken Ham decided to post something on his facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/554558094634872?stream_ref=10 ) . It was amusing to the say the least. At the same time he promoted an AiG book he wrote called Already Gone to use as proof of his claims. He said America’s Research Group conducted research for AiG into why kids are leaving the church and the findings were put in the book. I felt that was worth looking into and apparently the research study was called the Beemer Report.

    And guess what I found when I tried to look up this report? Barely even a whisper of it unless it was from AiG itself and no information on the study at all except its name. Not a peep from another source. It makes you wonder if they are trying to hide something about the study.

  • Rick K

    Carl Sagan once noted:

    “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'”

    What is so wrong about embracing the story told by the evidence rather than the story told by men?

    Seriously – which is more awe inspiring? The story told by the Bible (written entirely by the hands of men) was completely comprehensible to a desert tribesman 2600 years ago, and takes a few short verses to tell. It is a story completely consistent with any other human-authored fable.

    The story told by the EVIDENCE (none of which was created by the hands of men) tells us that the universe came into existence through a cataclysm of immeasurable power, so strong that the heat from the event still warms the universe over 13 billion years later. The evidence tells us of stellar birth and death, events so powerful they could strip the atmosphere off a planet from 1000 light years away. The evidence tells us we are made of minerals created in the vast atomic forges in the centers of giant stars. The evidence tells us of a massive, glorious dance of the heavens over billions of years, and of the creation of our precious planet among billions of trillions of other stars and planets. The evidence tells us of an incredibly simple, elegant process of gradual change driven by the reproductive success, leading to stunningly varied, resilient life – life so vibrant and sweeping that it changed the very nature and composition of our planet.

    Now THAT is a story worthy of a divine creator.

    Uncover your eyes, close the Bible, and pick up a telescope if you want to truly read the Word of God.

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

      Thank you Rick for your eloquent defense of the truth, both here and throughout these comments.

      • Rick K

        And thank you Dan for your blog post. Keep fighting for truth. No faith that relies on lies will (or should) survive.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      That Rick, was beautiful. Thank you.

    • MikeHaas82

      That was gorgeous, Rick. I wish the guy that Oprah Winfrey had questioned as to how he could enjoy any sense of wonder without believing in God had been as eloquent. Those who believe as she does about scientists in general, especially those who are atheist or agnostic can’t seem to understand that without a sense of wonder, there’d be no interest in science at all.

      Folks like Oprah, and the YECs we’ve read on this thread alone, probably care less about what we believe than they care about the need to confirm their own beliefs by winning adherents. It really is all about them, not you. To not acknowledge the validity of their particular brand of Christianity is intolerably insulting. I’ve often wondered: We’ve been presented a portrait of God as all-powerful, omni-present and omniscient for thousands of years. Its mind-boggling that such a God requires so much human intervention to exist and requires a Hell to punish people in a “lake of fire” for *eternity* for daring to not believe in His existence and yet we’re persuaded that such a vengeful and sadistic God is deserving of our “love”. Imagine that: The Patriarchal movement believes that an 18 month-old *baby* who is defiant and isn’t physically punished and made to express “remorse” by its screams of pain prior to getting hit by the proverbial bus, will suffer the incomprehensible agony of being burned alive for *all eternity* in a “lake of fire” by this same “loving” God. One would think that people who believe this crap would be required to seek professional help, their children removed for their own safety, instead of being handed political and legislative power by the American voter!

  • Josh

    So… Ken has to believe the way you do, Dan? Oh, isn’t that putting up walls? You accuse Ken of doing the very thing you are. Ken is not putting up his own walls, but merely professing the Truth of God’s infallible word. There are scientific facts stated in the book of Job (oldest book in the Bible, or in existence perhaps, except for the first 11 chapters of Genesis) that we have only become scientifically aware of within the last century or so. Check your (your fallible human) “facts”, bud! Before you start thinking that each of us can have our own interpretation of what scripture says, I would urge you to go read 1 Corinthians, especially the first few chapters. We should all be on the exact same page. Each of us has our job to do in ministry. Like building a house, some are responsible for laying the foundation, some are responsible for installation of utilities, some are responsible for erecting walls and attaching a roof, finally someone has to sell it or else the work done and the house as a whole would be all for not if each person did not do their job. But we should all be focused on the end result, which is filling the “house” with the Holy Spirit.

    • Rick K

      No, it’s about the fact that Ken Ham lies about the science. Josh, do you value beliefs that can only be preserved through lying?

      This isn’t about God’s word – it is about looking at physical evidence in front of your face and saying “that doesn’t exist”. It’s about cherry picking which bits of reality you accept and which you deny. It’s about implying that thousands of independent hard-working scientists are part of some anti-God conspiracy.

      Maybe you think the ends justify the means, Josh. Is that it?

      I think in any ministry, EVERYONE has the job of telling the truth. Don’t you?

    • MikeHaas82

      Sorry Josh, but you’re suggesting that in order to be a real Christian, one *must* accept Ken Ham’s preaching as infallible. You ask, “So Ken has to believe the way you do?”, but maintain that Dan *must* believe the way Ken does to be considered a Christian. Am I missing something or are you going to give us another politician’s answer like, “Ken preaches the infallible word of God”, implying the very same thing?

    • $24533877

      Nick Lotter ad Josh are the only ones so far, who have not jumped on the contemporary bandwagon of Bible- and Christian-bashing ignorance.

  • Nick Lotter

    Dan, you accuse Ken Ham of advocating “right beliefs” instead of “right practices”, but you don’t seem to see that your own tone is arrogant and belittling. Oh, the irony. Can’t you see that you are advocating your own “right beliefs” and not displaying any “right practices” in your own address to brother Ken? You, sir, are a hypocrite. You seem to have a low view of the Bible and a high view of man’s right to each his own personal interpretation and “illumination”. And how do you know your interpretation of God’s Word is correct? By the illumination of the Holy Spirit? Let me guess, “the sheep hear His voice”? What if many men, each believing they are hearing the Holy Spirit’s voice, have many different and opposing interpretations? Who has the right interpretation? Are they all equally illumined by the same Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit the author of chaos? Do you not know that we are always to test the spirits (1 John 4:1)? The Holy Spirit does speak to us, and His sheep do hear his voice, but we have a responsibility to be obedient to test whether it is indeed the Holy Spirit who speaks to us and not a deceiving spirit. The way we do this is to test whether the “leading of the Holy Spirit” we feel is actually in tune with the Bible. The Holy Spirit never contradicts the Bible, and never goes “off the map”. Dan, think about it, there is a right and wrong interpretation of the Bible. All you’re saying is this article (quite arrogantly) is that you have the right view and Ken doesn’t. You are guilty of the same charge you are laying on brother Ken. Satan and the demons work hard to deceive us. If, as you imply, Ken Ham’s work of teaching and interpreting the Bible is wrong, you are making null and void the gift of teaching given to the church by the Holy Spirit.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      Mr Ham is quite mistaken in his insistence that people are leaving the church because of evolution. They are leaving because of the arrogance people like him display. They are leaving because they are told that non christian friends and family don’t matter. They are leaving because they are told Christian friends and family aren’t really christian. They are tired of being lied to, patronized and being taught about a god who loves…but not really.

      What I find troubling about Mr Ham is his inability to handle criticism and his having to “rally the troops” anytime his teachings or his activities are questioned. I wonder what he is afraid of.

    • MikeHaas82

      Wow. With the hundreds of separate Christian denominations in the US alone, you’re suggesting that only Ken Ham’s version of Christian belief is the correct one and if someone who is Christian doesn’t accept it, he’s an apostate or heretic. So Ken Ham is infallible when preaching the word. I bet you have a real problem when the congregants of other preachers from other Christian churches make the same claim, don’t you? I bet you have a real problem with the Pope too, I suppose who claims similar when making a pronouncement regarding the faith of the Church.

      I’ve yet to see a preacher, priest or rabbi that didn’t consider themselves infallible when preaching the Bible.

      Are you suggesting as well that before Ken Ham and YEC, that those that didn’t follow or preach the same message were hell-bound? Does that include Paul the Apostle who also didn’t preach YEC? Jesus certainly didn’t, him too?

    • Richard Forrest

      but you don’t seem to see that your own tone is arrogant and belittling.
      I suggest that what is “arrogant and belittling” is the creationists who dismiss the cumulative findings of generations of scientists honestly investigating the universe for no reason other than that they contradict the narrow, literal interpretation of the Bible they demand, and which is a relatively recent invention of fundamentalists which has not been an article of faith for most Christian churches over the past two thousand years.

      What makes this arrogance worse is the fact – and it is a fact – the creationists such as Ham are quite happy to rely on misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods about science to promote their agenda.

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

      “And how do you know your interpretation of God’s Word is correct?”

      The difference between me and you and Mr. Ham is that I don’t know that my interpretation is correct — I don’t hold my understanding of the Bible with epistemic certainty. Your epistemology seems based solely on the Holy Spirit speaking to you and is apparently virtually infallible. I suggest that rather than relying only on that sensus divinitatis for knowledge of God’s world, you also exercise your God-given mind in critical evaluation of the evidence available to you.

  • MikeHaas82

    While discussing the possibility of extraterrestrial life (not UFOs) with my fundie ex-father in law years ago, he postulated that it couldn’t exist because it wasn’t mentioned in the Bible. I told him that the Bible also didn’t mention the then-unknown continents of North and South America and the people and animals that lived there. He proceeded to launch into a tirade of ad hominems I won’t repeat here. I imagine if we’d just discovered Australia, literalists would call photographic evidence of the wildlife there an insult to Biblical accuracy and live specimens, “frauds”. Were there kangaroos on the Ark? How did Noah bring them all the way to the Middle East? Oooh! Oooh! I know the answer to this one! They’d merely claim that God didn’t bother with plant and animal life in Australia until it was time for men to discover it! When you believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, anything is possible.

    Others here have said it here better, but YECs reduce the power and creativity of God down to the level of a side-show act. We know oil is a fossil fuel and that its existence is finite. How do YECs explain the time it takes to develop? How do they explain Plate Tectonics? The proliferation and uplift of a mountain range? The wind and water erosion that created the beauty of the Grand Canyon and surrounding areas? Correct me if I’m wrong but I have the impression they have no issue with say, the life-cycle of a star and perhaps the age of the Solar Solar system, our Milky Way Galaxy or the vast distances between stars and the even greater distances between galaxies. With all those vast periods of time and vast distances – why get all hung up over a silly and long-debunked time line produced 200 years-ago that is reckoned upon among other things, the existence of a 900 year-old man? Do any of them realize just how *short* 6,000 years really is? The short answer is that many of them are perfectly well aware of just how old our Planet is.

    Someone else on this thread mentioned that we don’t debate Holocaust deniers, Moon Landing deniers and “Flat Earth” believers because its a non-productive, silly waste of time and energy, especially when we know that many of these folks are merely contrarians who find entertainment value in getting people to give them publicity, wasting their time and money in the effort. Ken Ham has built a very nice living around drawing people into the side-show tent. Does anyone think he’d be willing to acquiesce and throw it all away? I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if this huckster was in reality, an atheist or agnostic.

    The answer to these questions I fear is much more sinister. Many or most of these people are Dominionists. YEC is merely a means to an end. It doesn’t matter if Ken Ham really believes the nonsense he spews or not. One definition of a conservative is someone whose World View requires very simple answers to very complex issues. They are easy to manipulate and draw in. YECs don’t merely want Creationism taught as an “alternative” in our Schools. Creationism is necessarily a Christian belief and a very specific form of Christianity. Children are allowed to pray in School any time they want to. It isn’t about “prayer in school”. Its about indoctrinating our children with fundamentalist Christian concepts. Its about creating voters that allow these Dominionists to pass laws that will eventually lead to a Theocracy – Christian “Sharia” Law. Its about eventually being able to legally dispose of their “enemies”: Homosexuals, Feminists, Liberals and Liberal Christians, Jews and Muslims. Its about establishing a Patriarchal society in which women are only allowed to participate in society along a very rigid set of rules, much like Saudi Arabia and Hitler’s Germany. If you’d like a chilling peak into what this society would like, read, “A Handmaid’s Tale”.

    The answer is *not* to debate them. Its a silly waste of time. The answer is to be vigilant and ensure that any and every effort to legislate the teaching of this filth in our public schools is soundly defeated. FOX insists there is a “war on Christmas” but what they’re actually addressing are efforts by those of us to maintain the separation of Church and State which these people are slowly and successfully eroding. We also debate Climate Change deniers. Why? Because we realize the danger they pose to the entire World. And because unlike Holocaust deniers and Moon Landing deniers, Climate Change deniers have political power and influence and so do Creationists! But the answer isn’t to debate them – its to soundly defeat their efforts to continue the destruction of our planet unabated because it fulfills their current industrial profit model. We need to defeat the YECs and Dominionists because they are a *dangerous* threat to our freedom of conscience, our freedom of expression and our freedom of religion. They already have an arena to teach their religious fantasies – their own churches, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Allowing them to move their pulpit into our schools will sound the death knell of 1st Amendment rights and the United States as we know it.

    • Rick K

      A few important things were left out of the Bible – like cells, viruses, bacteria, electromagnetic radiation, the nature of stars, the existence of galaxies, and everything else not known by the humans who embellished the history and invented the stories of the Bible.

      It is a book completely and utterly devoid of anything resembling supernatural or divine inspiration, and is obviously and entirely the work of human hands and human minds from a period of early human literacy.

      There are some good ideas and some evil ideas presented in the Bible, but they are all human ideas.

      It is poetry, not journalism. And those who follow Biblical Inerrancy, who take it literally, are making a conscious choice to forsake reality. Their choice is no different than that of the people who take Harry Potter literally and gather to wear robes and practice spells. Their choice is no different than those who decide that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired, and who sequester themselves in their little walled compounds in Arizona and Texas.

      Just as the Fundamentalist Mormons build walls around their communities to keep out the influence of modern monogamous society, so do Biblical Literalists build walls around their minds to keep out the influence of evidence and science. And Ken Ham is their spokesman.

      • MikeHaas82

        Ramen!

    • xscd ✱

      Excellent comments! Thank you.

      • MikeHaas82

        Thanks very much!

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/112743459266731535020/posts Steve Greene

    People leave church, and leave religion, for many reasons. But, in fact, many people leave church and leave religion precisely because they figure out (whether through education or some other path) that the religious notion that the Bible actually has anything to do with any actual god seriously lacks any credibility (i.e., “the Bible can’t be trusted”). An education in science is certainly one of those paths.

    By the way, I happen to be one of those people, so I merely find it amusing when Dan Wilkinson and other moderate Christians use rhetoric in which they pretend that people like me don’t exist.

    Do note that, with the example of Ken Ham, we are referring not just to evolution, since Ham is a young earth creationist, and young earth creationists deny the antiquity of the earth (geology), the antiquity of the universe (astronomy), and deny all sorts of other aspects of things in other areas of science (such as physics and chemistry) relevant to geology and astronomy, so it is not just evolution we’re talking about. Creationists deny any part of science they don’t like when they feel it contradicts their religious beliefs. This is because creationism is religion, not science, and the following of religious doctrine based on religious faith, as being a fundamental aspect of religious belief, motivates religious believers to believe things regardless of whether there is good real world evidence for such beliefs and often motivates them to adhere to such beliefs regardless of good real world evidence to the contrary (i.e., even when their beliefs have been shown to be scientifically wrong). While young earth creationists take this religious motivation to the extreme, it is precisely this same motivation that drives the anti-science attitude of all creationists.

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/ Dan Wilkinson

      I believe that you exist 😉

  • Katherine Harms

    Mr. Wilkinson, Your acerbic and scornful rebuttal of Mr. Ham’s position is not very Christlike. I agree with you that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and I probably agree with some of your other ideas, too, if I could ever get past the fiery darts you throw in every direction. Isn’t there a better way for Christians to discuss this issue? Must we eat our own in order to thrive?

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Dan isn’t throwing darts in every direction. He’s throwing darts in one very specific direction: toward ideas that are doing Christianity a very great deal of harm. There’s nothing Christ-like about letting people use God and the Bible to harm others–and Christian fundamentalism certainly does do a great deal of harm to, for instance, women, children, and LGBT people. I so tire of Christians hiding their unwillingness to combat evil behind a facade of piety. If you don’t want to fight the good fight, don’t. But don’t lob accusations of being inadequately Christian (of all things) at those of us who do.