Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News


Creationists Launch Scientific Journal

posted by nsymmonds

By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service

(RNS) Answers in Genesis, the Christian ministry that founded the $27 million Creation Museum in Kentucky last year, has now launched an online technical journal to publish studies consistent with its biblical views.
The Answers Research Journal will disseminate research conducted by creationist theologians and scientists “that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.”
Ken Hamm, president of Answers in Genesis, said submissions will be peer-reviewed, but the journal’s guidelines discourage asking non-creationists to conduct those reviews.
The journal is needed because of academic bias in most scientific journals against creationists, Hamm said.
“As soon as you overtly say it’s to do with creation, they say it’s not science and refuse to publish it,” he said.
Earlier this month, a top panel of U.S. scientists said that belief in the theory of evolution and religious faith are not incompatible, but that creationism has no place in science classes.
The panel also laid out scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.



  • pagansister

    This “journal” should appear when someone Googles “Bible fiction”. If one believes “a god plopped people on this earth” just like we are now then they will enjoy this new and upcoming on line “technical(?)” journal.
    “As soon as you overtly say it’s to do with creation, they say it’s not science and refuse to publish it.?
    That’s easy…creationism isn’t science. Duh!
    And they are afraid to have the articles peer- reviewed by “non-creationists.” Gee, wonder why?

  • Ruairi

    Hey Pagansister,
    We might actually show them up with our ideas and they can’t have that.
    It is scary that they think this is equal to all the years of research and study that has been done. Some people will believe anything.

  • Aiko

    >pagansister: “…creationism isn’t science. Duh!”
    Seeing as how science is the observance and study of the natural world we live in, evolution isn’t science either – simply another belief-system. Macro-evolution, the evolving of one species into another, has never been observed by science.
    >”…they are afraid to have the articles peer- reviewed by >’non-creationists.’ Gee, wonder why?”
    Possibly because evolutionists fail to accept they’re solidified in their own world-view and fail to acknowledge their own belief-system and the conclusion thereof defines their thesis. ot
    Square-peg in round-hole. If it don’t fit…pound on the given evidence until it does.

    theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē|
    noun ( pl. -ries)
    a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin’s theory of evolution. (Webster’s dictionary, 2005)

  • Aiko

    >Ruairi: “It is scary that they think this is equal to all the years of >research and study…”
    Least Answers in Genesis is open and honest regarding their world-view and their beliefs.
    Which is more than can be said for those who claim evolutionary theory is actual evolutionary fact when no such thing has been provem.

  • Anonymous

    Pagansister,
    What an absolute bigoted, ignorant statement you just made on this post.

  • nnmns

    First, I’d be amazed if the journal is “Scientific” but it may be entertaining. In fact their goal to: disseminate research conducted by creationist theologians and scientists “that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.” shows it’s not scientific since science goes where the evidence takes it and this bunch will sift the evidence for anything they can portray as supporting their goal. Case closed.
    Second, pagansister, they attack when they can’t refute. You are doing good work and doing it very well.
    Third, here are refutations of creationist arguments. Regarding not being able to watch one species evolve into another from beginning to end, see #12.

  • pagansister

    mystery poster:
    IMO creationism is bogus. You obviously seem to think otherwise. The truth about how we crawled out of the slime and evolved is hard to take for those who have the impression (fossels not withstanding) that we were plopped here, and started our lives. Whatever gets it for you. However,that way of thinking should be taught in religious settings, for those with that thinking. Not in a public school setting. Obviously if folks check out the soon to be website, or “journal” then they can make up their own minds. I just think it’s strange that the folks doing that website don’t want “non-creationists” to review the shows. Tells you something, huh?
    Aiko:
    You mentioned that Answers in Genesis are open and honest regarding their views. You mentioned that science hasn’t observed the evolution of the species on this planet. Are you saying that there were observers of “Adam and Eve” indicating that a god plopped them here, under that tree with the apples? No body actually “evolved” from the ocean that that god was supposed to have created? Who was the creationist observer? And your source is? (think I know the answer to that). Think I’ll go with the scientists and anthropologists who have found the remains of early men and women, and the other creatures that came out of the ocean, and eventually evolved into all the creatures on the planet earth.

  • Badger3k

    This online journal is neither scientific nor technical. I’ve downloaded the papers up so far to show students how not to do anything . All this is is an attempt for these non- and anti-scientific people to try to gain legitimacy for those who don’t know any better. Coming from AIG, an organization that shamelessly lies and distorts virtually everything they can, this is pitiful. It’s a shame that many people might fall for this pathetic attempt to keep their superstitions alive.

  • pagansister

    Ruairi:
    “We might actually show them up with our ideas and they can’t have that. …………..Some people will believe anything.”
    Got that right!
    Thanks, nnmns.

  • nnmns

    I looked at the website and it is a joke. Go there if you need a laugh. Of their first two articles, one is about a “researcher” deciding on what day of creation microbes were created. His conclusion: when, e.g. the master weaver made fish it also made fish-systems, including the microbes that go along with them. That would make sense, because otherwise if the microbes came earlier the fish would have to go find them or vice versa. But why didn’t Genesis say word one about microbes? Or viruses, which he concludes have to do with “the fall”.
    The other article has to do with convincing us granite formations could happen fast enough to fit into young earth creationism’s timeframe. I take it this will only push young earth creationism, but it would be fun to see a debate between 6,000 year creationists and those holding out for more realistic time spans. If you want to submit a paper you can download the directions. I have not looked at them, but may.

  • Anonymous

    Creationism about indoctrination, not education. While I have heard of young-earth ideas on the earth — flood geology, some water canopy thing, whatever — they sound interesting, but they are as classified in academics as myth as all the other world’s religion.
    If you want Genesis in the classroom, you better just as well add all the other world’s creationist stories — or at least those of the major world religions — and really confuse the children. Public schools and the government should just deal with the secular side of life and have church deal with the spiritual.

  • cknuck

    Hey pagan when you talk about we “crawling out of slime”; speak for yourself please.

  • nnmns

    cknuck, don’t worry it wasn’t you, as far as I know who crawled out of the slime, it was your (and my) great great …(LOTS of greats here) great grandparents.
    And I wish Beliefnet would get a better sense of what “science” is. This journal’s only connection to science is to be totally non-scientific. Science is about teasing the truth out of the evidence they can get from the world, and about finding clever new ways to get further evidence. This journal is about justifying a myth. Even people who write only about religion should understand that.
    Oh, ok some scientists who get grants from tobacco companies, oil companies and maybe drug companies also write what their bosses want to hear and, while embarrassing to science they are not doing science. Our problem there comes in realizing it’s propaganda, not science. As someone said, Answers in Genesis is not disguising what they are doing.

  • pagansister

    Don’t worry, cknuck,it wasn’t you or me,(though that isn’t a problem for me) it was as nnmns pointed out, our ancestors, millions, millions and even more millions of years ago. Newsweek(Jan.28th) just had an article on the very thing. A book written by a paleontologist, Neil Shubin,about a 375 million-year-old fossil of a fish that appeared to have both neck and hands. Was interesting…Too long to go into here.
    What is your problem with the fact that we humans evolved out of the ocean and the slime? I think most of us turned out pretty good, considering the time it took to get into human form. Or does it contradict the Genesis version? Evolution in itself is rather incredible. Why can’t it coincide with the creation bit with you god?

  • Anonymous

    And SOME people obviously haven’t yet CRAWLED out of the slime. They prefer to remain in that ignorant muck and wallow in it. Sheesh already.

  • pagansister

    nnmns;
    checked on that site, and your’re right. Was good for a laugh!

  • Windsor’s Child

    I tend to hold my tongue on a lot of the discussions here because, well, because lots of us here don’t really know what we are talking about (including me, sometimes)! However, I cannot keep silent when such an obvious error is commited on both sides of this discussion.
    Science is a process – a very lengthy process – of establishing fact from observable data. Before something can become a scientific law, it must start as an hypothesis, in which the observer says, “I think this is what the truth is.” The observer must then test and retest and test some more. If everything lines up the way the observer expects it to, in other words, if all the testing supports the observer’s hypothesis, then the observer can raise the matter to the next level. The hypothesis becomes a theory in which the observer says, “I have shown by my own studies that this hypothesis is true.
    But now others must be able to repeat the testing over and over again and get the same results every time. Only when all testing is consistent and sunstantiated by informed observers can the theory bcome a scientific law. Then the observer can say, “According to my studies and multiple and consistent studies by multiples of informed observers, I can declare this is a law that is always true, and always able to be verified by anyone willing to repeat the tests.”
    So tell me, how do you test and retest evolution? It is impossible to see it happening. It cannot be duplicated in any tests invented for that purpose. Different scientists come up with different results from the same tests. In other words, evolution is no more science than is creationism. Both can only exist as theories because neither can be proven by impartial and repeatable testing.
    Whether you believe evolution explains how we got here, or creation does, depends entirely on your worldview, your presuppositions. If you believe science is capable of answering all questions and is able to substantiate things that cannot be verified through exhaustive testing, then you will think creation is a joke. On the other hand, if you believe in God Who created everything, then visiting an evolutoinary website will give you a good laugh. Since I believe in God as Creator and sustainer of all, I have had many a good laugh at what those who believe in evolution have proposed, just as an evolutionist might laugh at a creationist website.
    It all depends on your basic belief system. In other words, creation and evolution are both faith systems based on presupositions individuals hold by faith. As such, neither is science. As such, neither can be science.

  • Gallant Ladd

    Dear nnmns,
    The #12 argument at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true is bogus. By its definition of species, some bigoted people of different races would be difference species, because they would refuse to breed with each other.

  • jestrfyl

    Well, if this isn’t the oxymoron of the week! I guess now that Weekly World News & BatBoy are gone, this should be expected to happen.
    I will be amused to see how they deal with the entire concept of objectively verifiable evidence. There is a point to reliegion and a point to science. Any attempt by either to become the other is simply stepping off into the silly zone. Have fun with this one!!

  • nnmns

    I’m no biologist, though I am biological; I’m not an expert on evolution though I’m a product of evolution. There, that’s off my chest.
    For several examples of speciation go here. 5.3.5 might be of special interest but the section is full of examples.
    For an interesting and convincing discussion on proofs of macro evolution go here.
    Science is not a matter of faith unless you distrust your senses and/or your logical abilities. In the total absence of very convincing miracles, faith in any of the standard gods is baseable only on training at an early age or need in a high stress situation or something that happens in someone’s head.
    Needless to say, I see science and common sense as a lot more reliable. Even if I were inclined to go with faith, how could I choose which of the various competing faiths to go with?

  • nnmns

    “It is impossible to see it [evolution] happening.”
    I posted two voluminous sources, one of which shows many cases where a new species appearing has been recorded. It’s been held up so let me just insert this from the Talk Origins FAQ, an entry by James Meritt:
    We’ve seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:
    “Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.”
    The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It’s called “A Breed Apart.”

  • Windsors Child

    Goatsbeard plants adapting to their surroundings is not proof of evolution. Of course all living things adapt to their surroundings. And all species can be manipulated to produce variations of themselves. For example, dogs are a varied sort, all of them being adapted from the wolf, yet bearing different characteristics and appearances. A German shepherd resembles a wolf in many ways, but a wire-haired terrier does not. None of these are new species; they are simply adaptations of an existing species. I suspect the goatsbeard plants represent the same phenomenon. They adapted. When they sprout legs and walk away, or when they start growing oranges, or when they get wings and fly, perhaps that would be evidence for one species becoming a new species. Goatsbeard plants seems to me to be awfully flimsy stuff to use to “prove” evolution. And they laugh at creationists!

  • Anonymous

    I would imagine that the same 4 scientist will be busy filling this journal with their fiction. I can’t wait!

  • golfdad1

    Thanks for intelligent comments from pagansister and nnmns.
    Windsors Child, your schema of how science works is not very close to the truth, and in part, that led you to the erroneous equation of what you termed the “belief systems” of evolution and creationism.
    The theory of evolution (TOE) is currently the ONLY explanation of the diversity of living organisms that inhabit this planet, and the even greater diversity that have inhabited it through its 4.5-billion year history, that is supported by ANY credible evidence. The mass of evidence that supports (no scientist claims “proves”) the TOE is comparable to that which supports the atomic theory of matter, which “belief system” I note seems not to be a problem for creationists.
    The idea of the origin(s) of life presented by the creationists, on the other hand, is not supported by ANY evidence acquired by competent scientists — biologists and geologists. To my knowledge, not a single statement made by creationists about origins has been subjected to ANY scientific testing. Fully 95% of creationist’s “evidence” consists of, generally not very intelligent or convincing, criticisms of alleged shortcomings of the TOE. At best, that would constitute only an argument against (TOE), not for (creatinionism).
    To equate as equally deserving “beliefs”, on the one hand, a theory of origins that is supported by (and has yet to be contradicted by) a markedly large body of rigorous scientific testing with, on the other hand, the reworked (from the stories of earlier tribes) folk tales and myths of a markedly ignorant iron age tribe is profoundly irrational.
    I submit that the notion of origins contained in Genesis would not have received a scintilla of serious consideration by anyone, if it were not part of those writings believers (that’s the legitimate use of the word “belief” in this discussion) hold sacred and true — on the basis, of course, of NO credible evidence.

  • nnmns

    A definition, I think the standard definition in many circumstances, for a new species is one that can’t breed with its ancestor species. So this is real speciation.
    And if you expect to live through one species evolving into another don’t expect it to be people or dogs or anything with a significant lifespan. But if you were seriously interested in a roof of evolution based on a large animal how about the whale? How did the whale evolve, in particular how did the blowhole evolve from a land animal? If you’ll Google the phrase (I’d give the URL but it might be held) “The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence” then go to the first link you get you’ll find a very convincing article, based on several independent lines of evidence, that whales and cows descended from the same ancestor.
    If you are not interested in whether a proof of evolution exists you can, of course, ignore it. But if you make the effort to read it I think you’ll become a believer.

  • nnmns

    I didn’t mean “roof of evolution”, but of course “proof”. And as golfdad points out I should have said “extremely convincing evidence for evolution”.
    Anyway, wc, we’ll see how objective you are here I think. I hope you pass.

  • nnmns
  • Lowell

    These guys are delusional:
    The journal submission guidelines:
    ————————————
    1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
    2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
    3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
    4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

    The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.
    ————————
    Translation: If it doesn’t reject all modern proven scientific knowledge and say that “goddidit” less than 6000 years ago, it’s not going to get published.
    Good luck with that, guys.

  • cknuck

    A theory that “convinces us to believe” is not necessarily the truth, its the just the best we can do on a subject we cannot prove. nnmns your excitement over the goatsbeards inspires your faith in evolution my faith is inspired by God moments I have experienced.
    It is my belief that both faith groups operate from evidenced gathered that supports our belief. I don’t believe scientist can date anything over 50,000 years with any degree of accuracy anymore than creationists can say when God created the earth. But I do believe we were created and we are more then just evolved earth snot, other wise we’d see more of evolution other than flowers.
    What would really make us evolved is, if we could believe evolution or creation without trying to belittle each other or warring about it when we disagree; and speaking for ourselves not assuming we can speak for everyone.
    By the way nice level headed post windsor’s child

  • Lynda Aschauer

    Through Quantum Physics the evidence of creation does exist…right along side evolution. I think we all need to stop thinking exclusively

  • Dave Harn

    Heb. 11:3
    “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
    Say what you will I believe God, in His word, has given us a statement of fact. Not an explination of how. I don’t believe we could with our finite minds could understand the “how”. As God asked Job “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? deckare, if thou hast understanding”. Which of us has THAT understanding?
    When it’s all said and done we will know as we should, To paraphrase “every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”.
    Believe what you will but as for me and my house we believe that “IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED…”.

  • nnmns

    “…other wise we’d see more of evolution other than flowers.”
    That’s a misleading statement. Every living thing you see is a result of evolution. And probably every species is evolving, if some extremely slowly.
    But it takes a lot of lifetimes for a species to change enough to, for instance, not be able to breed with its parent species. So don’t expect people to evolve into whatever our distant offspring will be in your lifetime; same for dogs and frogs and hogs. But I gave an url above for a great explication of the evolution of whales. It points out intermediate stages and gives independent evidences that whales and, e.g. cows are closely related.
    “…but as for me and my house we believe that “IN THE BEGINNING…”
    I’ll hope some in your house advance beyond that in their thinking, whether they tell you or not.

  • golfdad1

    AMEN, nnmns.
    And I’m not generally in the habit of employing religious language to express my gratitude and admiration!

  • cknuck

    nnmns we have lived lifetime and have been recording our history for some time but still there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either theory. I find it interesting that both theories take a measure of faith. You can tell me that a whale is related to a cow and that we are related to monkeys all you want but I see no evidence of that other then we all were created on earth out of the same earth properties, and some of the ways our bodies work are going to be the same.

  • pagansister

    Dave H.:
    Your”IN THE BEGINNING etc.” is based on a 2000 year old book, written by men and copied and altered over that 2000 years. It was written to promote and continue to promote a certain religious view. Who knows if there is really a god like creature that demands “praise, worship and obedience” of it’s follows, or if that god like creature actually had anything to do with how anything got on this planet. Or the other planets also…as I find it hard to believe that we are the only living beings in the Universe. IF indeed that god like creature does exist, who is to say that she/he didn’t use the method of evolution to get us (humans) to the point we are now? Evolution left the weak designs to die, and the strong ones to continue to evolve and specialize for the areas they lived in. For a person of 110 pounds, there is 7 tablespoons of natural salt in the body. Salt is in the oceans, so why would it seem impossible that we crawled out of that vast big beautiful ocean and onto the land to gradually, over millions of years, get to this place? Personally, I don’t think any god had anything to do with how the plants, animals etc. got here. 2000 year old books aren’t convincing.
    cknuck:
    Guess you’re not impressed with the digs that have brought up remains of our ancestors who stangely look a lot like us.

  • golfdad1

    Dear Windsors Child:
    I do want to apologize to you personally for the intemperate tone of my post of last night. I stand by the science and rational opinions I expressed in the post, but I have come to want to repudiate the manner in which I stated them. You are almost certainly not significantly irrational, and I have no grounds to think you are stupid or intellectually obstinate; and I did, at least, intimate that creationists, and by extension you, were. I was in error, and I was unkind. I am sorry.
    I have also begun to reflect that, for a very large number of people in the world, and in America (where my experience actually lies), the decision between evolution and creationism is , in fact, a matter of trust or, even, belief. I studied biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and geology in college (I am not a working scientist, however.) I can follow in some detail the research and the arguments in favor of the evolutionary perspective. Likely, however, fully 70% or more, of Americans cannot. Simply, they lack the requisite knowledge. Like any other scientific theory, that of evolution is complex and to be fully understood and accepted (preferred over other potential explanations) requires one to know a lot of complicated and difficult chemistry, genetics, and general biology.
    So, for most Americans, the issue is one of whom do they trust – the scientists or the preachers and the preachers’ assistants at the creation-“science” institutes. I submit they have excellent reasons to trust the scientists and virtually no good reasons to trust the creation-apologists, but apparently, it does not seem that way to many people. And, this fact must inform the argument/debate, at least from the perspective of those of us who find the methods and results of science superior to those of theology.

  • golfdad1

    “…still there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either theory.”
    The key word above, I aver, is “conclusive.” If that means “proven,” then no statement humans have ever made, including the two “isms” under consideration here, is conclusive. From any number of philosophical considerations, proof, is not possible for humans.
    There is, however, extensive tested evidence to support the theory of evolution. That evidence of convincing to persons conducting rational inquiry. It is also true that there exists NO tested evidence to support the Genesis account of creation. That has to be accepted and promulgated purely on the basis of faith.

  • recovering ex-Pentecostal

    WC,
    “Goatsbeard plants adapting to their surroundings is not proof of evolution.”
    And where is there ANY “proof” for Creationism at all?

  • nnmns

    “You can tell me that a whale is related to a cow and that we are related to monkeys all you want but I see no evidence of that”
    Did you read and try to understand the essay on whale evolution I pointed out above? I really think if makes a convincing case.
    And I think golfdad is right; I don’t know how evolution is taught in HS biology classes around the US but I’m guessing there’s a lot of variation. It’s a shame when someone leaves HS without an understanding of evolution, and a lot of other things. But of course the preachers whose income depends on people believing in a version of Christianity that can’t coexist with evolution and other facts from science, those preachers desperately want people to not understand evolution.

  • recovering ex-Pentecostal

    Actually, it’s a shame when someone leaves HS without an understanding of SCIENCE. I wonder why people who call themselves Christian are afraid of science, and why they want their children to grow up in ignorance of it?

  • cknuck

    nnmns I am no fan of many of the professionally religious but I do know that plenty of reasonable Christians have approached evolution with open minds and found it not enough.
    There are studies that report we are not related to primal beings whose skeleton remains has been discovered. The simple fact that mammals have some sort of related designs does not to me indicate they are evolved forms of each other; there would be in-between species. There is not one form of life on this earth that would support an accidental theory, if that was so then life would be a lot less structured but have more resemblance of a series of accidents, no beauty, no reason, just random shaped accidents.
    ex pentecostal, you have a nicely evolved view that there are Christians and then there is science, when in fact there are many Christian scientist, doctors, and researchers.

  • pagansister

    Yes, cknuck, there are Christian scientists, doctors and researchers, and many have no problem with evolution. They figure it is how their god “made” the world and it’s contents.

  • cknuck

    pagan I try not to speak for other people, I learn this by observing people who do.

  • nnmns

    “…if that [evolution] was so then life would be a lot less structured but have more resemblance of a series of accidents, no beauty, no reason, just random shaped accidents.”
    That opens up an opportunity for a new conversation that I don’t recall here. Mostly we say the same old things in slightly different ways.
    I think life is a result of a series of “accidents” a.k.a. random events. And there have been a whole lot of those which led to life forms that died out. We, and the ants and the (wild) orchids and the acacia trees and so on are the result of an endless number of experiments, each of which succeeded. So pat yourself on the back over that; thank your lucky stars, or even your god.
    Now why does it seem beautiful and perhaps reasoned? Well, the successful forms no doubt have some things in common beyond our common ancestor of about 3.5 billion years ago. Some chemistry and some physics and some mechanical designs work well enough to survive and a lot more didn’t. So we see a fair bit of commonality and I guess it’s natural for us to call at least some of it beautiful.
    And I’m not sure what you mean by “reasoned” but it’s utterly logical that we share genes with all our co-descendants of the 3.5 billion years of life. And it’s logical that those of us that are the closest “cousins” would share the most genes and the most structural similarities (with a few exceptions due to convergent evolution; different kinds of critters using similar niches). So anyway there’s some reason for you.
    Now as for those “studies that report we are not related to primal beings whose skeleton remains has been discovered”, I’m not sure what you mean but it’s reasonable some of the humanoid species whose skeletons have been discovered are more like our great great uncles than our great great grandparents. A lot of humanoid species would have surely died out, like the Neanderthals. That is no indication evolution is wrong, in fact it’s perfectly consistent with evolution. But I don’t know that the Bible had anything to say about those species. Of course it didn’t have to.

  • cknuck

    I like your last presentation nnmns, I do happen to disagree with the whole “successful form” part and here is my reasoning: I believe that although we have developed to be most ruthless, we are indeed fragile and if not for the grace of God would have been wiped out several times over. We need so much we are depleting the earth without regard. We may have even wiped out our “uncles” the life forms you mentioned.
    I am confident that we will come to our end well before we find out anything about the “beginning”, well except for folk like myself who have seen the evidence of God, talked to Him, and have an ongoing relationship with Him and have no need to look any further.
    Now I’m not trying to make you puke or convert you but I’m just trying to let you know how it works for me, and I understand all of scientific talk that golfdad1 and yourself have shared but I just think its so small in terms of conclusive data and the real answer is so big that it engulfs our miniscule minds and we will come to our end far before we come to a provable conclusion. I love science but it cannot contain the answers we seek, I mean it’s our best solution for earthly concerns, but I’m sure even you cannot argue that there are things far beyond its reach.

  • Anonymous

    “I believe that although we have developed to be most ruthless, we are indeed fragile and if not for the grace of God would have been wiped out several times over.”
    We are a large (almost surely too large) and varied species. Some of us are certainly ruthless in various ways, others of us are vegetarians to avoid killing animals to eat (not me), some devote their time to charities for the weaker. And I expect those things make us a stronger, less vulnerable species. But our greed and especially our greedier folks who ignore global warming and pay others to pretend it’s not happening may be the death of us. And you, I think, and I remember not so long ago when our most aggressive people could have done us in with H-bombs to prevent the other side from prevailing. You can thank your god and I’ll thank good luck and the wisdom of some people that cooler heads were in charge and prevailed.

  • jestrfyl

    Arguing against evolution is like arguing against February. Lots of folks would prefer to skip February, but there it is in all its wintry glory.
    Evolution is simply what is. Even Martin Luther had a terrible time with Bishop Copernicus statements that the earth was NOT the center of the universe. You can deny it, as did Luther, or you can see how God is present in the new discoveries.
    And why deny the beauty of the poetry of the beginning of Genesis or John. They were meant as theological and not scientific statements. Genesis was as political as it was artistic – a counter story to the Babylonian saga (their captors at the time it was composed and collected). So let them stand as they were intended and not build them into something they were never intended to be. That is poor theology and useless science.

  • nnmns

    And cknuck, don’t forget tree-huggers. In your description of us as a ruthless species, environmentalists are probably the least ruthless of us all; they have real concern for other species and try to do something about it. How many other species are we aware of with members doing that?
    I think environmentalists figure mightily in the moral highlights of the species Homo Sapiens.

  • nnmns

    “By its definition of species, some bigoted people of different races would be difference species, because they would refuse to breed with each other.”
    Gallant Ladd, I think it’s a matter of desperation and opportunity. Slave owners, who no doubt thought their slaves were of an inferior race, bred with them like minks (speculation on my part). And if I were on a little island with a woman I originally found quite reprehensible I expect as time went by opinions would change. But I think you were kidding anyway, like I sometimes do.

  • Mark

    “there are Christian scientists, doctors and researchers, and many have no problem with evolution.”
    Because they have been indoctrinated by 200 years of secular sciencfic conjecture by fallible, Fallen Man. They also have certainly not thought through the theological implications of a belief in 2 things that are mutually exclusive. Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s Bulldog) was an ardent humanist. Huxley went around the world ‘preaching’ evolutionism and putting down Christianity. But when he saw the theologians of the day accepting evolution and then adding it to the Bible (but still trying to defend Christianity), Huxley pointed out to these compromisers how inconsistent that was. He showed them that if they believed in evolution, they couldn’t believe in the doctrines of the New Testament, and would have to throw away the whole message of Christianity. Even a secular humanist recognized the foundational nature of Creation to Christianity. People who claim to believe both have not considered what it means to have hundreds of millions of years of death and disease before sin.

  • Thelemite

    This publication deserves to be called a “scientific journal” as much as Kent Hovind deserves to ba called a “doctor.”
    Even if I was with the camp that falsely believes that being a scientific theory somehow makes something less scientific, evolution would still be the best educated guess I’ve heard to explain who we are and how we got here. Creationism simply doesn’t make any logical sense, and there is no “evidence” for it that real geologists, cosmologists, biologists or physicists haven’t been able to explain away. The whole concept is usually thrown around by people with degrees in theology who dabble in the sciences (or just surf the internet) just enough to find some first-glance problems with evolution, which leads to the claim that real scientists support this bologna. I’m sure some legitimate scientists support intelligent design as it can at least be said to hold some philosophical merit, but creationism is so blatantly false that it sickens me to think some children are taught it in school.

  • cknuck

    Good point nnmns but the tree huggers have not prevailed and resource gluttony has also been more prominent then conservation. But your point that we are diverse is well taken and appreciated.

  • nnmns

    “People who claim to believe both have not considered what it means to have hundreds of millions of years of death and disease before sin.”
    I really don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Is it a threat that if you believe both evolution and a more rational version of Christianity you’ll face hundreds of millions of years of death and disease in an afterlife? Argument by threat. Or is it supposed to mean something else? Please clear that up.

  • pagansister

    Mark:
    “Because they have been indoctrinated by 200 years of secular scientific conjecture by fallible, Fallen man.”
    And this is a problem, why?
    Those scientists have looked at the proof, gathered by smarter folks than you and I and have no problem with the fact that “Fallen man” (love that!) is able to search and seek how the god they believe in made the world a little at a time through evolution. How boring for a god to just say, “I think I’ll make a world, as I’m bored out of my gourd, so I’ll make a planet” and proceed to make one in 6 days,complete with plants, animals and finally a man and a woman.(to keep him company and completely populate the world with 2 people! Little inbreeding there, ya think). Of course the mate goofed and ate an apple etc. and we all know what that did. What person actually thinks this planet was made in 6 days as we know it? Those days could be millions of years, with evolution taking up the time. The scientists have plenty of evidence from digs etc. to make logical truth of evolution and that in no way diminishes their faith in a higher being.
    “People who claim to believe both have not considered what it means to have millions of years of death and disease before sin.” Mark
    What sin? Also you have no way of knowing what the people have considered or not considered.
    You are, of course, going to believe what you want based on, I expect the Bible, that little book written 2000 years ago by men…over & over & over again.

  • cknuck

    Most people who believe in either creation or evolution cannot back up why they believe. Scientist mostly give us information that is approved either by their employer or the government and even that is inconclusive (theory). So most of us here who profess beliefs come to our belief mostly by faith.
    If not then explain to me why carbon dating is infallible. Unless you were there (in the beginning) then you’ve got to respect another person’s opinion while you are disagreeing.
    People who are familiar with the Christian faith and when the say you god with the little g is meant to be an insult and inflict disrespect. There are ways to communicate without inflicting harm on the person you disagree with and maintain a exchange and perhaps never agree without insult.

  • pagansister

    When I refer to “your god”,to different posts, I use the little “g” because I’m not referring to a being I believe in. However, it is most definitely not used as an insult to the person I’m responding to, cknuck. My sisters, as I have mentioned many times, are both devout Christians, so why would I not have respect for their god and that of others? Don’t have to believe to respect other’s beliefs. The word is just that…a word.
    As much as we disagree on things,cknuck, I do respect you and your beliefs.

  • cknuck

    “And why deny the beauty of the poetry of the beginning of Genesis or John.”
    jest, I really want to understand because the way I was taught there would be clergy such as yourself.
    Here’s what I think I know so far, you are a clergy member of a religion based on a book you don’t believe in and you are as big of critic of the religion as those opposed to it. I don’t know if you believe in Christ or not and I am curious.
    Can you truly explain evolution and verify carbon dating?

  • nnmns

    cknuck, what a strange post. Do you think a preacher has to believe every word of the Bible to be a preacher? I suppose so, in your obsessive version of it but for a long time now there have been more enlightened versions of Christianity. Since the Bible contains so many obvious errors I fail to see how you, or anyone, could pretend to believe it all. And of course you don’t; you pick and choose what parts you’ll believe in and act on and when it’s pointed out to you then you come up with the most obvious excuses for your hypocrisy.
    And with all the offenses true believers have perpetrated on us, believe me it’s easy to be a critic of your part of the religion. I don’t believe in any of it but jesterfyl’s part is only wrong. Your part is wrong and dangerous to the country and the world.

  • Bobby Brooks, Environmental Engineer

    I am looking forward to reading the first few issues of ‘The Answers Research Journal.’ However, I would suggest allowing a peer reviewer to include an opponent to creationism, or someone who supports both a biblical creation and macro-evolution viewpoint.

  • cknuck

    I differ with you nnmns I might have been a danger to the country before I came to the Lord but I have done nothing to danger the country outside of feeding clothing, educating and sheltering the unfortunate all of which is in the Bible. Also what errors are you talking about, I’ve found none.
    True believers have not perpetrated any offenses, there are true believers and then there are a variety of fakes.
    Actually I am a critic of those who use part of the word to promote their agendas so I am surprised that you would accuse me of picking and choosing, trying a little reverse tactic? Well it won’t bear out because I am always studying to be approved and ready to give the reason for hope.
    Yes I do think a preacher a disciple of Christ should believe in what he is suppose to be representing and preaching it makes sense why be a Christian at all if you are only half of Christian or a complete fake. What do you tell your congregation? There is an inevitable deception how can a person follow Christ and have atheist, pagans, and or witches and warlocks agree in their theology?

  • nnmns

    cknuck, what makes you think I agree with jesterfyl’s theology? I think it’s wrong; he thinks there’s a god and I don’t.
    And one reason I know you pick and choose is that you want to make life hard for homosexuals who want to marry but not for people who want a divorce or for people who eat shell-fish or various other things clearly mentioned in the Bible.

  • nnmns

    nnmns has left the building. Turn the lights off when you leave.

  • cknuck

    Well you are wrong because I do think divorce is wrong and have expressed my views there and I am a sinner also I comment on my own sins as well as the sin of homosexuality. As for the sin of eating shell fish read further, I’m sure you have a bible read on and you will see more on the shell fish thing. Not believing there is such a thing as marriage between two men or two women is not making life hard for homosexuals its just the truth. Come on do you truly know anything about hard life?

  • pagansister

    If divorce is wrong, what is the solution to a really really messy and totally loveless marriage, cknuck? There are those sometimes, you know? What is more “sinful”, staying in a bad situation or legally getting the heck out of the situation?
    Won’t even start homosexual marriage being against the Lord’s laws discussion.

  • cknuck

    The solution is on the front end not the back, sex gets many of us in trouble that we could avoid. the more we promote frivolous sex the more selfish and self centered we become the more we will suffer these types of relationships. As we forget to rightly relate with each other, things like homosexuality looks more attractive and divorce becomes more widely practiced as a means to a end, instead doing it right in the first place. I was guilty of poor life choices, not anymore.

  • pagansister

    cknuck:
    That all sounds good, solution being at the front end etc., but how do you explain married 25 to 30 years and then the situation breaks down and the split occurs?
    Way off the topic of the creationist journal.

  • Anonymous

    cknuck wrote: Yes I do think a preacher a disciple of Christ should believe in what he is suppose to be representing and preaching it makes sense why be a Christian at all if you are only half of Christian or a complete fake. What do you tell your congregation? There is an inevitable deception how can a person follow Christ and have atheist, pagans, and or witches and warlocks agree in their theology?
    nnmns wrote: what makes you think I agree with jesterfyl’s theology? I think it’s wrong; he thinks there’s a god and I don’t.
    And this is why i love this site.
    What do I tell my congregation? Well, our Bible studies are intense, action packed, full of laughter and dialog (not a monologue). We look carefully at the schoalrs’ works as well as talk about our understanding of the Word. I also include some other sources and scriptures as a way to expand our vision. I hope you can drop by our little UNTIED (not a typo) Church of Christ some Thursday for our study or Sunday for our service.
    Sure, I believe in God, but not the way it was presented in Sunday School or even in all of seminary. As Lawrence Ferlinghetti wrote “I am waiting…”(see hos poem for an awesome theological statement). I am convinced the cknuck, nnmns, and I – and several otherw would have a rollicking good time over coffee (or beer). It would not be quiet or scholarly, but we would all be heard and our theories and proclamations challenmged and honed. For me THAT IS A COMMUNITY OF FAITH AND HOPE.
    Now what do I think of “how can a person follow Christ and have atheist, pagans, and or witches and warlocks agree in their theology?”
    I think it is freakin’ awesome!

  • jestrfyl

    By the way
    I have come to the realization that…
    Creationism is heresy!
    Yes, I am will to stand by that simple statement. I believe that the Creationists have taken Genesis and other bit and pieces and made them a graven image, an idol for the theologically idle. There is no life to their proclamation, simply blind, sterile adherence.
    Not only that but evolution is close to orthodoxy – right teaching and the better path to belief. Anyone who follows evolution is closer to an appreciation of God (whoever, however, where ever that is), understanding of Jesus’ message and his role as Christ, and breathing deeply the Holy Spirit, kamikaze, pnemua.
    Let the games begin.

  • cknuck

    jest why go to seminary and why would you want to be Christian if you have the same belief as pagans and atheist. How can you preach the same message as pagans and atheist when they admit they have no regard for Christ and never will, and as a matter of fact have share the same disdain for Christians. Do you preach against the Bible from the pulpit? And how does the Bible’s “heresy” of creation fit in your discipleship? Who are you a disciple for? I’ve got hundreds of questions of how does it work that you claim Christianity yet dismantle it at the same time.

  • pagansister

    cknuck:
    jestrfyl is my idea of a true Christian and to top it off, he is also a minister. If I was thinking of returning to Christianity….an understanding,open and continously investigating person like jestrfyl would be the kind of church leader aka minister I’d look for.
    Questioning one’s faith is normal, and can strengthen it, IMO.
    Why would accepting (not necessarily believing) the beliefs of pagans & atheists,make anyone less of a Christian?? Does being open minded present a problem? How would that diminish a faith? Realizing that the Bible is a book, that (has been said lots of times)has been translated, and copied more than numerous times, isn’t accurate or infallible, but can be a guide, makes more sense to me that deciding that it has to be followed word for word. Fortunately times has changed over 2000 years.

  • jestrfyl

    Pagansister,
    I appreciate your vote of confidence.
    cknuck
    You ask some critical questions for my ministry. I often struggle, not because I suffer from a lack of an answer. I struggle, as the name of God’s people says, with God. You see, you and nmnns have both closed your respective books. In some ways I envy your ability to do that. But I am compelled to keep the book open, to keep sifting possibilities and peeking in overlooked corners. Do I preach against the Bible? You might be surprised that I have been accused of being too Biblical. But I also open other texts as well. Why the ministry? Becuase I found all of the other avenues of investigation too limiting. I take seriously (but not literally) the angels call to the shepherds, to look up and look out. I appreciate the work of our ancestors, not as flawed and without worth, but as a piece of a larger and far more complex puzzle than either science or orthodx Christianity can complete.
    There are days when the daily administration, the pastoral care, and the denominational politics wear me out. But then even in the midst of those mundane tasks a moment occurs and suddenly I feel another piece fall into place. I do not “dismantle” Christianity to leave it in a shambles. But I do not dismantle it simply to rebuild it either. In fact, I like the word you chose, “dis-mantle”, to remove its authority. I do this to discover genuine authority greater than that which is presupposed without questioning. This is in search of greater power than either religion or science can grasp.
    I don’t do this out of doubt alone, but mostly out of hope. And if my congregation hears nothing else, I hope they hear my voice of hope and expectation. The realm of “God” is at our fingertips, but just out of reach. I cannot merely accept what is and has been just on someone else’s say so. But I take their lessons and continue to apply them to experience, to possibilites and to joyous surprises.
    Perhaps my long answer to your short question belies my dilemna.

  • Anonymous

    “And how does the Bible’s “heresy” of creation fit in your discipleship?”, asks ck.
    Short answer – I do not say the Bible is heretical. I believe the Creationists who have made it an idol are the heretics. Let the book be a living and dynamic expression of another generation’s appreciation for all the wonders around them. Don’t make it a “once-and-for-all” monolith that would crush any further understanding.

  • jestrfyl

    The above posting is mine. Sorry for the oversight.

  • pagansister

    The answer to cknuck’s “heresy” of creation question, jestrfyl, is an excellent explanation of it’s use in the Christian world.

  • pagansister

    OOPS!
    Left out an important word above: “The answer to cknuck’s “heresy” of creation question,jestrfyl, is an excellent explanation of the BIBLE’S use in the Christian world.

  • gzuckier

    the bigger question: why doesn’t the Bible mention anything about planets around other suns? for just one obvious example. you could enlarge it to quarks, quantum theory, galaxies, black holes, all the things outside the here and now human scale. it seems that the Bible isn’t the entire story of the entire Creation. if it is indeed divinely authored, then clearly God didn’t intend for it to be used as a science text.

  • gzuckier

    evolution is more than a theory, though; it is a logical consequence of what we know, and/or believe about biology. there IS genetic diversity. there IS inheritance of characteristics. there IS large differences in the efficiency of reproduction between individuals. you can’t have all these without the genetic makeup of a population shifting over time, in relation to the demands of the environment. and you can’t have the genetics of a population shift an unlimited distance before it can’t interbreed with a population of the original genetic makeup, or one that has shifted in a different direction. if you believe the above logic is not true, then you have to explain where it fails. even if you believe all things were created by God, you still have to explain where the above logic fails if you wish to explain why evolution does not provide speciation. if you believe that God steps in at some point and prevents new species from appearing, you have to demonstrate some evidence of that happening.

  • jestrfyl

    gzuckier
    There aren’t even any monkeys in the Bible! There are almost no cats and absolutely no mention of rhinos, hippos (which were certainly part of the Egyptian lore and reality), or platypus.
    Any attempt at making the Bible an exhaustive scienterrific reference book are simply foolish. All of the other examples you offer simply show how much more we know and how much they had little more than poetry to explain their reality. The Bible really is a fine book – for what it was intended. It certainly ain’t no Encyclopedia or even Wikipedia.

  • Anonymous

    A question:
    Even taking into account the numerous species the Bible omits mention of, just how big would Noah’s ark have had to have been to accommodate 2 of every kind of the ones that ARE mentioned?

  • Anonymous

    “I do believe we were created and we are more then just evolved earth snot”
    Some of us ARE, ck, some of us ARE. SOME of us.

  • jestrfyl

    Evolved earth-snot – isn’t that the guy that stars in the Mucus ad?
    ck, you HAVE to get a better science book than whatever one you are using.

  • Henrietta22

    Mystery Poster: Answer to your question: The ark would have to be at least as large as the “Mall Of America”.

  • pagansister

    Henrietta:
    “The ark would have to be at least as large as the “Mall of America”.
    Think it would have been very stinky too!

  • jestrfyl

    And all the animals would either be the size of “Beanie Babies” or as deflated as a “Build-a-Bear” before the stuffing and heart is added. All of these are available at the Mall of America and other malls across America, and with a special blessing included – they can be yours for only 14.95 or 39.95 plus Temple and State tax, shipping and prayerful handling. And for Easter -special Webkinz with an internet blessing and scriptural message.
    Just kidding folks, but isn’t it like the American Christians to find a way to market faith? What’s worse, is I bet many of you thought this was for real!
    No wonder they can’t find Noah’s Ark – it rotted under all the waste!

  • pagansister

    Noah’s floating zoo was as real as all the pieces of the Cross Jesus was crucified on, or the relics of all those saints….

  • jestrfyl

    Hey gang,
    Do you know that this Sunday has been declared EVOLUTION SUNDAY? Hundreds of us will be preaching about evolution or finding other ways to talk about it in the service.
    Ashes to ashes and dust to dust – fossils are everywhere.

  • pagansister

    jestrfyl:
    EVOLUTION SUNDAY? I love it! (are you serious?)
    Happy Fossil Hunting and as you say…
    “Ashes to ashes and dust to dust” and fossils are most difinately everywhere.

  • jestrfyl

    Nope, I’m not kidding. Go to evolutionweekend.com and you will meet Michael Zimmerman learn a lot more. I am one of many hundred clergy who have signed onto this project and have said will speak to evolution in our services of worship. I think I am bringing in some fossilized sharks teeth from a local beach. It is a very cool concept, though you can imagine how the lines are drawn.
    As to fossils being everywhere – it seems they were everywhere – except my back yard when I was a kid. One of my earliest disillusions. However they did find and excavate an intact mammoth near one of the first churches I served. Cooler indeed.

  • jestrfyl

    correcton CORRECTION COOORR-REEEC-TION!!!
    Go to evolutionweekend.org (that is “.org”) for the right place.

  • pagansister

    I looked up the email site. Very interesting. Glad you,jestrfyl, and many other clergy are going to talk about it “from the pulpit”.

  • Richard W. Chadburn

    There is no science whatsoever in creationism/intelligent design. Our free society let’s everyone have their say. However, I think that a museum dedicated to defending what is not sciece as science is a serious issue. Richard

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment J

    LOL. I guess it was only time until we saw this from those folks. I love how they are trying to “scientifically” prove an answer they think they already know :) Forgive me, that is completely stupid.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment EarthScientist

    Creationist’s are fundamentally (pun intended) confused as to what peer-review is. If you’re a creationist trying to conduct a study regarding the magical Flood and sediment deposition, then your peers are those scientists who have made a career of and have highly specialized knowledge about sediment deposition such as: sedimentary geologists, geomorphologists, and possibly some hydraulic engineers. Peers for such a study wouldn’t be the the geophysicist who thinks he found something about helium in zircons, or the geochemist griping about polonium halo’s, not too mention the list of doctors, engineers, dentists, and psychologists the creationists like to trot out as credentialed peeps who agree to their silly tripe. And a peer is most definitely not somebody who agrees with your theological convictions and conclusions before they’ve even read the ‘scientific’ paper.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment DNT

    OK i think that Mr hamm is making a mistake by not letting non-creation scientist to look at this journal. The problem is no one has observed God create the universe and every thing in it and the same goes for the evolutionists, no one has observed the big bang. I think all have a right to there theories because that is what they are just theories, neither side has any empirical evidence to support there cases either way. In saying that i have to say the theory of creation has one thing in its favor, that is the information in DNA, there is more information on a strand of DNA than what is on our computer, this program or code as far as we understand has to have a programmer or a code writer weather it be God or Aliens, it cannot of come from nothing as the big bang theory says. Carl Sagan said it best the big bang is the evolutionists creation myth.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Kerberos

    For

    “…with its biblical views.”

    read:

    “…with its views that are based on the true story of creation, that preserved for unnumbered ages in the Silmarillion; of which story the account in Genesis is, as must be obvious, a distant copy.”

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment JOe

    LOL! Milk came out of my nose when I read the title.
    This will not work out well for them, they will end up with egg on their face.

Previous Posts

Hispanics turning evangelical, Jews secular
Worship service attendance is up in New York City, but down among young adult Jews, according to recent studies. On the other hand, fewer Spanish-speaking teens are attending Catholic mass, but more are showing up at Evangelical churches. [caption id="attachment_12343" align="alignleft" width="48

posted 3:10:30pm Nov. 05, 2013 | read full post »

Billy Graham: I know where I'm going
“Daddy thinks the Lord will allow him to live to 95,” said Franklin Graham recently. It was not a prophecy but a hope, Franklin explained, that he would live to see the beginning of a Christian re

posted 10:02:01am Oct. 24, 2013 | read full post »

Are All These Christians' Complaints of Persecution Just So Much Empty Whining?
The headlines are alarming: “Catholic-Owned Company Wins Religious Freedom Court Decision,” “Death Toll Rises to 65 in Boko Haram Attack on Students,” “Little Sisters Catholic Charity Victimized By Obamacare,” “Christians Sought Out, Murdered in the Kenyan Mall Massacre,” “Judicial

posted 2:41:26am Oct. 07, 2013 | read full post »

How can Christians defend themselves against today's random violence?
So, a crazed gunman opens fire and you’re caught in the middle. How can you survive? Heroes come in all sorts of packages. And they wield all sorts of defensive weapons. Such as guns and Jesus. Sometimes both at the same time. [caption id="attachment_12246" align="alignleft" width="480"] Ant

posted 2:53:48pm Sep. 27, 2013 | read full post »

Does Sunday Morning Church Really Need All This Glitter, Showmanship and Gimmickry?
What’s wrong with church today? Are we in danger of turning worship into a flashy concert? Of watering down the message so nobody is offended? Of forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel? I grew up with a preacher’s kid. He was a fake following in the footsteps of his flimflamming father who d

posted 11:26:20am Sep. 20, 2013 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.