Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


Religulous — Deceiving Its Way into the Creation Museum

posted by swaldman

Bill comming in.jpg
The official synopsis for Religulous says that Bill Maher “applies his characteristic honesty” to the subject of faith. Apparently, he has a somewhat selective definition of honesty. I’ve noted the sleights of hand used with Francis Collins and John Adams.
Consider, too, what they did to the Creation Museum near Cincinnati.
Now, in a documentary on religion, I think it’s fair game to probe creationism and the role of “young earth” theology in public policy making. So I can understand why Maher was dying to get his crew inside the Museum and interview the leaders of the Museum. But he faced a problem. As a well known critic of religion, there’s no way the Museum would give him free run of the museum. They’d turned down request to appear on Maher’s TV show, figuring that they would simply become an object of ridicule.
So, Maher and company tricked them.
First, they secured cooperation by completely concealing Bill Maher’s role in the movie. According to representatives of the Museum, on January 30, 2007, they got an email from someone named Bethany Davis. She gushed that “photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis.”The “documentary” would “explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts.” They noted that the “producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few.” (Full email below the fold)
There was no mention of Bill Maher.
According to Ken Ham, the president of the Museum, here’s what happened next. On the day of the interview, the crew (but not Maher) showed up at the main entrance, as planned, to interview Ham. He spoke to them about the Museum and gave a tour. Again, no mention of Maher.
After a while, the crew requested to interview Ham in his office. Maher snuck in a side door of the museum (picture, from a security camera, above) and went to Ham’s office. Ham says he doesn’t get HBO and didn’t remember who Maher was. He assumed he was another reporter from the crew. He gave an interview which became the grist for a brutal segment in Religulous.
Ham saw the movie recently and claims, not surprisingly, that Maher left out parts where he was best defending his position. “Their agenda was to mock people,” Ham said. “They don’t believe in ethics.”
Asked to comment on the idea that they tricked the Creation Museum into cooperating, the director, Larry Charles, sent me this statement via email:

“Ken Ham is a media whore. He has cultivated all sorts of media outlets to promote his agenda. Why should he be allowed to get off the hook? Why shouldn’t he be asked some tough questions? He has built this quasi-museum to quasi-science, isn’t there a journalistic obligation to scrutinize this?
He has gotten a free ride from the media. He is a dangerous man. We don’t even know where the money comes from to build that $30 million museum. If Mike Wallace had grilled him for ’60 Minutes’, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Just because someone doesn’t want to talk to us, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be talked to.”

The ends, in other words, justify the means. Now, as I said at the outset, I think Creation Science is certainly a fair topic for a movie like this. But for a movie that draws blood by accusing religious figures of dishonesty and hypocrisy, it’s more than a little ironic that deception was such a central part of their modus operandi.
It would be one thing if Bill Maher marketed this only as a prank-filled comedy. But Religulous claims to be a “documentary” that raises profound questions of life and death. How can we take it seriously as a documentary if it relied so heavily on deceit?


The full email:

Dear Mr. Ken Ham,
My name is Bethany Davis and I am currently working on a documentary for First Word Productions, an independent production company.
Our documentary seeks to explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts. The producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few.
After seeing one of your speaking engagements, and then further researching Answers In Genesis and The Creationist Museum we think you could be an invaluable inclusion in our exploration. Reading through some of your online material, we believe that you and your museum can illustrate Creationism in an insightful and engaging way that will appeal to our audience. We would be especially thrilled to be able to include a guided tour of the Creationist Museum with you. The photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis
I’d love to discuss the details of this project with you further over the phone. I can be reached at
323-860-3553
323-202-7343
or via email. When might be a good time to call and where can I best reach you?
I look forward to hearing from you.
All the Best,
Bethany Davis



Advertisement
Comments read comments(79)
post a comment
Marc

posted October 9, 2008 at 8:57 am


Problem is, Ken Ham is either liar or an idiot. I don’t believe he’s stupid, and either way, he’s a pedlar of ignorance relying on genuine, and deeply held belief to sell his brand of religion.
You can’t expect Bill Maher to play an honest game with someone who is well known (to those of us who follow his work) to employ sleight of hand and play fast and loose with the facts when they don’t fit with his belief.
You can’t sell Young Earth Creationism to anyone who has a more than modicum of scientific background because it’s clearly wrong. However, if you carefully cherry pick real scientific facts and interweave them with selected scripture and outright deception; faith will take over forming the appearance of a cogent argument in the listener’s mind.
“…disentangling the claims of the ID movement in particular requires a vast amount of highly technical and marginally useful detail, and the evidence for evolution requires a fair amount of effort too, when you get down to it.” – Dr Ben Goldacre. (That’s a medical doctorate, from an accredited university).
The use of deception to get undercover journalists inside of dodgy institutions that don’t want to be exposed as such is a well-trusted technique and slamming Maher for it is disingenuous.
What if the boot were on the other foot? Would you criticise Maher for using such a technique for getting inside an abortion clinic or what about a child trafficking operation? You can’t have it both ways.



report abuse
 

Mike Wilson

posted October 9, 2008 at 9:01 am


Deception can be ethical under certain circumstances. Aside from the obvious examples related to law enforcement, there are plenty of examples in social science research, investigations of many kinds and other disciplines as well. (See http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/research/rescases/gradres/gradresv1/justify.aspx)
There is no evidence anyone on Maher’s team lied. They just didn’t disclose everything. The object of the alleged deception was, as Larry Charles indicated, to expose the Creation Museum as a LIE and Ken Ham as a dangerous LIAR. It’s the Creation Museum and Ken Ham that should NOT be taken seriously; Religulous and Maher should be taken seriously.
Speaking of lies, I sent you an e-mail message yesterday, which follows:
Dear Mr. Waldman:
Today I finished reading your recently published book, ‘Founding Faith’.
Congratulations on an impressive and obviously authoritative piece of work. I hope it brings you much success.
Like anyone, I agreed with some of your arguments and disagreed with others. However, I think one of your central themes (that both sides of the culture war cherry-pick evidence to fit their predetermined positions and, thus, reach the wrong conclusions) is relatively indisputable. We can only hope your excellent book will cause at least some culture warriors to lay down their arms.
I am not well versed enough in history to evaluate the accuracy of most of the more conclusory statements in ‘Founding Faith’, but did note an important one that seems to miss the mark based on the available evidence. In the chapter entitled “They Were Right”, page 190, para. 3, you wrote, “Many scientists believe in God, including some of the most acclaimed like Albert Einstein…” The problem appears to be with the assertion that Einstein “believe[d] in God”. Your support for this claim is a single quote attributed to Einstein, but he said much more about his beliefs that refutes your conclusion about him. Several such statements by Einstein are quoted in a recent Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion/print). For example, “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this…For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions…” Richard Dawkins, in ‘The God Delusion’ and elsewhere, extensively discusses “Einsteinian religion” and distinguishes it from any kind of supernatural belief. While there are some scientists who “believe in [a supernatural] God” as you claim, Einstein was not one of them (possibly not even as a child) as far as I can tell.
Please let me know whether you agree after further review. I would love to hear more from you on this point.
Please do not let this minor criticism/question obscure my high praise for your remarkable achievement.
Sincerely,
Mike Wilson
_______________________________________________________________________
Since you may not read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (referenced above), here (http://www.2think.org/einstein.shtml) are some more Einstein quotes on God and religion. My personal favorite:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Whatever you do, please do not continue to spread the same LIE as other desperate religious apologists that Einstein, one of the brightest lights of humankind, was ever superstitious or dishonest enough to profess belief in an Abrahamic God or any other kind of allegedly supernatural god.
By the way, why so many posts against Religulous?



report abuse
 

Donny

posted October 9, 2008 at 10:58 am


Go to tektonics.org and see what Holding does to Maher’s ignorant little bash-fest.



report abuse
 

C.B. Villeneuve

posted October 9, 2008 at 11:31 am


Bill Maher deceived his way into the Creation Museum… So what? Are you trying to keep the attention away from the real issues? I realized long ago that religion was the biggest sham perpetrated against mankind. Did you ever real your Bible? It is one of the most violent and immoral books ever written, but your religious leaders quote only the nice innocuous parts, not the parts where slavery is approved and it is OK to go and slaughter your neighbours (but keep the virgins for your soldiers…) I believe that Voltaire was right when he said: “Religion started when the first hypocrite met the first idiot.”



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted October 9, 2008 at 11:40 am


Ham would never tolerate a dissenting view on his project. He allows no room for doubt or uncertainty. His diorama is the height of foolishness and i think Maher did a fine job with it.
It seems like you are granting more authority to Maher than you want. If you don’t like the film or what it represents, you would do more by ignoring it. It is not as if lives are in danger or reputations are seriously at stake. Your continued publicity for the film must be well appreciated by Maher and company. You might as well establish a link to disbeliefnet.com. I liked the film so I will promote it my own way. But your backwards promotion by condemnation is as effective as the lists published by the Roman Catholic Church, which only made people want to see what was so offensive.



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted October 9, 2008 at 11:55 am


Ken Ham is a lot more deceptive when he stays at home and keeps his mouth shut than Maher has ever been. The use of deception to reveal deception is a well known and often used tactic. Especially by right wing fanatics. Whining when the left uses it to slap you back is the height of journalistic cowardice.



report abuse
 

Warren Cheswick

posted October 9, 2008 at 12:01 pm


Documentary doesn’t mean factual news report. There is a brand of documentary made popular by filmmakers like Michael Moore that are trying to advance a position – they are rhetorical.
Furthermore, because of Maher’s high profile status on TV, no conservative religious entity would have granted open and forthright interviews with him knowing that he was going to mock and satirize them. So I think the subterfuge was necessary.
The film itself, as everyone one on here would agree with you, is flawed. However, there is some important stuff in the film, and to point out that some fringe Christians actually believe that the earth is 5000 years old, and that dinosaurs co-existed on earth with nascent humanity, despite the overwhelming multiplicity of real, scientific evidence to the contrary, is to do society an important service. These flakes fool gullible people all the time, and I give thanks to Bill Maher for exposing them, whether he did it on a completely up-and-up way.



report abuse
 

Jim Hampton

posted October 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm


How ironic, Mr. Waldman, that your intellectual honesty in reporting Maher’s conduct is mocked, along with that of Mr. Ham, by readers who have no regard for ethics. At the same time, these folks would likely object to the behavior of people who have mismanaged financial institutions for their own gain, and are now receiving a bailout at the hands of honest taxpayers.
Either honesty is the standard or it isn’t. They can’t have it both ways.
I recommend to them a walk through the Creation Museum to discover some serious truth about life. I have been to the museum and found it impressive. And I have met Ken Ham and found him to be neither liar, nor idiot, nor “pedlar” (sic) of ignorance.



report abuse
 

JF

posted October 9, 2008 at 6:30 pm


Craig Hazen, an evangelical comparative religion professor at Biola University reviews “religulous.”
“Maher is pitching this film as mavericky—telling the truth about religion that everyone else is afraid to address. But Religulous is nothing more than filthy, nudie, druggie, and obtusey. There is little to laugh at and nothing to learn (expect maybe that if you quit being religulous you get to act like Caligulous).”
http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/2008/081007_hazen.cfm



report abuse
 

Richard Clark

posted October 9, 2008 at 6:32 pm


Anybody who believes that bogus-science (that the earth is only 6,000 years old) within the Creation Museum is really warped. It needs to be exposed as the crap that it is.



report abuse
 

Sid Galloway

posted October 9, 2008 at 8:18 pm


Regarding the Creation Museum, why do its detractors like Maher never mention the hundreds of internationally respected PhD scientists who actually support the Museum’s scientific position? These scientists who agree with the Creation Museum include the inventor of the MRI Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the Biolistic Gene Gun at Cornell University Dr. John Sanford, the inventor of the finest supercomputer model of Earth dynamics at Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. John Baumgardner, etc. These men are examples of scientists who have rejected “politically correct” beliefs as a result of significant new scientific evidences. Pretending these scientists don’t exists is apparently a way to ignore those evidences in order to dogmatically cling to outdated scientific hypotheses.



report abuse
 

MikeT

posted October 9, 2008 at 8:38 pm


Sounds exactly like what the producers of “Expelled” did. Was it ok for them but not Maher?
Also, to Sid, there are not “hundreds of internationally respected PhD” BIOLOGISTS — you know, the people who actually know about biology — who support the Creation Museum, and there are no “new scientific evidences,” only the same old tired arguments that were debunked before the end of the 19th Century.



report abuse
 

Steven Waldman

posted October 9, 2008 at 9:17 pm


Putting aside whether you like the Creation Museum, or Kan Ham, or creationism or secularism or Bill Maher, the question I’m trying to raise in this post is whether the ends justify the means. Just becuase you hold some group in contempt does that mean you should use dishonest methods to corner them? In a way this post isn’t about religion, it’s about journalistic ethics and basic decency. These techniques guarantee that the purpose of the film is preaching to the existing choir, not persuading the persuadables. Those who already agree with Maher will thrill as his having trapped the enemy. But those who are open minded and curious will have to wonder whether the editing in this movie can be trusted. If they tricked people into interviews, and took quotes out of context, shouldnt we suspect that they engaged in dubious editing too? And that’s to say nothing of the material that they clearly left out (see the various posts with the tag ‘religulous’) What all that adds up to is a movie that might be funning, and exciting for atheist true believers, but not ultimately persuasive



report abuse
 

Damon

posted October 10, 2008 at 6:17 am


Anyone who believes in creationism can probably be tricked easily anyway…



report abuse
 

Mike Wilson

posted October 10, 2008 at 7:27 am


My answer to your question, Steve, about “whether the ends justify the means” is: Yes, in this case because both the ends and the means are reasonable under the circumstances. There is nothing wrong with a filmmaker having a point of view and something to prove. Your characterizations of Maher as having “contempt” and his methods as being “dishonest” and lacking “journalistic ethics” and “basic decency” totally ignore (1) the long history of people ehically using deceit to obtain valuable informaion, (2) the great lengths to which people like Ham (and many others depicted in Religulous) will go to avoid answering questions against their own interests and (3) the fact that Maher repeatedly showed in the film the very techniques you’re acting like you caught him trying to hide. I don’t think you’ve proven that Maher took quotes out of context. Showing some Q & A from an interview is not out of context as long as each whole question and whole answer are shown in order. People legitimately leave information out all the time. I’m quite sure you left information out of ‘Founding Faith’ because it was beside your point. Maher did the same thing. Who cares if Ham or anyone else wanted certain things in there? It wasn’t their film.
I don’t think most persuadables will wonder “whether the editing in this movie can be trusted”. I think they will understand that the subject matter is very controversial and many of the interview subjects had something to hide so Maher’s techniques were necessary and proper. While some atheists may be “true believers” as you allege, most are not. For most, atheism and/or agnosticism is nothing more than the most reasonable conclusion drawn from credible evidence.



report abuse
 

Timbo

posted October 10, 2008 at 12:20 pm


Haven’t seen the film, but why couldn’t Maher have included footage of his team attempting to speak with Ken Ham, and Ham’s refusal to do so. Seems like that would have been an effective way to ridicule creationists — by highlighting their unwillingess to talk seriously about what they believe.
As to the larger question of journalistic ethics, it’s hard to say if what Maher did was dishonest. I remember Tom Brokaw biking around Tianamen Square after the massacre with a hidden camera hidden in his bike bag. You could argue that that was dishonest, but I’d argue that it was good, brave journalism. I’m not comparing Ken Ham to a murderous, oppresive regime, just trying to suggest the deception is often involved in investigative journalism.



report abuse
 

Rob

posted October 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm


Steve, I seem to have missed your own documentation of sources for the scenario you report here. I would feel much more comfortable with the story if I knew how you came by it. Is this a report given you by the Museum itself?



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 10, 2008 at 8:06 pm


To answer your question when you say this post is not about religion but about journalistic ethics:
As a dogged sceptic and celebrity, Mill Mahr was denied access to higher-ups in the Church of the most powerful denominations and religions. I imagine that they would like to keep themselves from looking like fools and let the lower-level leaders take that title. I don’t begrudge him a little bit of stealth in trying to obtain information.



report abuse
 

JW

posted October 13, 2008 at 12:42 pm


The idea of having to sneak into the creation museum is his problem, and doesn’t infer anything scandalous on either party. But he was denied acces to the museum and Church officials because they already knew that he didn’t intend a fair and even interview, only to mock them. Why is it assumed that he was going to do anything different?



report abuse
 

David

posted October 14, 2008 at 11:28 pm


Why is everyone so obviously ignoring the glaring truth here? Bill Mahr hates God, wants to mock anyone of faith, and is in complete denial of the creator who gives him every breath of his arrogant existance. Mahr will go to any extreme to make a joke of religion because his miserable outlook on life requires it, and misery loves company. He’s a God hater, and thats pretty much all there is to it. Nobody with any intelligence or common sense takes him seriously, nor should anyone really expect anything different than what he did. He’s actually acting like anyone who denies their maker should. No morals, full of hate for anyone who suggests personal accountability for the way he lives, and greedy for power, money, and attention. What a sad and depressing way to live. No wonder he’s so angry all the time.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted October 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm


Wow. Very impressive. Someone lies in order to get into a building and stage a ‘gotcha’ moment, not because of a quest for journalistic truth and fairness to all sides, but to ridicule and mock the organization and its founder. While I agree in some cases it may be necessary to “hide a camera under a coat” to expose violence and oppression, was it really necessary to lie and deceive in order to poke fun of something that you do not agree with? That says quite a bit about Mahr’s character. He can certainly have his own point of view, but that does not mean that either Answers in Genesis or any other organization has to cater to his whims. My guess is that scenes that were cut from the movie would have shown Mr. Ham answering Mahr’s questions in a polite but firm manner, as he does in most encounters.



report abuse
 

Mark

posted October 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Arcturus

posted October 16, 2008 at 9:59 pm


The scene from the Creation Museum wasn’t brutal at all. Mahr was actually very respectful in that interview. They had a few reaction shots of Ham that were maybe edited in to make it look worse… but really, the idea of a “Creation Museum” simply ridicules itself anyway.



report abuse
 

Trav

posted October 17, 2008 at 1:50 am


Maher and his ilk are no different than Evangelicals who ram Christianity down the throats of society. Different belief – same tactics.



report abuse
 

Michael Taylor

posted October 17, 2008 at 8:47 am


1 Corinthians 1:18-19 (NIV)
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
In light of this verse, do not be too upset or surprised at the scoffing. Common sense can look at creation and tell that it’s been intelligently designed. So really, how intelligent are those who put all their faith in Darwin’s theory?



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted October 17, 2008 at 10:12 am


One last time, if the right will use deception to forward the pure lies of creationism, then the left is justified in using the same to point out the truth. When you get idiots like O’Reilly off the air, and close the biggest lie of a museum in history that isn’t backed by one single credible scientist, then you can whine about Maher being a deceptive jerk. Not one second before.



report abuse
 

God

posted October 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm


Its Ok to use lies to gain entrance to a building whose whole foundation (literally and figuratively) is built on Lies in my name.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted October 19, 2008 at 8:29 pm


1) The idea of a Creation Museum ridicules itself? How so? A belief or conviction that is not popular is not automatically erroneous. Personally, I think the idea of a museum to evolution, which 99.9x..% of museums are, ridicules itself because such a museum advances the concept that intelligent, organized systems created themselves out of dirt. I find that a lot more ridiculous that accepting that which is obvious, namely that a creative Mind has organized and now upholds the beauty around us.
2) No one “rams” Christianity down the throat of anything. If anything, we Christians are being way too accepting and diplomatic so we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. Guess what? We are all sinners (just look at the deeds around you!) None of us are better than others. It’s just that Christians, by God’s grace, have accepted the free gift from God which “leadeth unto Salvation” while others choose to ridicule it. Far from us ramming this belief down their throats, we freely acknowledge that they have the right to refuse it. Just let us believe, though.
3) Right and left, lies or truth? Who is to say? As far as the “biggest lie of a museum,” that is your opinion, writer. Your “credible” scientists are a dime a dozen, and they are all slaves to evolutionism, and to its laughable tenet that matter somehow evolved and organized itself into intelligence over eons of time. And, just so you know, creationism *is* backed by some very credible and courageous scientists who aren’t afraid to ask the tough questions instead of complacently giving in to indoctrination.
4) As far as the writer who deemed himself “God,” I think I’ll just step out of the way of the lightning bolt. :)
Seriously, though, you are insinuating that somehow God is supportive of evolution, and that somehow the Creation Museum makes God sad or angry? What biblical passages are you referencing, if you think that God believes creation is a lie?
People, people, people! Give your heads a shake, stop trusting the lies without informing yourselves, and believe!



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted October 20, 2008 at 10:07 am


Evolutionism? Ridiculous. Try opening a science book for once in your life. Evolution is a fact, oh ye who believeth that the Earth is flat. Whether your god exists or not is besides the point. Ever consider that maybe your god decided to use evolution to expand diversity in it’s creations? How arrogant you are, to think you know a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient being so well.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted October 20, 2008 at 5:20 pm


Vastet,
What is the law of biogenesis?
:)



report abuse
 

Matthew

posted October 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm


Vastet…
you are suggesting that two wrongs make a right. If as you say (I don’t agree) that the creation museum is the “biggest lie of a museum in history” does that make it right to use underhand methods to “expose” it?
Oh and for your information the bible doesn’t say that the earth is flat… It actually says that it is hanging in space without any support…



report abuse
 

Danny

posted October 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm


Vastet, I am curious as to what you define as a “credible scientist” and why your major argument against creationism is mud slinging. You accuse us of arrogance because of our young earth claim when we are simply believing the words written by the One who made everything. I’d say the arrogant are those that put their faith in fallen sin-filled men who would rather depend on their limited understanding of the universe to tell an omnipotent, omniscient God what he really did.
Please stop hurling insults and bring a solid argument to the table.



report abuse
 

Raithlin

posted October 21, 2008 at 3:24 am


Steve, thanks for exposing this. It’s refreshing to see what actually happens behind the scenes to create so-called “documentaries”. I look forward to discussing this with those around me that choose to watch the film.



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted October 21, 2008 at 11:29 am


bunyan33: Law of biogenesis? There is no such thing.
Matthew: How is standing there and letting someone shoot me in the head instead of shooting them first such a wrong thing? If my arguments contained no logic or fact then you might be able to suggest that I am not doing anything “good”. Instead, I’m fighting for my sanity in the face of who believe in pure fiction and spread their tendencies as much as they can. There’s nothing wrong about what I am doing.
Danny: A credible scientist would be a scientist who has had their work peer reviewed in scientific journals(and no, there is no such thing as a religious scientific journal, so anything in that category does not qualify). Their work has been tested and retested and conforms every time.
You also might want to start asking your fellow theists to stop throwing the insults around first. I always respond to insults with insults. If you don’t like it, then don’t throw them around in the first place.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted October 21, 2008 at 3:23 pm


Vastet
“La génération spontanée est une chimère” (“Spontaneous generation is a dream”) (Louis Pasteur)
Is there any evidence to say otherwise?
:)



report abuse
 

Danny

posted October 21, 2008 at 11:54 pm


Vastet, I think it may be hard to find any scientist who’s work has been tested and retested and conforms every time. Many scientists will readily admit that a large amount of scientific “facts” that they learned in school are now false. Following your line of logic, all scientists responsible for those facts are no longer credible.
Having a peer-reviewed article published is pretty much a requirement to be a scientist. Creationists have published their scientific research in mainstream journals as long as they don’t have conclusions that are openly creationists. There is well documented evidence of such journals rejecting articles simply because their conclusions are of the creationist persuasion. Even the letters editor of Science magazine admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” That said in spite of their official letters policy that they represent “the range of opinions received.”
The problem isn’t that the science is bad, especially when it’s being dismissed out-of-hand, it’s that the presuppositions of evolutionists and creationists are being ignored. Empirical science has done some wonderful things but it has nothing to do with origins science. If you can’t even use science to prove someone graduated high school (better evidence would be historical documents and eyewitness accounts like a diploma and the testimonies of parents and friends who were there and saw it), then how can it be used to make such claims about how the world came into existence.
I write none of this to insult you, only to discuss what you believe and why you do so.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted October 22, 2008 at 9:35 am


Vastet,
Is it too difficult to look at your own faith? I think I’m right on target, “credible” scientists have their faith in spontaneous generation. Despite the lack of evidence that is what they believe. We have an increasing understanding that it is more difficult than Darwin and Haeckle ever could have imagined for life to arise from non-life. Do you believe spontaneous generation or that God created?
:)



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted October 22, 2008 at 9:53 am


Bunyan:
Quit trying to change the subject. Evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis or abiogenesis. It merely describes what happens when life already exists. What I wouldn’t give to slam that fact through the heads of all creationist theists who ignorantly disbelieve in evolution.
As for the subject you keep trying to change this into, look up the new results in the Miller-Uray experiments. There’s your evidence.
Danny said:
Vastet, I think it may be hard to find any scientist who’s work has been tested and retested and conforms every time.
Not at all. There are millions of them. That’s the definition of a scientist.
Danny said:
Many scientists will readily admit that a large amount of scientific “facts” that they learned in school are now false.
Fantasy. They were not presented as facts. Look up the terms “hypothesis”, “fact”, and “theory”. Until you can tell the difference between them, you will never understand the truth. I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m simply stating fact.
Danny said:
Following your line of logic, all scientists responsible for those facts are no longer credible.
Ridiculous. Do you even know what the word science means? Science is the process of making hypothesis and testing them for verification. If a test is verified repeatedly by seperate scientists, and has not been proven wrong despite many scientists attempts to prove it wrong, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. A theory stands until proven wrong. Most theories, if not all theories, have not been proven wrong. The theory of gravity is just as solid as the theory of evolution and the theory of volcanism. Most of those theories that have been proven wrong(or are likely to be proven wrong) deal with astronomy, which is quite understandable considering the distance between us and other stars.
Danny said:
Having a peer-reviewed article published is pretty much a requirement to be a scientist.
No, that’s just to be a credible and published scientist within the scientific community. You are a scientist if you have ever mixed water with quik to see what the results are. Everyone is a scientist to a certain extent. Hence the need to distinguish between credible scientists and not credible scientists.
Danny said:
Creationists have published their scientific research in mainstream journals as long as they don’t have conclusions that are openly creationists.
Even if they do, it does not remove their ability to be published. Whenever a creationist attempts to publish something in a journal, it isn’t automatically discarded because they are a creationist. It may be discarded automatically if the creationist is well known to attempt to publish garbage, but not just for being a creationist. Creationists have time in journals usually when dealing with sciences that they are willing to accept. Rarely if at all when trying to debunk well established and factual theories with irrelevant and unscientific claptrap. Intelligent design for example. Nothing scientific about that at all, except irreducible complexity. Which was a great hypothesis. It was proven wrong. Which is also great. Science is as much about proving wrong as it is about proving right.
Danny said:
The problem isn’t that the science is bad, especially when it’s being dismissed out-of-hand, it’s that the presuppositions of evolutionists and creationists are being ignored. Empirical science has done some wonderful things but it has nothing to do with origins science.
First of all, origins are irrelevant to this conversation. As mentioned above, evolution and bio or abio genesis are mutually exclusive. Attempting to wrap them together is like saying the sky is blue because of Jupiter. It’s ridiculous.
Second of all, there is tonnes of evidence supporting abiogenesis, with absolutely nothing at all to support biogenesis(except your bible, which doesn’t count as it’s younger than even young earth creationists suggest the earth is). Especially in the last 5 or 10 years, the hypothesis of abiogenesis has garnered much evidence. So much that it’s one or two steps from becoming an actual theory.
Danny said:
If you can’t even use science to prove someone graduated high school (better evidence would be historical documents and eyewitness accounts like a diploma and the testimonies of parents and friends who were there and saw it), then how can it be used to make such claims about how the world came into existence.
Graduating high school is an abstract concept. It is not a fact. Therefore it has nothing to do with science.
Bunyan said:
Is it too difficult to look at your own faith?
I don’t have faith.
Bunyan said:
I think I’m right on target, “credible” scientists have their faith in spontaneous generation.
I am not going to repeat myself just because you can’t wrap your brain around a concept.
Bunyan said:
Despite the lack of evidence that is what they believe.
*Snorts while laughing hysterically”
Bunyan said:
We have an increasing understanding that it is more difficult than Darwin and Haeckle ever could have imagined for life to arise from non-life.
Any time you want to get back on the subject, let me know.
Bunyan said:
Do you believe spontaneous generation or that God created?
I don’t believe either. Both are possible. Even if life spontaneously generated, it doesn’t necessarily mean that god doesn’t exist. Neither does it mean that he/she/it didn’t cause the spontaneous generation. I consider the question completely irrelevant and to a certain extent, unknowable. I would add that logic rules out the possiblity for a god through Occam’s Razor, but I doubt you would care about logic. And logic isn’t proof. So I let you come to your own conclusions. Just don’t wipe your a** with science in the process. It demeans you, me, and our entire species’ sociological and technological advances by doing so.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted October 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm


Perhaps I can see your point. In my view biogenesis and abiogenesis are incompatible being that they are the exact opposite of each other. Being that you are committed to evolution, abiogenesis has to be a fact, and biogenesis is what can now observe as true. So you have no problem with the two existing side by side.
So essentially regardless of how much tedious lab work and toil, and intelligent intervention is required to get the proper environment it wouldn’t convince you of the impossibility of it. As noted in the following:
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing ?-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.
Thiemann, W., ed., 1973. International Symposium on Generation and Amplification of Asymmetry in Chemical Systems, Jülich, Germany, pp 32–33, 1973; cited in: Wilder-Smith, A.E., 1981. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Master Books, CA.
What is not taught about Miller-Urey problems tells us more about scientists and the fear they have to coming to the table with the serious problems of evolution starting with the “abiogenesis”. I read a paper this year that they are trying to deal with the chirality issue and bias the amino acids into Left handedness they are still a long ways from life and information and self replication. They just need a little more intelligence and less random chance.
The original Miller-Urey had the 50/50 mix described above this is what will happen to all my amino acids when I die going from 100% left handed to 50/50. I will have all the building blocks for life sitting around and still be a representation of death like the Miller-Urey experiment with a 50/50 mix, and not a representation of life.
Should we talk about Ernst Haeckel’s deception as well as we discuss the nature of scientists and how faith can get in the way of reality?
:)



report abuse
 

Danny

posted October 23, 2008 at 10:30 pm


I’m glad to see that you recognize the mistake of saying that no credible scientist believes what the Creation Museum is teaching. Since by your definition of a credible scientist being one who is published in mainstream journals and that creationists get time in journals when dealing with sciences they are willing to accept, I follow that out to mean that some credible sciences do believe in creation.
I would have to disagree that the issue of origins is irrelevant to this discussion. Evolution depends on life already being in existence. To have no legitimate explanation as to how it began other than moving the problem further out in space (transpermia) is to have a baseless theory. (I believe Bunyan already stated the problems with the Urey-Miller experiment) The Creation Museum is built around a biblical framework with a solid foundation that is rarely argued against honestly. The only arguments brought up are the ones that attack the presenter rather than argument itself.
One last thing…I’m falling to understand how graduating high school is an abstract concept when it is dependent on tests and attendance records that are required to attain an acceptable amount of credits to receive a physical diploma that represents all that data. It seems as though graduating high school is much easier to prove than what it takes to be a credible scientist.



report abuse
 

GT

posted October 24, 2008 at 5:11 am


If the Museum is so accurate and factual in its presentation, what could Bill Maher possible do to ridicule it?
My suggestion is that the owners know how ridiculous their hypothesis is and know that a half brained person would pull it to pieces
bunyan33
The difference between a creationists and scientist is that the scientist does not PRETEND to know how it all started. He studies and questions and develops and tests until the answer is confirmed. No scientist can tell you how it started… YET, but by crikey they have narrowed it down over the years!
The creationist theory is shown as fact, with zero testing or inspection. The act of faith seems to be the only factor involved and the problem of “who designed the designer” is a rather large hurdle to overcome.
In all seriousness, with all the knowledge we have, how can you even defend the idea of a 6000 year old earth?



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted October 24, 2008 at 12:55 pm


GT,
That is a good question. Surprisingly not many people ask.
The answer should have valid science to back it up. Creationists admit their bias up front and look to the evidence to create a case for it. That is not to say that they ignore things but rather give plausible explanation as to why that some things are not contrary to the position. One should be able to make at least a few predictions from any model and have good explanation of findings. Example: The Big Bang Theory has failed to make some predictions and some hold to it because lack of better model and others are abandoning it.
I will start with some thing simple and tangible. If the Earth is young Carbon 14 should be in abundance or detectable in carbon based items found in rocks. Carbon 14 ½ life is short and will be undetectable after 100,000 years. If you already assume something is millions of years old why test it?
Old earth old universe predicts no Carbon 14 in things like diamonds or coal.
Young earth predicts detectable Carbon 14 in things like diamonds or coal.
The ages that are given are an assigned based on how many C14’s are found. (That carry assumptions of how many were there to begin with) But one thing is clear there should be no C14 detected if it is older than 100,000 years.
(hint there is detectable C14 in coal and diamonds and many other things)
There are many more reasons one should consider the age of the earth isn’t as set in stone as many would like to have us believe.
:)



report abuse
 

Danny

posted October 25, 2008 at 11:47 am


GT,
It appears that you are committing the common mistake of thinking that scientists are simply searching for the truth in a completely unbiased manner.
It is true that most all scientists that do not believe in creation do not pretend to know how it all started, but that does not make them unbiased. They start out their search by ruling out anything that cannot be explained by natural causes that can be observed today. This is called naturalism and uniformitarianism.
All scientists begin their studies with an educated guess that they then try to prove is true. In essence, they start out with an idea and find tests to prove they are right. If a test or two fails to support their hypothesis, they simply continue tweaking the experiments until they get the results they seek. This is completely normal for studying science but it is foolish to think that it is unbiased. The problem isn’t that there is a bias, it’s figuring out which bias is the correct one to start with.
Evolution and creation are both based in the past and neither can be tested or inspected. Bunyan33 is right in saying that you should be able to make predictions based on either model and test them accordingly, but neither can re-create the big-bang or creation week. Creationists recognize that the God of the Bible was there to see it happen and recorded what he did so that we can know as well.
The problem with who designed the designer actually has it’s answer in the law of information. Info can only come from a higher form of information. Whoever designed the universe must have all the information inside of it and then some. As for who designed that designer…an uber-designer with even more information. That uber-designer has and uber-uber-designer with even more info and the uber-uber has an uber-uber-uber designer obove him.
Now we can keep going with higher and higher uber-designers until we reach the one who has all the information in existence including past and future. Of course, that super-uber-designer would himself be able to create the universe as we see it so using Occum’s razor we can eliminate all the designers between the highest one and us in the universe. This is what the Bible has claimed in describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal God of gods.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted October 25, 2008 at 8:53 pm


Vastet, gravity is not a theory; it’s a law. It is indisputable because it has been verified to be true in a few different places in space (the Earth, the Moon, Mars, Venus, every place where a spacecraft has landed, or where human beings live and jump around :) ) Humans have also had first-hand experience in places where gravity is weaker (e.g. in space).
Evolution, by contrast, is a *theory*, albeit a convoluted and persistent one. In the presence of texts and word-of-mouth tradition that told people, for thousands of years, how they came about, humans decided that they needed a theory which excluded a creator–such creator would expect them to display certain behaviours and to have certain loyalties which they did not necessarily wish.
So along came the theory of evolution. We dug up a few bones, imagined entire animals around them, slapped random ages on them (“Oh, this one is 17.3 million years old!”) and called it science.
Because evolution has been preached for so long, we are at a point where people, such as yourself, really believe it to be irrefutable fact. So much so, that these people now ridicule others because they are “dumb,” “old fashioned,” etc. They quote scientists, and science journals, etc., as if the fact that other people believe the theory automatically makes it fact.
There is absolutely NO WAY that random mutations, over millions, billions or even trillions of years, can explain the variety of organisms we see around us. No way. There is no way for mutated DNA to gain information–this precludes any kind of evolution toward more complex systems. It is simply not possible. Sorry if your “scientist” friends tell you that organisms have evolved–they simply have not.
And, hello? DNA? Isn’t that like a tiny little computer program that tells an organism how to reproduce itself? Do I really have to point out that behind a program there is always a programmer?
Do organisms adapt to their environments? Absolutely! But even there, the ability to do so on their own is miraculous! So are lots of things: birth, the aging process (think about it–why would an evolved organism age, when it has the capability to heal itself, as all organisms do?)
Also, why the beauty? You believe things began to exist spontaneously, and evolved over time? Why did beauty need to exist? If the earth’s ecosystem exists simply so one organism can feed on another, why is there the beauty that we see?
And what about the human brain? How did something as complex and as amazing as that come about on its own? It is an incredibly organized system, when we know from the third law of thermodynamics that objects and environments have a natural tendency toward chaos. Why have things chosen to organize themselves, when they came from randomness?
It’s time to ask yourself these kinds of questions, and not just blindly accept what the “science” journals say. I laugh so hard when I read some of the preposterous things science puts forward.
And for your information, Christians don’t believe the earth is flat. Humans did believe that at one point because the knowledge of the initial creation was lost. But did you know that the Bible says the earth is a “circle?” Look it up: Proverbs 8:27.
Drop the human, godless arrogance and believe. Just believe. :)



report abuse
 

Person who suffers from Godless Arrogance

posted October 26, 2008 at 4:51 pm


Congratulations on the well put together short story written by Michael. Seriously though it is very thorough and contains a lot of the Creationist theory. We are all guided in our thoughts by an inbuilt bias and viewpoint on a subject before we know the facts or issues surrounding a topic, usually based on a few small pieces of information we learn initially. take the 08 election for example. i bet a lot of these people on these forums don’t listen to much of what barack obama has to say and yet blindly follow and “believe” in almost everything that McCain or Palin say. this is purely based on your previous allegiances to the republican party. its inherent in all of us. pretty logical right?
so your religious beliefs stop you from listening to the other theories out there.
you play a simple terminology game when you say that evolution isnt true because it is labeled a theory and not a law. by that view it can easily be said that creationists theory is just as untrue. then what is the difference between creationist theory and the Theory of Evolution. The creationist theory has a few pages in a book written by men around 3000 years ago before they knew that clean water was good for you, and the theory of evolution has 150 years of world wide scientific research into the study. when you hold up these two “theory’s” side by side the comparison should be easy. somehow though it isn’t for some.
Your breakdown of the scientific method is quite silly. i mean, if only life was so simple:
“So along came the theory of evolution. We dug up a few bones, imagined entire animals around them, slapped random ages on them (“Oh, this one is 17.3 million years old!”) and called it science.”
The whole put of the science is to find out what we don’t know. Danny’s claim of bias within science is quite reasonable in that yes scientist choose their own experiments and try to prove their theories, but it is the theory they adjust not he result. that is why all credible studies are published in journals and the results and method are provided to other scientists to validate their claims. there is invariably to different scientists in a specific field which are offering competing claims to a certain phenomena who will only love to disprove anthers theory. not just to keep their own theory alive but to keep the truth being discovered. you don’t think that when Charles Darwin released The Origin of Species that there were not 100’s if not 1000’s of scientists looking for any opportunity to disprove it. Hell Creationists still dispute it today even though every scientific community concludes that the evolutionary theory is fact and based on hard evidence. the fact that it still stands as the best and least flawed theory available in the 21st century tells us something.
Michael. You quote the evolutionary rise of DNA and its Structure through gaining information to gain rise to more complex systems impossible. neither you or I could go into any real detail on this topic. However who would be more qualified and understand more about the topic. an evolutionary biologist or your Pastor. i would be willing to bet that you were taught the complexities of DNA and its molecular structure not by someone who was studies the subject but by your pastor.
You claim the basis of the evolutionary theory through reproduction and death to be miraculous. if we didnt reproduce and die, then we would still be single celled organisms, if that, with ever lasting life, according to your understanding of evolution. all organisms have the ability to heal themselves and they incredibly they all die as well. what a world.
you link to areas of science which have nothing to do with each other in your amazement of the human mind, in quoting the third law of thermodynamics ans evolutionary theory.
You see the beauty in the world to somehow disprove the theory of evolution. how this is an argument i will never know.
in your closing argument you say that all the disbelievers of the creationist theory out there should not believe everything that a scientist tells us and this is true. you say:
“…not just blindly accept what the “science” journals say”.
i ask you. what in a rational world had more credibility. a theory backed by almost every scientist on the planet based on 150 years of research, or the “blind faith” in the one book written 3000 years ago.
due to our already developed bias towards this argument. neither of us will agree and you will most likely dismiss what i have written like a speech by barack obama. i never intended on changing your mind because i cant. even if we found intelligent life on another planet you would still hold you beliefs. that is just the way religion works. completely unwavering.
goodluck. and thanks for reading the entire thing.



report abuse
 

Danny

posted October 27, 2008 at 2:15 am


Dear Person Who Suffers From Godless Arrogance,
There are a few items in your post that I would like to agree with and respond to.
First of all, I agree that when a scientist publishes an idea that there are others that set out to test his or her hypothesis. I even agree that the original scientist will alter his or her hypothesis based on those that have found flaws in the original idea.
Second, I agree that religious people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence presented. There are many who basically say, “I’ve made up my mind so don’t try and confuse me with your facts. Even if a flaw is discovered in a person’s set of beliefs, they will often go on believing with unwavering faith.
Now here is where I hope to explain a few things. The teachings of evolution are a different animal than those of everyday empirical science. Evolution has failed to find it’s modus operandi. The two main vehicles for molecules-to-man evolution are natural selection and mutations.
Natural selection, by definition, can only select from the information that already exists. It is completely unable to add any new information at the genetic level. When bacteria are believed to develop a resistance to anti-biotics, it is often because they already had the resistance in their DNA and were able to pass it along after all the non-resistant bacteria died.
The problem with mutations are that nearly every example we have of them occurring at the genetic level of an organism results in a loss of information and usually have lethal consequences.
In order for Darwinian Evolution to work there must be information added at the genetic level by natural phenomenon. All the examples that evolution scientist parade out are examples of sideways or downhill changes, not the necessary uphill changes required. Some examples of sideways changes include: the stickleback fish of the northwest with their varying sizes of armor; the beaks of finches on Galapagos island; the various lengths of horns on rhinos; the many different types and sizes of dogs, all of which still have the info to be a dog. All these examples are simply variations within a kind. They are different from other fish, birds, rhinos and dogs in appearance but only because of a shuffling of already present information. Downhill changes include: cave fish with no eyes, wingless beetles on windy islands; super-baby or Belgian Blue cattle mutation. All these are beneficial to the creature in some ways but are still a result of a loss of information (downhill change).
Now comes the big idea. The problems stated above should be enough for an believer in evolution to at least question his theory but it isn’t. The reason is because evolution is a religion. I will allow some believers of the faith to state their case.
Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Stephen J. Gould states the following from Natural History:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. . . . [T]o preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and author of a number of books on Darwinian theory writes:
“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.”
As you can see (I hope), evolution is as much a religion as Christianity. The followers of the evolution faith are basing their beliefs on 150 years of research and published journals that have been re-written and re-written again and again as new facts a being discovered. Even when some of the results point to flaws in Darwinian theory, they have no affect on the main tenet of the faith: there is no creator-god responsible for the universe, only natural causes. It’s likes someone accusing a woman of being a witch and when asked how they intend on proving her witchhood declares that witches cannot drown so holding her underwater for 30 minutes will prove that she is a witch. After the woman is pulled out of the water and declared officially dead, the accuser admits his folly and says, “I was mistaken…witches can drown after all.”
So when a creationists believe the writings of a book written by men who were separated by time (1200-1500 year period), language (Arabic, Greek, and Hebrew), distance (Africa, Asia, and Europe) as well as walks of life (Kings to fishermen), they trust the claims that it was penned by men moved by the Spirit of God. The God who is powerful enough to speak the universe into existence, intelligent enough to write all the information needed for life into the DNA of a variety of different creatures, and foresighted enough to write into words how everything began so that we who were not there, could hear it from the One who was there.
Christianity is only a “blind faith” for as long as you close your eyes to it.
Thank you for reading to the end.



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted October 27, 2008 at 8:58 am


Bunyan said:
Perhaps I can see your point. In my view biogenesis and abiogenesis are incompatible being that they are the exact opposite of each other. Being that you are committed to evolution, abiogenesis has to be a fact, and biogenesis is what can now observe as true. So you have no problem with the two existing side by side.
I disagree. I think evolution is completely compatible with biogenesis. Perhaps you can explain how it is not?
As to your attempt at suggesting abiogenesis is wrong, you obviously did not look at the NEW Miller-Uray experiment results. Nor have you kept up with scientific discoveries over the last five to ten years. Your arguments are outdated and pre-refuted enmasse.
Danny said:
I’m glad to see that you recognize the mistake of saying that no credible scientist believes what the Creation Museum is teaching. Since by your definition of a credible scientist being one who is published in mainstream journals and that creationists get time in journals when dealing with sciences they are willing to accept, I follow that out to mean that some credible sciences do believe in creation.
Ridiculous. Not only did I not suggest such a thing, but such a thing is completely impossible. You’re attempting to use semantics, bad context, and misdirection to pull out a bunch of crap that I never said, and attribute it to mean something I never meant. You fail.
Danny said:
I would have to disagree that the issue of origins is irrelevant to this discussion.
You are wrong.
Danny said:
Evolution depends on life already being in existence.
Exactly, which proves the comment you just made to be wrong. I really wonder how you can type two sentences back to back that are mutually exclusive.
Danny said:
To have no legitimate explanation as to how it began other than moving the problem further out in space (transpermia) is to have a baseless theory.
Ridiculous. To add explanations as to how life arose in the first place takes the theory of evolution into sciences it has nothing to do with. Evolution has nothing to do with astronomy(unless you are a creationist and think evolution applies to everything), yet astronomy would be a primary component of abiogenesis.
Danny said:
(I believe Bunyan already stated the problems with the Urey-Miller experiment)
So you haven’t looked it up either. No surprise there.
Danny said:
The Creation Museum is built around a biblical framework with a solid foundation that is rarely argued against honestly.
There isn’t a single bit of truth in this sentence excepting that the museum was based on the bible. Which was rather self explanatory, considering that it’s called a creationist museum.
Danny said:
The only arguments brought up are the ones that attack the presenter rather than argument itself.
You just described a creationists argument. You have not described a realists argument.
Danny said:
One last thing…I’m falling to understand how graduating high school is an abstract concept when it is dependent on tests and attendance records that are required to attain an acceptable amount of credits to receive a physical diploma that represents all that data. It seems as though graduating high school is much easier to prove than what it takes to be a credible scientist.
Perhaps you don’t know what an abstract concept is. Or perhaps you think that your school records, as well as the curriculum for the year, the records for you and every student as well as their respective curriculums are universal and will last forever and that a scientist could figure it all out with fragments of information millenia in the future. High school doesn’t even exist in some countries. If you don’t get it at this point, you probably aren’t going to without more than I can do for you on this site or any other.
Danny said:
It is true that most all scientists that do not believe in creation do not pretend to know how it all started, but that does not make them unbiased. They start out their search by ruling out anything that cannot be explained by natural causes that can be observed today. This is called naturalism and uniformitarianism.
It is called science. Nothing else exists.
Danny said:
All scientists begin their studies with an educated guess that they then try to prove is true.
WRONG!
They try to prove it FALSE, not true. The difference between the two is extreme, and the basis for the difference between a creationist scientist and a real scientist. A real scientist tries to prove wrong. A creationist tries to prove right.
Danny said:
Evolution and creation are both based in the past and neither can be tested or inspected.
Wrong again. The evidence of evolution surrounds us. It is current and ancient. It is absolute. Our entire pharmaceutical and medical industry depends on it. All of biology depends upon it. Even farming depends on it.
Danny said:
The problem with who designed the designer actually has it’s answer in the law of information. Info can only come from a higher form of information. Whoever designed the universe must have all the information inside of it and then some.
It is clear to me that you have never taken any logic at all, or you would see your circular logic and all the other fallacies you make on a constant basis. Much like the suggestion that information is a physical entity. *Snort*
Michael said:
Vastet, gravity is not a theory; it’s a law.
Go back to grade school. I think it was grade 3 I learned this in. If you are old enough to type here, you have no excuse for such a disgusting lack of knowledge. Gravity is a theory. Period. There are very very very few laws.
You didn’t say anything else that hasn’t been said before a billion times and refuted centuries ago. Will you creationists ever upgrade your arguments, or are you living in the 1800’s because you just can’t come up with anything new?
Evolution is a fact. Those of you who want to tuck your heads in the sand and ignore fact sadden me. Maybe one day you’ll find out the truth, and you’ll be able to stop miring yourselves in the dark ages. The saddest thing about it is that you are arguing against literal fact. I point at the flat earth society as a perfect example of what you’re doing. They refuse to believe that the Earth is a semi-sphere that orbits a barycentre in common with Sol. Despite billions of photo’s and equations to prove it. You do the same, you just pick a different topic. What a waste of time and potential.



report abuse
 

Chris Watson a.k.a. The Bicycling Guitarist

posted October 27, 2008 at 7:28 pm


I wrote a song seventeen years ago about this controversy. Here are the lyrics:
Some people think we’re related to monkeys. This is what they say:
Evolution is a fact! All of science proves it. Why can’t you accept this? What is your problem? Could it be you’re too proud to admit you’re related to a monkey? Don’t forget pride is one of the seven deadly sins.
The scientists argue how it happened; they argue why. But they agree it did happen. It’s senseless to deny. So you see they all agree evolution is a fact of nature. You’ll just have to face the fact: you’re related to a monkey.
The only problem is your in-ter-pre-ta-tion. Evolution is the better ex-pla-na-tion of overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact of nature. You’ll just have to face the fact: you’re related to a monkey!
Lyrics copyright 1991 to me (The Bicycling Guitarist)



report abuse
 

Danny

posted October 27, 2008 at 7:29 pm


Well Vastet, thank you for what started out as a meanigful exchange of posts. I guess my line of reasoning needs a little work, or at your suggestion, maybe Michael, Bunyan and I can continue our conversation with you once we return from the 1800’s and complete third through sixth grades again. It seems that then we will be able to understand what you do since you have no interest in explaining yourself and only appeal to the majority and continue to insult our intelligence. Hopefully, a truly meaningful conversation can take place in the future.



report abuse
 

Bunyan33

posted October 28, 2008 at 8:37 am


Vastet,
Biogenesis, or life arising from life we agree upon. Evolution or an upward rising complexity of information resulting in new parts and new organs etc. we don’t agree upon.
I thought I handled the on going problem of Miller-Urey. They have yet to deal with the amino acid problem of Left handedness in all proteins. Its is a requirement. They are no farther than the first miller-urey experiment, claiming it came about in the air with lightning, a thermal vent or in the pre-biotic soup it is still the problem of Right and Left handed amino acids together will not support life. If they have to do unreasonable, un natural and non-random processes to create left handed amino acids only, the point is clear, self replicating cells require guidance and intent. It requires information to drive the production of the proper proteins and other things necessary for cells. Post it so you can guide me to the “new” Miller-Urey that can deal with this issue otherwise your point is moot.
.
Person who suffers….
In kindness and gentleness, You wrote a nice note but I was looking for more of a fact that evolution is based off of other that most the scientists kind of a line. Yes it may be a good idea to follow the crowd in some cases but the crowd is following a belief propped up on vestigial arguments that started with outright lies in the beginning 150 years ago, and now supported with scant evidence which is why I keep asking for some evidence to discuss and not party line.
:)



report abuse
 

Michael

posted October 29, 2008 at 9:51 pm


Dear “Person Who Suffers from Godless Arrogance”
Thank you for your polite and quite passionate entry. It would appear I’ve offended you by referring to Godless arrogance–that certainly wasn’t my intent. Far be it from me to wish to appear self righteous, though I realize now how easy it easy to be interpreted that way.
I’d like to reply to some of your points.
First, I agree that my views of the world are guided by my understanding of the Universe and of how, in my view, it was created. However, please don’t throw me in with the McCain followers. I’m not even American, for Pete’s sakes, and really I could care less who wins your election. In fact, a huge percentage of people from my country (I’ll give you a hint–you could probably drive to my country in less than a day) would prefer that Obama wins. Personally, I’m more concerned with our own politics, the ones that were made fun of by on of your country’s so-called funny show hosts recently …
But I digress … I totally agree with you that, just as I say evolution is simply a theory, you could argue that creation is also just a theory. You are correct. Both views are just different ways of interpreting the evidence that is dug up. Since neither you nor I were there 6000 years ago, we won’t know for sure right now whether the earth was just being created, or whether millions of years of evolutionary non-miracles had been taking place.
And I disagree with you that the purpose of science is to find out what we don’t know. If that were the case, then the idea of the possible creation of the universe by a higher power would at least be more widely entertained. Instead, the entire concept of a higher creative power is ridiculed and dismissed derisively simply because “that could never be.” I say humans evolving from electrified dirt could never be.
Also, I was not taught about the DNA by my pastor. Please don’t represent me as an uneducated, brainwashed sheep. You ask, who is more credible a teacher about DNA, an evolutionary biologist or my pastor? I say neither: my pastor because he likely knows little about it, nor the evolutionary biologist because (s)he has made her/his lifelong quest to study a misguided fantastic theory (in my view, of course …) I say God is the better teacher here, since he created DNA. And please, don’t tell me DNA could EVER have haphazardly created and organized itself into the amazing and largely unknown system of information it is! If one believes that, talk about blind right there! Sorry!
I didn’t get your musings about the existence of the aging process or death. I think your arguments counter your original point.
And I didn’t see beauty as a counterargument to evolution–I saw it as an argument for a creative God who appreciates and generates beauty.
You ask, “what in a rational world had more credibility. a theory backed by almost every scientist on the planet based on 150 years of research, or the ‘blind faith’ in the one book written 3000 years ago.” Here, your question is based on erroneous or at least incomplete or misleading points. First, the fact that evolutionists have researched things for 150 years is meaningless: how long was alchemy researched? Second, I’m not putting faith in a book, but rather in its Writer. And by the way, please rethink the argument that all of the Bible was written 3000 years ago…
Am I unwavering in my beliefs? You betcha! That is because I wavered long enough, and once I found God, I found answers! My mind is open and I can see clearly. It is hard for a person without faith in God to understand, so touché on the “you wouldn’t understand” and right back atcha! That means yes, if we found life on another planet (intelligent or not) I would say God put it there for us to find.
It boils down to this: if I’m wrong, and we really are the result of millions of years of evolutionary processes, then that’s fine. I’ll still die some day, I’ll be buried, and I’ll never know. In the meantime, I will have lived a happy life pursuing what I know to be true.
If *you*’re wrong, however, and one day you stand before your Creator who 1) demands that we believe; and 2) has made it SO easy by paying the price for us through Jesus, then I wouldn’t want to be in your place … I am praying for you.
Love in Christ,
Michael



report abuse
 

John

posted October 30, 2008 at 12:10 am


for those who can’t believe that there was a big bang, or evolution …
WHERE did your ‘god’ come from ?
How can you believe an ‘all powerful’ god (greater in total energy or capability than the big bang) just popped out of nowhere, or ‘is, was, and always will be’.
Seems to me, that if a ‘god’ can ‘is/was/always will be’, then certainly a simple solar system or galaxy can ‘is/was/always will be’ …
And, even if there is a ‘god’ why do so many assume it is the christian form of god, when, with 700 million followers, christians are only 10% of the population of the planet.
I read somewhere that all the children (even the 90% NOT born to christian parents) are considered ‘born innocent’. Why would god ‘create’ 90% of these little people ‘in his image’ to parents of supposedly ‘wrong’ religions.
Just seems illogical to me !



report abuse
 

Person who suffers from Godless Arrogance

posted October 30, 2008 at 10:42 am


thanks for the response michael.
ultimately we can debate on the same topics and never agree. but i will just respond to your last comment that if i was to meet the supposed creator when i die that i should watch out.
really, why would god care that i believe in him. its seems pointless. would god value people who blindly follow his supposed word through one book written in the early days of human civilization, regardless of its many fanciful stories from the story of creation to jesus’ resurrection.
and could you really believe that god has something bad in store for me when i die simply because i question the world around me.
oh and thankyou for the pray, sounds like i will need it.
PS im actually from australia.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted October 30, 2008 at 1:04 pm


There are a lot of arguments that can be flipped such as I did with the above post….
for those who can’t believe that there was creation …
WHERE did your ‘matter’ come from ?
How can you believe matter is eternal
or did it just pop out of nowhere, or ‘is, was, and always will be’.
Seems to me, that if a ‘matter’ ‘is/was/always will be’, then certainly a God could also ‘be/is/ and always will be’ ……
I think that asking questions about God are OK if they are really honest questions about God.
I’m still waiting on evidence for evolution.
The Big Bang Model has had some failure in making predictions about what is now observed. You can’t ask Christians to just accept it is reality, when some scientists are abandoning it as well
The person who suffers…
God did a daring thing to allow free will. But indeed he does care that we respond to him. How would a programer feel if his program stopped responding to him, after all the effort he put into it. (I think its more complicated than that, but that is probably why he cares, He knew us in the womb so it says in the scriptures and loves us enough to do somthing to improve our ability to relate to Him)



report abuse
 

Michael

posted October 30, 2008 at 7:23 pm


John, if we continue your “where did God come from” argument, we soon arrive at the contradiction that was pointed out by Danny farther up this page. And that is, that if God had been created by some SuperGod, then we would keep asking ad-nauseam, “And who created him?” and so on. We would then keep inventing “SuperGods” upon “SuperGods” who each created the another, each one being more powerful than the previous. We would do this until infinity, and if that were possible, we would arrive at a god who has infinite power.
Well, that is the God we are talking about.
Your same question could easily be asked about the Big Bang theory: where did the very heavy, very small particle that supposedly provided matter and energy to the universe come from? Who made it? For how long was it sitting there in the vastness of space, before it blew up? And what if you’re not allowed to say “forever?” (Because, apparently, you don’t accept that “my” God has existed forever…)
And what existed before that? And how did it get there?
Some say the universe is infinitely large. How can that be, if we demand that everything we know about has to be neatly contained in our feeble little brains? And if the universe isn’t infinitely large, there’s an even scarier question: what’s on the other side?
You see, John, we humans have become so accustomed to thinking that this physical world is all there is, and that we are close to understanding everything. But when the key to finally understanding everything is revealed to us, we dismiss it because people 3000 ago dared to also believe it. And after all, we’re so much smarter than them since we’ve figured out that, given enough millions of years, dirt turns into people…
With regards to your stats on the prevalence of non-Christian religions in the world, what does that prove? Just because untold millions of people choose to believe in tree spirits, and reincarnation, and spells and incantations, or other gods, doesn’t mean that my belief system, which I live and experience daily, is wrong. God didn’t create these people into the wrong religion, as you say, nor did he allow children to be born into countries where belief in God is rare because he has somehow overlooked these children. Quite the contrary: God created people in his image, but they’ve gone far from Him. In his love, however, he provided for his creation by sending his son, Jesus, to redeem them.
We have only to believe.
But, seemingly, that is very hard if our minds are laden with pseudo-science.



report abuse
 

vastet

posted October 31, 2008 at 11:06 am


Danny said:
Well Vastet, thank you for what started out as a meanigful exchange of posts. I guess my line of reasoning needs a little work, or at your suggestion, maybe Michael, Bunyan and I can continue our conversation with you once we return from the 1800’s and complete third through sixth grades again.
Lol. At least we’re keeping a sense of humour about it here. I am honestly surprised at how cordial this conversation has been on all sides.
Danny said:
It seems that then we will be able to understand what you do since you have no interest in explaining yourself and only appeal to the majority and continue to insult our intelligence. Hopefully, a truly meaningful conversation can take place in the future.
I have explained myself quite sufficiently. Any particular thing I didn’t explain, I still gave more than enough information for you to self learn, if it was in your interests. I don’t waste my time laying out all the physics and other sciences for two reasons. One, I’m not a specialist in the sciences. Two: in my experience, most people don’t bother to read it when you post a 30 page essay on the facts of evolution. If you want to know more than I have said, consider that I am not a qualified instructor, and you would do far better by talking to actual specialists. Microbiology would be an excellent place to start; because virus’ and bacteria have so many generations so quickly, they are generally the easiest species to watch evolve.
Bunyan said:
Vastet,
Biogenesis, or life arising from life we agree upon. Evolution or an upward rising complexity of information resulting in new parts and new organs etc. we don’t agree upon.
Except that there is no such thing as new information or greater complexity in evolution. These terms prove your ignorance regarding evolution, since they don’t exist and are incoherant. Any first year biology student could tell you as much.
Bunyan said:
I thought I handled the on going problem of Miller-Urey. They have yet to deal with the amino acid problem of Left handedness in all proteins. Its is a requirement.
Except that left handedness was explained at least a couple of years ago. With this, and many of your and Danny’s and Michael’s claims, I could have simply directed the lot of you here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html ,
where every creationist claim in existance has been refuted(Left handedness specifically on that page). The only way for you to understand evolution is to learn about it from people who work on it and with it. As well, astronomy has revealed that comets can contain 95%+ left handed proteins. Or vice versa. Proving that there are plenty of sources of explanations.
Michael said:
It boils down to this: if I’m wrong, and we really are the result of millions of years of evolutionary processes, then that’s fine. I’ll still die some day, I’ll be buried, and I’ll never know. In the meantime, I will have lived a happy life pursuing what I know to be true.
If *you*’re wrong, however, and one day you stand before your Creator who 1) demands that we believe; and 2) has made it SO easy by paying the price for us through Jesus, then I wouldn’t want to be in your place … I am praying for you.
Ah, Pascal’s wager. The oldest and most refuted creationist claim in history. Your suggestion sounds so reasonable, until one realizes that you are not the only person claiming to have a god on this planet. And so many gods that one can learn about are mutually exclusive and contradictory. Therefore if one is true, the rest are false. And if you chose the wrong god, you’re in bigger trouble than not choosing any at all. I may fall to your argument and start worshipping jesus and his dad. But then 40 years later I get hit by a bus and find out that Thor or Zeus rules the heavens. He and his hammer/lightning bolt are not too happy with my actions the last 40 years….
Bunyan said:
for those who can’t believe that there was creation …
WHERE did your ‘matter’ come from ?
Why did it have to come from anywhere? It may have always been there in one form or another. We simply don’t know. Assuming anything is begging the question, a logical fallacy.
Bunyan said:
How can you believe matter is eternal
How can you believe it isn’t?
Bunyan said:
or did it just pop out of nowhere, or ‘is, was, and always will be’.
Seems to me, that if a ‘matter’ ‘is/was/always will be’, then certainly a God could also ‘be/is/ and always will be’ ……
Sure. But it adds complexity to an already complex scenario. Why add complexity? Science is about simplicity. The more simple something can be refined to, the happier a scientist is. Adding another level of complexity accomplishes nothing but raising a billion more questions.
Bunyan said:
I think that asking questions about God are OK if they are really honest questions about God.
I’m still waiting on evidence for evolution.
The Big Bang Model has had some failure in making predictions about what is now observed. You can’t ask Christians to just accept it is reality, when some scientists are abandoning it as well
There are many theories and even more hypothesis regarding the big bang. We know something massive happened a dozen odd billion years ago. We don’t know exactly what, how, why, when, or where. There’s not a lot of point arguing a topic that nobody knows in detail and certainty.
Michael said:
You see, John, we humans have become so accustomed to thinking that this physical world is all there is, and that we are close to understanding everything. But when the key to finally understanding everything is revealed to us, we dismiss it because people 3000 ago dared to also believe it. And after all, we’re so much smarter than them since we’ve figured out that, given enough millions of years, dirt turns into people…
Ironically, it is the bible that teaches people were raised from dirt. Not abiogenesis. One needs water and energy, amongst other things. Neither qualify as dirt.
Michael said:
With regards to your stats on the prevalence of non-Christian religions in the world, what does that prove? Just because untold millions of people choose to believe in tree spirits, and reincarnation, and spells and incantations, or other gods, doesn’t mean that my belief system, which I live and experience daily, is wrong.
And yet your belief system does not prove theirs wrong either. And they believe in theirs as much as you believe in yours. We on the sidelines have become rather sick of the battle going on between you all for thousands of years.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted October 31, 2008 at 9:17 pm


Vastet, if your ignorance and stubbornness weren’t so sad and disturbing, I would laugh at your rantings. Instead, I am moved in my soul for you.
I pray for clarity and openmindedness for you. For, you see, God is unlikely to look kindly upon your argument “I didn’t believe because there are so many gods that other people believe in, and besides scientists ‘know’ that something big happened a dozen billion years ago as well as the exact kind of protein comets are made of but yet are too blind to acknowledge their creator, and also I know a web site where evolutionists have been feeding me ‘facts’ for years and years…”
Take care.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted October 31, 2008 at 9:24 pm


Vastet, I just reread my post, and focused on the word “ignorance.” Please don’t think I’m calling you ignorant. I can tell you are an intelligent person. I simply meant “ignorance of the facts” around the claims that the Christians on this site are making.
Hope this clarifies it.
And I’ll take this opportunity to counter one argument you made, about bacteria being “watched evolve.” Umm … no one has ever seen a species evolve, certainly not in the sense of “turnip to turtle” or “molecule to monkey.” We may see a species adapt to its environment, and if we think about the complexity of a biological system that allows this to happen, we must show quite a bit of awe.
But pure, evolutionary “bacteria to baboon” transformations have never been (and I hypothesize *will never be*) observed.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted November 3, 2008 at 8:22 am


Vastet,
I tried reading the citations off of Talk origins because sometimes the data is overstated as I believe it is in the case that you posted. This is a 2006 abstract that states there is no conclusive mechanism to account for the left handedness. All the citations on the article posted are older than 2006.
Experimental Biology and Medicine 231:1587-1592 (2006)
The Origin of Life and the Left-Handed Amino-Acid Excess: The Furthest Heavens and the Deepest Seas?
The origin of life is an extraordinary problem that leads back to the structure and dynamics of the cosmos and early development of organic molecules. Within that wider question lies an unsolved problem that has troubled biologists for 150 years. What is the origin of the dominant presence of left-handed stereoisomers of amino acids in nature even though their synthesis normally results in an equal mixture of the right- and left-handed molecular forms? We propose that asymmetric Earth rotation caused at dawn and dusk circularly polarized UV light (CPUVL) of opposite polarity and reversed temperature profiles in the oceans. Destruction of the D-isomer by CPUVL at dusk in a sea surface hotter than at dawn created a daily L-isomer excess protected from radiation by nightfall, preserved by down-flow (diffusive, mechanical) into cold, darker regions, eventually initiating an L-amino-acid excess embodied in early marine forms. Innumerable mechanisms have been proposed for the origin of L-chiral dominance in amino acids and none proven. Since the thalidomide tragedy, homochirality of amino acids has been a growing practical issue for medicine. Understanding its origin may bring further and unexpected benefits. It may also be a modest pointer to the possibility of positive answers to whether intelligent life will have the capacity to continue to protect itself from conditions inimical to survival.
Sorry I’m not convinced. Sorry took me to long to respond. I didn’t see anything about New Miller-Urey. Evolution is a position of faith as much as those who trust in the Creator.
:)



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted November 3, 2008 at 11:42 am


Michael said:
Vastet, if your ignorance and stubbornness weren’t so sad and disturbing, I would laugh at your rantings. Instead, I am moved in my soul for you.
So you know, I did read both your posts before responding. Still, I feel a similar sensation in my head for you my friend.
Michael said:
I pray for clarity and openmindedness for you. For, you see, God is unlikely to look kindly upon your argument “I didn’t believe because there are so many gods that other people believe in, and besides scientists ‘know’ that something big happened a dozen billion years ago as well as the exact kind of protein comets are made of but yet are too blind to acknowledge their creator, and also I know a web site where evolutionists have been feeding me ‘facts’ for years and years…”
I think that if your god is real, and is as good and wise as you and other theists claim him to be, then he would have no problem with my many arguments for not following his supposed word to the letter. I also think you are in no position to threaten me on his behalf, as you have hardly spoken with him face to face to get his exact position on everything, and he would look less favourably upon you for doing so. Even if the impossible happened and it was shown that existence is only 5 thousand odd years old, the word of your god has been hopelessly lost in time. Have you ever played the game in school where you whisper something into someones ear, then they whisper it into someone elses, and so on until it comes back to you? 99 times out of a hundred something will have been lost or added that wasn’t there when you first made the comment. Even though no more than 10 minutes have passed and only 10 or 20 people were involved. Now take that 10 minutes and multiply it into a period of 2000 years. Take that 10 or 20 people and multiply it to be billions. Then add translations to other languages, where something is always lost or altered. The bible wasn’t even compiled until hundreds of years after the events it supposedly records. It is untrustworthy, period. Even if your god is real, he would spit on your bible.
Michael said:
And I’ll take this opportunity to counter one argument you made, about bacteria being “watched evolve.” Umm … no one has ever seen a species evolve, certainly not in the sense of “turnip to turtle” or “molecule to monkey.” We may see a species adapt to its environment, and if we think about the complexity of a biological system that allows this to happen, we must show quite a bit of awe.
On the contrary, we have indeed watched species involve. Multiple times. We’ve all watched it happen personally, but creationists discard the evidence and compile it into a category that doesn’t exist in science: micro evolution. But this can be forgiven to an extent. After all, we only live for 70 or 80 years on average. That’s only two or three generations. A new species isn’t going to emerge in two or three generations. However, the greatest example I have encountered of evolution happening is in a bacterium that didn’t exist 100 years ago. It feeds on a material that also didn’t exist 100 years ago. It feeds on plastic. A substance that MUST be manufactured. A substance that is not natural in all of Earth history until the arrival of the technological prowess of humanity. Yet it is now the primary source of food for a bacteria that has evolved to consume it. This should be more than enough information for you to look into it further should you choose to.
Michael said:
But pure, evolutionary “bacteria to baboon” transformations have never been (and I hypothesize *will never be*) observed.
Only because one would have to live for a good 2 billion years or so to observe so much. Otherwise it would have been observed. We can still get most of the details of the journey through DNA, so the history book is still there. Even though we didn’t write it.
Bunyan:
Well as I already said, I’m not a biology specialist. I have seen it explained and demonstrated, but not sufficiently to confer it to you. I specialize in other things. As for Miller-Urey, it was in the headlines of world papers within the last month. If you couldn’t find it, then you didn’t look.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted November 3, 2008 at 5:08 pm


Thanks. Your right I didn’t look at the newpaper reports. I have read other such reports that have overstated the findings only later to quietly recant or no correction to their mistake, leaving people such as you and me thinking that what was written to be the gospel truth.
I think that is the case with Miller-Urey.
Same with “Lucy” there is a lot of ta doo that “Lucy” is an upright walking transitional fossil that supports human evolution. That is unless your a trained Paleontoligist. Lucy fits with in modern ape size and skull and is considered a knuckle walker but “lucy” is still being used as an icon of evolution even though it is known that he/she/it was essentialy and ape of some kind.
I think all scientists indeed have bias, mostly when it comes to historical science and origin studies.
:)



report abuse
 

Michael

posted November 3, 2008 at 7:22 pm


Sorry, Vastet, all I read are excuses for not believing, and examples of adaptation touted as evolution.
What else you got? :)
A few more things to ponder:
1) The moon retreats from the earth at the rate of 4 cm a year. If we extrapolate backwards, we find that at this rate, the moon would have needed to actually be in contact with the earth “only” 1.5 billion years ago, much less than the supposed age of the earth and solar system.
2) A good 20 cultures around the world contain in their folklore a recount of a flood. Of these, all 20 accounts contain destruction by water; in 19 accounts some humans are saved; in 19 of them, there is world-wide destruction; in 12 of them, there is a favoured family; in 18 of the accounts, an ark is built or provided; in 9 of them, there is divine destruction; many of them contain elements such as the ark landing on a mountain, animals being saved, man in transgression from the divine, etc.
3) The biochemistry of the clotting process in blood: the amount of platelets and fibrin containing clot that is necessary for proper coagulation needs to be just right, if the organism is to avoid the two extremes: out-of-control clotting, vs. bleeding to death. Consider how many mammals would have been killed by improper clotting through the eons of time if one is to follow the survival of the fittest scheme.
And if evolution had done its thing in small incremental steps, holding on only to what was necessary along the way, the complex clotting process would not have been arrived at. (Remember, with evolution, nature keeps only what is necessary at the time.)
4) Vision is another one. The eye (take the human eye, for example) is a complex mechanism that is useless unless it’s fully formed. Think about the optics involved. The evolutionary process would not have worked at forming the eye “blindly” (forgive the pun) unless there was some ultimate design in the final product.
5) Fossilized trees have been found spanning several strata, which supposedly were deposited over millions of years. This means that that tree would have needed to remain standing while, very slowly, matter was being deposited around it. I would be willing to buy that, if we could only see that replicated anywhere in the world today.
6) Supposedly 65 million year old dinosaurs unearthed with some soft flesh tissue (decomposed, of course) and tendons quite intact. Are we to believe that animal flesh keeps for that long, when the textbooks tell us that even wood gets petrified long before that?
7) The world’s human population is way too small for humans to have been around for the 50 000 years that are proposed. Even accounting for wars, disease, famine, natural disasters, etc., under modest parameters, the world’s population would be around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000 (I got this number from the web site answersingenesis.org–I think they counted on the population doubling 332 times over the 50 000 years).
8) Genetic mutations would NEVER account for the biodiversity we see around us today, not in 4.5 billion, not in 4.5 trillion years! Mutations are quite rare, and they almost always have negative, not positive results. Most importantly, we do not see mutations that lead to the creation of new information in DNA; whereas, new information must have been acquired in a very deliberate, very organized way, to have created the massive number of species and sub-species we see today. To believe that all of this came about randomly through mutations is cartoonish at best.
I say these things not to prove that creation occurred. I can’t convince anyone that God’s word is true–only He can do that. Rather, I am presenting things to think about that hopefully help show that evolution isn’t the “fact” or the be all and end all it’s presented as, but rather one theory, with many, many holes.
Sure, the same can be said by some of creationism. But I’m sick and tired of being told that evolution is somehow fact, whereas my belief is outdated and backward.
There is evidence is all around us. The only reason I can think of not to believe is that maybe I don’t want to believe in a creator God, preferring rather to crouch in a corner, covering my ears, and muttering “I don’t wanna believe, I don’t wanna believe.”



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted November 5, 2008 at 9:54 am


Bunyan said:
I think that is the case with Miller-Urey.
Well I would still suggest you read up on it. If it turns out wrong in the future, you’ll have a bragging point. I doubt very much that it will though.
Bunyan said:
Same with “Lucy” there is a lot of ta doo that “Lucy” is an upright walking transitional fossil that supports human evolution. That is unless your a trained Paleontoligist. Lucy fits with in modern ape size and skull and is considered a knuckle walker but “lucy” is still being used as an icon of evolution even though it is known that he/she/it was essentialy and ape of some kind.
I am not aware of the specific fossil you speak of, but fossil records are not the greatest evidence of evolution(I should point out as an aside that the vast majority of fossils I have seen theists decry as lies are indeed lies, but they are not used by scientists to forward the evolutionary theory either, so calling them lies does nothing to harm evolutions facts). So such arguments are completely meaningless. Fossils are exceptionally rare. Less than 1% of 1% of 1% of all the life in Earth history has been fossilized. Certainly there’s enough to make a hypothesis and test it, but the greatest proof is in DNA. Genetics. The undeniable evidence, if only one cares to look.
Michael said:
Sorry, Vastet, all I read are excuses for not believing, and examples of adaptation touted as evolution.
All I am seeing from you are excuses for not reading and learning, and nothing at all to argue against evolution that I have not already defeated. If this is the best you can do, I fear I may be giving up on you soon.
Michael said:
1) The moon retreats from the earth at the rate of 4 cm a year. If we extrapolate backwards, we find that at this rate, the moon would have needed to actually be in contact with the earth “only” 1.5 billion years ago, much less than the supposed age of the earth and solar system.
Incorrect. The moon moves further away every year than the year previous. Extrapolating backwards with this factor in mind, the moon most certainly did not exist in the same location as the Earth.
Michael said:
2) A good 20 cultures around the world contain in their folklore a recount of a flood. Of these, all 20 accounts contain destruction by water; in 19 accounts some humans are saved; in 19 of them, there is world-wide destruction; in 12 of them, there is a favoured family; in 18 of the accounts, an ark is built or provided; in 9 of them, there is divine destruction; many of them contain elements such as the ark landing on a mountain, animals being saved, man in transgression from the divine, etc.
So what? Floods are very common, and usually kill a great many people. The further back in time you go, the more likely it is to have high or total casualties. And in a culture which is unaware of the reality of Earth’s immense size(such as the ones you refer to), a flood that covers all that the eye can see is quite easily thought to be a flood that covers the world, even if it was only a few kilometres inland. And the ark is the most ridiculous part of christianity. Not only would such a vessel NOT accomplish what it supposedly did, but if it had somehow miraculously happened we would see incontrovertable evidence in the DNA of almost every species on the planet. Not to mention that all fresh water species would be extinct today. I could raise another million arguments against the ark, including christianities theft of that tale from older cultures, but I have better things to spend my time on.
Michael said:
3) The biochemistry of the clotting process in blood: the amount of platelets and fibrin containing clot that is necessary for proper coagulation needs to be just right, if the organism is to avoid the two extremes: out-of-control clotting, vs. bleeding to death. Consider how many mammals would have been killed by improper clotting through the eons of time if one is to follow the survival of the fittest scheme.
And if evolution had done its thing in small incremental steps, holding on only to what was necessary along the way, the complex clotting process would not have been arrived at. (Remember, with evolution, nature keeps only what is necessary at the time.)
Irreducible complexity has been disproven in all its forms since its inception. This statement is completely false. Not to mention all the obvious evidence of improper clotting in our medical history. But I guess you can conveniently ignore reality. Beyond that, your genes carry your history of billions of years. You simply prove once again that you don’t know what evolution is, and are completely incapable of arguing against it in any way.
Michael said:
4) Vision is another one. The eye (take the human eye, for example) is a complex mechanism that is useless unless it’s fully formed. Think about the optics involved. The evolutionary process would not have worked at forming the eye “blindly” (forgive the pun) unless there was some ultimate design in the final product.
See above.
Michael said:
5) Fossilized trees have been found spanning several strata, which supposedly were deposited over millions of years. This means that that tree would have needed to remain standing while, very slowly, matter was being deposited around it. I would be willing to buy that, if we could only see that replicated anywhere in the world today.
This is another argument you can find refuted at the link I gave in my previous post.
Michael said:
6) Supposedly 65 million year old dinosaurs unearthed with some soft flesh tissue (decomposed, of course) and tendons quite intact. Are we to believe that animal flesh keeps for that long, when the textbooks tell us that even wood gets petrified long before that?
This is the first I’ve heard of actual tissue still being intact. Before I look into it further, can you provide a source for this information?
Michael said:
7) The world’s human population is way too small for humans to have been around for the 50 000 years that are proposed. Even accounting for wars, disease, famine, natural disasters, etc., under modest parameters, the world’s population would be around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000 (I got this number from the web site answersingenesis.org–I think they counted on the population doubling 332 times over the 50 000 years).
Despite your claim, you completely disregard the numerous plagues and wars that ripped at our numbers time and time again. You ignore the reality that in order to establish and maintain a civilization capable of growing, you must have resources. Resources that are extremely valuable to others, inviting further conflicts. Beyond that, if this were true, then why isn’t every life form on the planet in such numbers? There should be so many birds that the sky is perpetually in shadow. So many insects that we could not go anywhere without incountering them en masse. Moulds and bacterias over every square milimetre of Earth’s surface. Why hasn’t this happened? Obviously it doesn’t work that way.
Michael said:
8) Genetic mutations would NEVER account for the biodiversity we see around us today, not in 4.5 billion, not in 4.5 trillion years! Mutations are quite rare, and they almost always have negative, not positive results. Most importantly, we do not see mutations that lead to the creation of new information in DNA; whereas, new information must have been acquired in a very deliberate, very organized way, to have created the massive number of species and sub-species we see today. To believe that all of this came about randomly through mutations is cartoonish at best.
You are merely proving further that you don’t even know the subject you are trying to argue against. This comment has absolutely no meaning, as it doesn’t address a single thing to do with evolution. It merely argues against the creationists view of evolution.
Michael said:
I say these things not to prove that creation occurred. I can’t convince anyone that God’s word is true–only He can do that. Rather, I am presenting things to think about that hopefully help show that evolution isn’t the “fact” or the be all and end all it’s presented as, but rather one theory, with many, many holes.
As I have shown, you have done nothing of the sort. You now even go further in your ignorance by suggesting that a theory in science isn’t accepted fact. You confuse the common usage of the term with the scientific one. The term you’re looking for is hypothesis. Anything that is a scientific theory has been proven to be true as laid out.
Michael said:
Sure, the same can be said by some of creationism. But I’m sick and tired of being told that evolution is somehow fact, whereas my belief is outdated and backward.
Well I am truly sorry that you are insulted by it, but it doesn’t change it from being true.
Michael said:
There is evidence is all around us. The only reason I can think of not to believe is that maybe I don’t want to believe in a creator God, preferring rather to crouch in a corner, covering my ears, and muttering “I don’t wanna believe, I don’t wanna believe.”
The only reason I can think of to believe is to avoid reality. Most people do it, if not all people. But some or all of us are capable(if wanting to) of keeping our escapism from clouding our perceptions of the real.



report abuse
 

Person who suffers from Godless Arrogance

posted November 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm


my overall argument or belief is that if by some chance god or a mighty being created the universe and kicked off everything, why would he wait 14 billion odd years only to wait for humans to gain the intellectual capacity to construct a concept of god, then to meddle and be able to control or affect the daily lives of these humans, have the power to send them to heaven or hell and according to people on this forum, condemn 80% of people on earth to hell for growing up with the wrong religion, because they believe what their parents told them to believe; which is exactly what the people on this forum have personally done themselves. finally god will eventually continue to affect the lives of many people around the world until the human race like all other species, will eventually expire, to which god will go back to twiddling his thumbs for the rest of eternity, until perhaps life occurs on another planet and the entire process kicks off again. even if you are a creationist you must know that the human race can not survive infinitely in the hands of god. i am not arguing that their is no creator. i am arguing that said creator does not follow or affect our lives.
Cheers



report abuse
 

Michael - my last post

posted November 6, 2008 at 6:44 am


Wow. I find incredible the amount of obstinance, audacity and just plain unbelief in the world, as exemplified in this forum. That a created being would have the impertinence to say things like “jesus and his dad” or “God is twiddling his thumbs” is simply incredible to me.
God’s love and patience must be boundless, to still wait patiently in the face of such incredible arrogance.
I’m done here. I’ve never, as an educated person, been more insulted, more “put in my place” more made to feel like an ignorant hick as I have in this forum. All this because I dare interpret the evidence differently from the way they do–I guess that’s not allowed, because their interpretation is somehow “truth”. I’m not surprised–this is the theme of the evolutionist: put down, insult, refuse to accept or entertain new ideas, etc. In the face of dwindling proof and pointed questions to which they have no answer, this is what they resort to.
And the anger and sarcasm in the tone of the evolutionists on here are unbelievable. What a palpable difference in tone between the two sides here.
So farewell, friends, and I will pray for clarity and openmindedness for you. Only God can help you see, but He won’t if you purposely shut your eyes!
Happy trails.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted November 6, 2008 at 8:23 am


Take Care Michael,
I’ll stick aroung a little longer yet.
Person who suffers said,
“why would he wait 14 billion odd years only to wait for humans to gain the intellectual capacity to construct a concept of god”
God didn’t wait. He let us know through His word that He created everything great in the beginning including man. Man rebeled against Him.
The entire world before the judgment of the flood no longer followed in God. It appears in the scriptures that He found Noah to be a faithful man and He saved his family and all the animals. (before you jump all over the ark story just hear a few things out here)
The creation story, the story of man rebelling, the story of God telling a man to build an ark and the flood, and the story of God causing a confusion of languages is found in every continent and on many of and maybe majority of the islands all to diffent levels of detail. Michael pointed this out a little there are actually many more than 20 of these stories. What is interesting is after the confusion of languages story any simmilarities seem to drop off the chart on the Global scale. This confirms the Biblical account more so than that it is a fairy tale, in that anyone leaving the tower of Bable would have those same 5 stories. Failure to believe those stories shows the erosion of belief that occurs through out time. It is a generation loss of vital truth that has caused the loss of faith in the true God of creation. So in my mind all people groups world wide have had the opporunity to have a basic understanding of God. The rejection of Him seems it is very offensive to God. Why does it bother Him, same reason when you care about someone else and they reject you.
I’m glad to hear you think that there may be a God. Spend some time at the Answers in Genisis site and consider the points they are making. Go to the “get answers” tab. There are a lot of great articles to consider.



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted November 6, 2008 at 9:14 am


Michael said:
Wow. I find incredible the amount of obstinance, audacity and just plain unbelief in the world, as exemplified in this forum. That a created being would have the impertinence to say things like “jesus and his dad” or “God is twiddling his thumbs” is simply incredible to me.
As I find the level of fantasy you live within to be extraordinary. To believe so strongly in a being you wouldn’t even know about were it not for other people telling you it exists is really out there. To think that you were created from dirt in a moment instead of being a product of life fighting its way through time and space to allow you to walk and breath, this arrogant fiction is astounding.
Michael said:
God’s love and patience must be boundless, to still wait patiently in the face of such incredible arrogance.
I find the temptation to tell you to look in the mirror unbearable.
Michael said:
I’m done here. I’ve never, as an educated person, been more insulted, more “put in my place” more made to feel like an ignorant hick as I have in this forum.
Well that was not my intention, and I must say is your own fault. If you were open minded enough and willing to have a real discussion on the subject than you would have come away from this having learned some things. Instead you regress and blame it on me. How sad.
Michael said:
All this because I dare interpret the evidence differently from the way they do–I guess that’s not allowed, because their interpretation is somehow “truth”.
You have proven time and again in this subject that you don’t know the subject matter. You haven’t interpretted anything. You’ve made up a tale, called it evolution, then destroyed it in argumentation. Never minding the fact that your evolution is not the biological evolution.
Michael said:
I’m not surprised–this is the theme of the evolutionist: put down, insult, refuse to accept or entertain new ideas, etc. In the face of dwindling proof and pointed questions to which they have no answer, this is what they resort to.
Again that mirror comes to mind…..Theists have been telling the same story for a thousand years and they say our arguments are old? *Shakes head in total disbelief*
Michael said:
And the anger and sarcasm in the tone of the evolutionists on here are unbelievable. What a palpable difference in tone between the two sides here.
So farewell, friends, and I will pray for clarity and openmindedness for you. Only God can help you see, but He won’t if you purposely shut your eyes!
Happy trails.
Apparently you aren’t very good at reading your own sarcasm and arrogance. Much as you aren’t very good at making arguments against fact. If you open your eyes to the light, it will fill you more than the false light you follow now.
As Bunyan said nothing new to me, and Michael has decided to abandon the discussion, there is likely little more for me to say. I’ll take another look or two for new material in the future, but I may not return either. I wish you all the best, whatever you decide.



report abuse
 

Bunyan33

posted November 6, 2008 at 12:37 pm


I’m thinking about what to say to your last post. I really think that it is you that need to look at the new information at the Miller-Urey experiment. (By the way the gist of it is they believe that it happened in volcanic gases and not in primordial soup, I alluded to it earlier in a prior post that I am aware of the new line of thought) Think about what I’ve been saying and consider if they actually have adressed the problem that I highlighted to you. If they have not than I am in the right to say that there is no new progress in dealing with the major hurdle of how did life begin. I have demonstated that it takes faith on your part to believe that things can self organize and increase in complexity.
Think about computer programs, my computer has yet to come up with a new application from making mistakes one that functions and is useful and doesn’t cause breakdown and slow the system. Current biodiversity calls for a Creator. Romans 1:20 talks about how a person can know the creator God from the creation such that all men are with out excuse.
:)



report abuse
 

Person who suffers from Godless Arrogance

posted November 8, 2008 at 9:39 pm


bunyan
i look at the evidence found in research surrounding biblical stories. based on the geological understanding of many geologists around the world, they believe that there was, before the time of jesus, a great flood.
” A ”flood of biblical proportions” has become a cliche, but researchers studying the Black Sea may have actually found such a flood.
In the book ”Noah’s Flood,” geologists Walter Pitman and William Ryan theorized that some 7,000 years ago melting glaciers raised the Mediterranean Sea level to where it poured through the Bosporus at 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls, flooding thousands of square miles and creating the Black Sea.” http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65223912.html
but everything except a flood occuring is just fanciful. bunyan just to clear up exactly where our views are, can you explain to me what you believe within the noah’s ark story. including the 2 of every animal, flooding the enitre world etc.



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted November 10, 2008 at 9:11 am


Ridiculous. You obviously know only slightly more about evolution than Michael. I was referring to the actual results that were found left over from the experiment 50 years ago, that completely destroy the creationists arguments regarding the experiment in the first place. Not any change in thinking over how life may have formed(which is also ridiculous, since everything has been and will be on the table until refined to a single possibility; there has been no change in thinking).
Since you refuse to look at the issue clearly, and are getting repetitive, it’s time I take the gloves off. Current biodiversity proves there is not a creator, as no creator would need such diversity. A creator would have made an efficient system capable of defending itself against change. Our environment is anything but.
The laws of physics prove there is no creator, as matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Logic proves that even if there is a creator(and your supposed one is certainly a lie told through the generations; proved as much over and over again), it has absolutely no meaning to any of us, as he/she/it is completely unaware of our existance and is incapable of altering or interfering in any way shape or form; as to be outside the box of our creation is to be oblivious to it and powerless to affect it.
You have nothing to stand on. And I am bored of this weak attempt of creationists to fight reality. One day you will be extinct, as there is no advantage in believing in this fiction, and every advantage to not believing in it. The greatest irony in your position is that evolution will literally destroy those who disbelieve in it, ensuring an end. The only question is when it’ll finally happen. Fortunately, you’re already down to about 10% of the population on a global scale. Only the Flat Earth Society numbers less. Even Scientology numbers more.



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted November 11, 2008 at 9:27 am


Vastet,
Has no post to support that issue of chirality has been solved which is the original argument of life originating from nothing. I am now posting this from the Answers in Genisis web site to show Vastet that once again I am correct and He is wrong. Vastet does not have answers only insults. Clearly I am right in my post and know the whole story.
October 25th 2008
News: “New Spark in Classic Experiments”
Zzzzzap! All it took was a helping of primordial stew and a bolt of lightning—or perhaps the hot gases of an angry volcano—and, voilà, you’ve got life.
It has now been more than half a century since the famous (or infamous) Miller–Urey experiments, which many still claim are evidence for an atheistic origin of life.
In the 1950s, scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey were hoping to recreate the supposed conditions of a primeval earth to see if they could engineer organic compounds. They essentially sent sparks through a mixture of gases, with the result being a handful of amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins. Evolutionists have hailed the experiment as a stunning success ever since, claiming it shows how the necessary ingredients for life could have arisen spontaneously. (BBC News notes that newspapers of the time “were overstating the case when they claimed he had actually recreated life in the lab.”)
Now, there’s a new twist as vials from the experiment have turned up in the hands of one of Miller’s students. When Miller died last year, a former student of his, Jeffrey Bada, inherited his lab materials—including “several little cardboard boxes, taped shut and all dusty, carefully labeled with all of these little vials with dried material from his experiments,” said Bada, now at the University of California–San Diego.
Of specific interest to Bada were vials from experiments Miller conducted to replicate conditions inside a hot volcano. Why? BBC News explains:
These experiments were the ones that intrigued Jeffrey Bada. Because not long after Miller’s original experiments, it became clear the Earth’s early atmosphere was nothing like the “reducing” mixture simulated in his apparatus.
The first experiments remained iconic in their attempt at simulating pre-biotic chemistry, but became irrelevant in detail.
Likewise, the WIRED science blog notes:
Miller is famed for the results of experiments on amino acid formation in a jar filled with methane, hydrogen and ammonia—his version of the primordial soup. However, his estimates of atmospheric composition were eventually considered inaccurate. The experiment became regarded as a general rather than useful example of how the first organic molecules may have assembled.
Those facts are of interest to creationists, who have long pointed out that the Miller–Urey experiment not only didn’t create life or anything near it, but also failed to replicate what evolutionists themselves thought about the early earth. In fact, there were a whole host of problems with the Miller–Urey experiment that remind us how little evolutionists have explained about a supposed “accidental” origin of life (for more, see the linked articles below). (Of course, evolutionists seem to mention those facts more freely now that they’ve found a “better” experiment!)
The hype has now shifted to Miller’s “volcano” experiments, because, according to Bada, the vials made both more of some of the amino acids, and produced a greater diversity of amino acids overall—a total of 22.
“What we suggest is that volcanoes belched out gases just like the ones Stanley had used, and were immediately subjected to intense volcanic lightning,” Bada explained, noting that electrical storms frequently accompany volcanic eruptions. WIRED quotes Indiana University graduate student Adam Johnson, a co-author on Bada’s study, who claimed, “The amino acid precursors formed in a plume and concentrated along tidal shores. They settled in the water, underwent further reactions there, and as they washed along the shore, became concentrated and underwent further polymerization events.”
It sounds like the same old song and dance to us: evolutionists, based on a carefully controlled laboratory scenario, build a just-so story of how things just maybe, just might have come together and—like magic!—fallen right into line as chains of RNA. Never mind that creating amino acids would only be the first step of many progressively more unlikely ones in organizing life. Never mind that they cannot explain how a meaningful code for building proteins could arise in the first place, let alone how chemicals could organize into cells more complicated than our latest technology. Never mind that they have yet to show, experimentally or otherwise, how a genome can mutate new information. Never mind that . . . (the list goes on).
If one has the faith in directionless chance that evolutionists do, why even bother with a step-by-step model of how life originated? They may as well believe that in a primordial pool one day, every single molecule—by pure chance—organized in exactly the right place to create a fully formed human!
:)



report abuse
 

bunyan33

posted November 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm


Person who suffers,
I was unable to read the whole article unless I signed up for highbeam. I don’t like to sign up and put my credit card out there any more than necessary. If there is something specific in the article you’ll need to post it for me
“can you explain to me what you believe within the noah’s ark story. including the 2 of every animal, flooding the enitre world etc”
I can give reasons, I believe it to be an actual event but I think it will take several posts and chances for you to either disagree or agree. We have to start with current day thought on geology and recongnize its foundation.
Charles Lyell is the founder of modern geology. The key to the past is the present day processes, or “Uniformitarianism”. This belief has clouded many discoveries and likely the one you posted would have been rejected years ago because of the fact that we dont observe huge volumes of water pouring out and making the Black Sea or other seas. The fact that there is acceptance is a reflection of movement tword what is called “Actualism”, which allows for events like the “Black Sea flood of biblical…” on occasion as shaping geology.
Any person in the right mind has to admit that at one point all mountain ranges were under water. The highest mountain ranges have sedimentary rock, and fossils which is formed under water so to say these mountains were never under water is ridiculous.
So then where is the argument? Its more of a question of how do mountains form? Can they form quickly?
Uniformitarinism would say mountains have slowly pushed up over years and years. This is a belief on that model of uniformitarianism. Current studies suggest that erosion rates currently out pace any uplift that is occuring. So at some point in the past mountains would have had to move faster.
Water run off post ice age would still fit in a Biblical time frame having the ice age occur very rapidly in 300-500 years and can still account for a Black sea water runn off theory just fine. 7,500 years ago is picked because its believed to be that last ice age. (I think it was more recent)
A global flood with rapid moving geologic plates can explain mountain building, it can give a much more accurate scenario for the reason of the ice age with the oceans having been mixed and warmed along with increased vocanic activity. There is no really good explanation for the ice age to begin with, which is why there are many competing ideas as to why the ice age occured.
With your post we see how geologic features can and do happen rapidly, I can accept a global flood I feel it makes the most sense of all the evidence that is out there.
Past thinking for geologic processes have not allowed for what you have posted in the past. There is some mainstream movement that the Grand Canyon also was formed more quickly from a large release of water as well instead of slowly over millions and millions of years.
I’ll stop there and then wait next post I’ll talk about the Ark and animals.
:)



report abuse
 

Bunyan33

posted November 17, 2008 at 9:13 am


I guess you grew weary of the conversation take care. I will be thinking of you. Get your answers at Answers in Genesis for more answers.
Paul



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 4, 2009 at 8:55 pm


I am not quite sure I understand this article. You are not able to stand the scrutiny of non-believers in the museum? You did not want a documentary team in your museum who did not share your views. Is it the Chritian way to keep non-believers out of the museum? I take every chance I can to defend my views.
I think a God the can think no farther than to create a man as a man lacks creativity {pun intended}. A God that has a big enough plan as to start with a cell and have it turn into a man, now that’s a real God. Sop selling God short He’s much smarter than you think!



report abuse
 

Vastet

posted February 8, 2009 at 3:26 pm


I’m actually surprised. My last post was actually sufficient to shut up the vast majority of the religious liars. Only Bunyan continued, and as I’d already destroyed everything he’s said, there’s nothing left to do. And here I figured there’d be a couple hundred new posts to skim through.



report abuse
 

84.3727.1.469.2.845

posted March 31, 2009 at 10:12 am


Even with the average lifespan growing ever closer to 100 years, the debate over belief in creationism and evolution is ultimately pointless. One hundred years can be perceived as a very short time or very long, examined linearly it is a constant on this planet. Therefore, whatever you beliefs are they don’t need to be defended. Mocking the process of another’s mind is arrogant and foolish considering all information that brings one to that conclusion is not available. As human beings, we get caught up in pride and desire to be right. But being right changes little after 100 years, being wrong changes little in 100 years, but being compassionate now, being generous of heart, considerate of others, and respectful of everyone’s journey of self discovery and enlightenment, that does matter now. Many things that were thought in the past seem foolish to us now, because more information is available to us now. As many things we think now will surely be thought foolish in 100 years. I respect both views of creationism and evolution. But they could both be right, and they could both be wrong. We just don’t have all the information available to us. But hopefully in our lifetimes we do.



report abuse
 

Mark Vanselow

posted December 29, 2009 at 12:04 pm


I have twice seen the film “Religulous” at the Nova cinema in Melbourne, Australia. I would like to know what “ridiculous” points Bill Maher made during his visit to the Creation Museum. It seemed like Bill’s reasoning was very sound, leaving Ken Ham with nothing else to say except pull out that age-old cliché “Are you god?” in response to Bill’s line of questioning. To his credit, Bill met Ken’s question with silence, because asking an atheist like Bill if he believes in god is like asking an adult for belief in the Easter Bunny. It’s a rhetorical throwaway question which is totally illogical, destructive and does nothing to advance the Creationist point of view, nor does it discredit atheism.
The burden of proof to prove the existence of god is upon the believer, not the sceptic. Hey, I could claim a winged pink elephant named Mumbo Dumbo who lives inside the sun talks to me during my sleep. I could tell you Mumbo Dumbo is real and if you were to deny the existence of my deity, I could simply reply “Just because YOU haven’t seen Mumbo Dumbo, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.” Those who blindly defend the existence of god through deception, pseudoscience and illogic shift the burden of proof to the atheist, which is ludicrous to say the least. I might claim there really is a winged pink elephant that lives in the sun, but I would then need to prove that to you. Just like if I claimed to have painted the Mona Lisa or invented space travel, it might help to have some evidence to support my claims.
Ken Ham knows Bill Maher isn’t god, Bill Maher doesn’t BELIEVE in god, so asking this question was positively stupid. Also, the Creation Museum claim Ken’s best arguments were omitted from the film. I’m quite certain if these arguments held any water, Ken wouldn’t have needed to resort to the “Are you god?” and “The lord works in mysterious ways” excuses, which Bill rightly called a cop-out.
Besides, Bill didn’t need to try very much to mock the Creation Museum. When the triceratops was shown wearing a saddle (!), the cringe-factor and laughter inside the cinema spoke for the sheer absurdity of the scene. The notion dinosaurs and humans shared the earth falls flat when you consider if humans, deprived of high-technology weapons, had shared the world with carnivorous monsters the size of skyscrapers, we wouldn’t be here today. I know for damn certain these animals wouldn’t have been domesticated to the point where they wore saddles. I haven’t ever seen a rhinoceros (the modern day version of the triceratops) wearing a saddle. Have you?
Also, please allow me to respond to the person who claims the debate between creationism and evolution is “pointless.”
Creationism is part of the pseudoscience into which religious fanatics pour their faith and the lie religions use to gain adherents. It’s a romantic notion to believe some great being in the clouds made Adam in his image, and this notion leads to the denial of science, as we know it. Those who research the evolution of humanity and other beings in nature do so to advance our understanding of the world, a very precious and noble pursuit. Creationism often stands in the way of real science and understanding our world, therefore, I believe sceptics have every right to question creationism. Firstly, because this debate can expose the lies of religion to people. When you examine the fraud that is the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, little if anything else in the Bible can be taken seriously, given the sheer illogic of Adam and Eve and the talking snake, etc. Secondly, as I have said, understanding the fraud of creationism then allows the pathway of curiosity to explore the genuine origins of the human race.
Yes, many of us are here on the planet for 100 years at most. However, maybe the brevity of our existence means these fundamental questions don’t matter less, but rather they matter more. Maybe the debate between creationism and evolution matters more because we are here for a relative blink in the history of the world. I’m damn certain I will not squander my precious existence talking to spirits who aren’t there and practicing the sanitised witchcraft that is modern organised religion. And if you think that’s harsh, examine the parallels between god-worship and pagan rituals. Not really all that different, not what Ken Ham wants you to believe, but connect the dots and the voodoo hoodoos of religion, whether it’s Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology or Mormonism become apparent.
Finally, I don’t know why the Creation Museum makes such a big fuss about Bill Maher entering the building to confront Ken Ham. One’s convictions in god must be pretty weak if they fear a confrontation with a jocular television personality. Furthermore, if Bill really “snuck in the side door,” where was the security to turf him out? I don’t buy that Bill strolled into Ken’s office with nobody, not even Ken, recognising him. Of course, Larry Charles is right: Ken Ham really is a media-seeking glutton for attention, and I dare say, Ken’s real problem was not that he was “surprised” by the appearance of Bill Maher, more like Ken is sore at being outsmarted a direct confrontation with a stand-up comedian. Again, Ken and company can claim the “best bits” were left out of the documentary, but I saw the film and the religious fanatics gave the same trite answers to Bill’s questions I get when confronted by those preaching the gospel. I think it also reeks of arrogance to claim Ken was the “only theologian” with any credibility in the film. I wonder, what makes Ken Ham and the staff of the Creation Museum any closer to “god” than any of the other religious adherents interviewed in the movie?
I challenge Ken Ham and anyone else from the Creation Museum or anyone who shares their views (Steve Waldman, I’m looking at YOU), to confront me, in person or via e-mail, with their “best arguments” that were ostensibly omitted from the final cut of “Religulous.” Chances are, I shall ultimately be met with the same “the lord works in mysterious ways, who are we to question him?” excuse which is the standard line of religious apologists the world over, regardless of denomination.
P.S. I find it amusing that those from the Creation Museum accuse Bill Maher of name-calling, only to label Bill and those behind the documentary as god-haters. I don’t think you can hate god if you believe he doesn’t really exist. Additionally, I would say the Creation Museum got off lightly with Bill Maher, who for the most part seemed quite reasonable and subdued in his approach. You must admit, his references to The Flintstones and Raquel Welch in “One Million Years B.C.” were hilarious…and underscored the silliness of human-dinosaur co-existence beliefs.
Mark Vanselow



report abuse
 

Alan Taylor

posted November 21, 2010 at 7:52 pm


It should be noted, as per Ham’s comment regarding ethics, that ethics are Maher’s thing. Religion is opposed to ethics, as they are the product of logical analysis of man’s behavior and change based on the changes in mankind’s behavior. Religion is based upon morality, which stems from a distinction between good and evil, a distinction which in order to hold any water must be both absolute and unchanging. What Ham means to say that Maher is immoral, but then again this guy thinks we were around to put saddles on dinosaurs.



report abuse
 

search

posted October 1, 2014 at 3:38 am


Marvelous, what a weblog it is! This website gives valuable
data to us, keep it up.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | 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.