Does Separation of Church and State Prohibit Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools?

Where do you find the separation of church and state? In the U.S. Constitution? In the Articles of Confederation? In the amendments? How about in the Declaration of Independence? You will not find it in any legal document in the Unites States. This phrase, penned by Thomas Jefferson was for a wall of separation between church and state, because in England, the state was the church. It was a church-state. This is what inspired Jefferson in his memoirs, that simply a division of labor be established. That’s all he meant. The government shouldn’t fund religion or impose it at the state level as compulsory. Nor could the state impose it’s ideology upon the churches.

Suppose that a flat Earth religion became very popular and books appeared defending the flat Earth hypothesis. Flat Earth parents, of course, would be very unhappy to find that the public schools were teaching a round Earth. Some of them would move their children into private schools that taught flat- arth theory. Others would campaign against the “brainwashing” of their children in the public schools. They might demand equal time for their flat Earth views. How would you handle that potato? It would be irresponsible, of course, for you to allow the flat Earth view into the geography curriculum. Time spent on the evidences for a flat Earth is time robbed from serious learning.

The Supreme Court has already been made it crystal clear that the teaching of creation science cannot be legally prohibited from being taught in the classroom, if the local school district opts for it. Incidentally, this is what the Supreme Court calls it: Creation science. Former Chief Justice William Riehquist  and current Justice Antonin Scalla, “We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the Earth.” Edwards vs. Aguillard, Dissent (1987).

The meaning of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be disbarred. This Amendment clearly says, “Congress cannot pass any law concerning a religion or establishing a religion; and cannot pass any law that prevents the free exercise of religion.” To do otherwise is clearly a violation of the Constitution and discrimination and hate crime against believers. The U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning separation of church and state is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Louisiana's “Creationism Act”  – the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision – forbid the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of creation science. Appellees, who included Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the act's constitutionality in U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees, holding that the act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed (http://www.nwcreation.net/trials.html).

 The U.S. Constitution guarantees that nondiscriminatory teaching of creation science and intelligent design theory and freedom of speech cannot be denied to schools. The power to legislate – – pass laws is specifically allocated in the U.S. Constitution to Congress; not the U.S. Supreme Court justices. What laws Congress cannot make are also stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of our government, conceived as a counterbalance to the legislative branch. In this capacity it has the ability not to make laws, but to judge whether or not a law is being broken. The courts have been making laws, and this is not their job. That falls to Congress and even then, and then to two thirds majority of the states.

The legal challenges to intelligent design center around the notion that if a superior being created the universe and that superior being is God – then such a theory violates the separation of church and state and cannot be taught in public schools. But consider what the Supreme Court has said about this issue. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the high court concluded that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” The court also said that teaching these theories would pose no constitutional problems provided they are not taught to the exclusion of evolution. If the classroom is indeed, as the Supreme Court has said, “the marketplace of ideas,” why not teach multiple theories regarding the origins of mankind – including Intelligent Design?

Parents and their children ought to have the right to question current theories and be able to consider alternative explanations, especially when a theory is regarded as fact and has yet to be conclusively proven. Let the children make up their own minds. What do evolutionists have to fear? Evolution has become like a state ideology and instead of people worrying about the separation of church and state, it has turned to an effort to become a separation of church from state. This was most certainly not the founding fathers intent.

And intent is everything.

160 Comments

  1. PaulBurnett said:

    First, there is no such thing as “creation science,” as there is utterly no actual science which supports the mythology of creationism. Creationism is not even a pseudoscience like intelligent design creationism – it’s simply a primitive religious belief, having nothing to do with science, and having no scientific content whatsoever. Secondly, quoting a dissenting opinion – the losing side’s comments – from a Supreme Court decision is either terribly misled, or terribly misleading. Louisiana’s “Creationism Act” was thrown out by the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision. It was Louisiana’s “Creationism Act” which forbade the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of creation science – that’s what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. Yes, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist and current Justice Antonin Scalla wrote in their losing side’s dissent, “We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the Earth.” in the Edwards vs. Aguillard dissent. But as lawyers – not scientists – they missed the minor detail that there is no collection of scientific data supporting creationism. A 2005 Federal court decision stated: “We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” Judge Jones also commented in his decision (which was not appealed by the creationists): “It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” The religious fanatics who support intelligent design creationism have lied to us before, and they will continue to lie to us. Remember that.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  2. said:

    Given no real evidence, some have turned so far as to falsify fossils and create fossil hoaxes with the claim that a major missing link was found, so fraud is a common practice of SOME paleontologists, archeologists and evoutionists. I have dozens of examples. One is mentioed by Britannica Encyclopedia which says that the Piltdown man was a fraud! An analysis was made to date the bones more precisely and it was discovered that the skull was human and the jaw was that of a monkey with the teeth filed in to make them look human. Both creatures had recently died, but the bones had been chemically treated to make them look old! And tests revealed that the bones were not from the same animal. Shockingly, from 1912 until 1953; that’s over forty years, all the “expert, highly educated, brilliant,” evolutionists of the world who studied these bones were completely fooled. Over 500 students wrote their doctoral dissertations on the Piltdown man which was a fraud, but they were still awarded Ph.D. degrees from outstanding universities of the world! Over 500 students wrote their doctoral dissertations on the Piltdown man and were awarded Ph.D. degrees from outstanding universities of the world. But aren’t these really Doctorates of Fakery? By the way, you failed to refute the fact that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. and that local school boards are empowered by local citizens who elect them to determine what cirriculum can be implemented. It is called Democracy. Why not allow both to be accompanied in the classrooms and let the children weigh the evidence or lack thereof and allow them to choose for themselves. Its as if evolutionists are afraid and evolution has never reached the status of a Scientific Law, like Newtons Three Laws of Gravity, previously held as a theory. Speaking of lies, fossils hoaxes are one more way that fraud has been used to prop up a theory that is impossible to prove conclusively and is the reason why after 155 years it remains and forever will remain a theory and not a Scientific Fact which can be: measurable, and repeatable, and observable, and falsified to have it be established as a fact or a law.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  3. leafs_fan_jd said:

    1) There is no such thing as “creation science” — the genesis story is a myth. And what you refer to is actually the Christian Creation Myth. There are other creation myths, the Hindu’s have them, the Australian aborigines have them, the native Indian tribe have them, etc. 2) The scientific theory of Evolution is a central tenet in Biology. It is NOT a hypothesis. There are no alternative explanations for genetic diversity of life on planet Earth. 3) Intelligent design is not a theory, its not even a hypothesis. Michael Behe, who is the “scientific genius” behind ID, lied in a court of law — in fact, the principle of “irreducible complexity” has not been proven in the slightest. Further, it was thrown out in the US court system. 4) Keep religion out of science and maybe, the US will be able to join the rest of the world as Scientific equals.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  4. said:

    Stephen C. Meyer presents what I would term as Creation Science. Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” speaks of inherent information already present that is stored in the cell. Information infers intelligence. What is both of yours theory behind the origin of life and of the matter (including the universe)? Again, why is evolution restrained to being a theory, which is defined as: Obsolete a mental viewing; contemplation, a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done, a systematic statement of principles involved,a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles, a branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc. It is also defined as popularly mere conjecture, or guess. All this according to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 2010 copyright. The world once held a theory that the earth was flat. Theories often turn out to be wrong! Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) was among the earliest Christian scholars to estimate the circumference of Earth with Eratosthenes’ method. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the most important and widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, believed in a spherical Earth; and he even took for granted his readers also knew the Earth is round.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  5. PaulBurnett said:

    Jack wrote: “Stephen C. Meyer presents what I would term as Creation Science. Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell…” Because the book is about “Creation Science” is why “Signature” is found in the Religion section of most bookstores, not in the Science section. (That, and the fact that it was published by HarperOne, Harper Publishing religious publishing section.)

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  6. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Jack, you continue to be oblivious to reality. That we are biologically related to monkeys and other living creatures, that humans share common ancestry with chimpanzees for example, is perhaps the most well-proven FACT known to man. So much evidence of so many different types all point to this reality that it is akin to madness to deny it. Your example of Piltdown man as proof against evolution is a poor one. Note that it was scientists who discovered it was a fraud, that we have found many other fossils of transitional species between apes and humans in the fossil record, and that Piltdown man would actually only be evidence against evolution if it HADN’T been a hoax. Educate yourself or get some new material. Creationism doesn’t belong in science classrooms because it isn’t science. That has been established time and time again by many court decisions. I have no objection to it being discussed in philosophy or comparative religion courses, but your interpretation of Genesis has no place in science classrooms because all the evidence supports evolution and none of the evidence supports your view.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  7. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman your definition of theory is something most scientifically uneducated people do. A scientific theory is: “(also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.” A scientific theory is not just made up on a whim. Stephen C. Meyer has never presented any scientific evidence for intelligent design. He is also not a scientist, but a Philosophy major — who is also being paid by the discovery institute to be a spokesperson for intelligent design. I have already stated, according to the US justice system, intelligent design has been thrown out as down-right lies, so that just goes to show you where Meyer is coming from.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  8. said:

    Does it make Piltdown man anymore of a fraud because it was exposed by scientists? NO! Regardless of who exposed it, the fact remained it was a fraud and it took them 40 years! What seems astonishing is that the very dogma of evolution has never been proven nor can ever be. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Tell me, where and how did life originate? No one seems to be answering this question, for the second time now. Theories and scientific facts are not the same thing. It isn‘t even “scientific” in the truest sense. Science and the establishment of scientific facts deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. Anyway, scientific facts can furnish no knowledge at all about where the human race came from or how it got here, nor the origin of life or matter. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. My point about evolution is that it is not able to pass the scientific method whereby theories are tested and can become know facts or scientific laws. This method [*] is a linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding: Define the question Gather information and resources (observe) Form hypothesis Perform experiment and collect data Analyze data Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis Publish results Retest (frequently done by other scientists) I have never seen evolution go thru this process and having been reached as conclusively proved; thus it is deemed, correctly by definition, a theory and only a theory and not a scientific law, e.g. Newton’s. * Crawford S, Stucki L (1990), “Peer review and the changing research record”, “J Am Soc Info Science”, vol. 41, pp 223-228. Do you lean upon Abiogenesis for the origin of life or what? Evoutionists of course must see this as outside of their realm, as you can not have evolution without having life originate. Where did life and how did life originate?

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  9. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman umm, several laws together constitute a scientific theory, not the other way around.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  10. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @ Jack Wellman: “The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Tell me, where and how did life originate? No one seems to be answering this question, for the second time now.” Evolution is about diversification and an explanation of “the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations” — That’s why you will never get an answer about the origin of life from the scientific theory of Evolution. It has nothing to do with the origin of life.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  11. Human Ape said:

    “Where do you find the separation of church and state? You will not find it in any legal document in the United States.” Apparently you won’t find a honest Christian anywhere in the United States. Every normal person knows that the idea called “the wall of separation of church and state” refers to the Establishment Clause of our Bill of Rights. Some Christians respect our constitution, but other Christians unfortunately like to pretend our constitution doesn’t exist. They are called theocrats and they should move to a theocracy like Iran. “Does Separation of Church and State Prohibit Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools?” According to a Supreme Court ruling in 1987 and a federal court decision in 2005, the answer is yes. Magical creation, also known as creation science, also known as intelligent design, is a religious belief, there’s nothing scientific about it, and of course teaching this childish religious nonsense in a public school would violate the Establishment Clause of our First Amendment. Even if there was no Establishment Clause that some Christians like to pretend doesn’t exist, it still would be out of the question to teach magical creationism in a science classroom (or anywhere else), because child abuse is immoral, and because biology teachers would rather quit their jobs than lie to their students about what science is. An important quote: “Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage — good teaching — than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?” — Stephen Jay Gould In my blog I talk about evolution, the religious implications, and a few other things, including our First Amendment. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  12. said:

    I never the Piltdown Man fraud was based upon malice. That statement is from your own imagination…I do accept the fact that it is based upon ignorance, which is still no excuse (ask a police officer). Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions. Here is what I mean. Professor Douglas Futuyma, author of the 1998 textbook Evolutionary Biology textbook repsonded in February 2000 via an internet forum to a critic who had accused him of lying by using Haeckel’s drawings as evidence for evolution. He admitted he had not been aware of Haeckel’s dishonesty, a rather staggering admission for someone who is supposed to be such an expert. No, there was no malice, but there was ignorance. This is exactly why it’s always important to always be skeptical of those endless, but transient ‘proofs’ for evolution. This is yet more over-enthusiastic and selective use of data when it appears to support a pre-conceived evolutionary mind-set. Incidentally, Futuyma’s admission was not an example of ‘science’ correcting itself, but the result of a reader of his book setting the record straight (p. 109). I suggest that the lack of fossil evidence is behind the drawings because none exist, so how can they use pictures? What a leap…the chicken and the T-rex on the same branch. A leap of gigantic proportioned faith…is there anywhere, any physical evidence in fossils showing one specie evolving into another, distinct specie? ReMine, W.J., The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, St. Paul, p. 381, 1993.

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  13. Human Ape said:

    “The Supreme Court has already been made it crystal clear that the teaching of creation science cannot be legally prohibited from being taught in the classroom, if the local school district opts for it.” Amazing dishonesty. Have you no shame, sir? http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  14. Human Ape said:

    The same compulsive liar for Jeebus wrote “The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact.” Mister, just because you think evolution is not a fact, does not mean evolution is not a fact. It only means you’re an uneducated moron. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  15. said:

    If it is illegal to teach creation in schools, they had better make bigger jails then. Fifty studies (*) were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90% of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15% of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20% of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. None of these teachers to my knowledge have been fired over it. Incidentally, the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite.” An evolutionist teacher acknowledges exploiting students’ trust when he preaches evolution’s doctrines in the classroom, saying “I use that trust to effectively brainwash them…our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.” Comments from Mark Singham, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today, (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54; as quoted by Dr. Henry B. Morris, Impact, supra. * Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal Vol. 13, No. 2

    August 7, 2010
    Reply
  16. BathTubNZ said:

    Are some comments missing, or am I just missing how to unhide the older comments? Didn’t we cover your incorrect definitions of Laws and Theories in another post?

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  17. RickK101 said:

    What exactly IS the theory of intelligent design. Evolutionary theory is based on the mechanism that: replication + variation + selection + time = evolution We TEST this mechanism by looking at the data and seeing if it fits the model. We examine millions of fossils, and billions of pieces of evidence in our DNA. TEST: Does morphology and do genetics fit the pattern for common descent? Yes TEST: Do patterns of retrovirus remnants left in the DNA of species match the pattern predicted by the “evolutionary tree”? Yes TEST: Do species distributions match the predictions made by evolutionary theory combined with tectonic plate theory? Yes TEST: Does the progression of fossils agree with evolutionary change? Yes TEST: Can we use evolutionary theory as a guide to finding as yet undiscovered fossils and transitional forms? Yes So we have a mechanism that is testable. Now, is it observable? Yes. Just like we can see small movements today that confirm tectonic plate theory, we can see small examples of evolution working. So we have a testable, falsifiable mechanism that is observable. So Jack – what is the mechanism of Intelligent Design or Creation Science? What are the tests? How is it observed? Where is even one tiny example of micro-creation that we can study the way we study micro-evolution? When those questions have actual answers, then Intelligent Design can enter the science classroom, but NOT BEFORE. Popularity does not make truth – evidence does.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  18. said:

    Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination at the cellular level. The concept and design inherent in a machine is also found inside the DNA/RNA. Whether simple or complex, life is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are “purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks.” By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise naturally by random chance. Evolutionists will not admit the inconsistency, but some will. George Wald, an evolutionist, states, “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” (“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). The theory of evolution leaves the biggest and most important issue out of the question. Where and how did life originate? There is no evidence that natural unguided, purposeless) processes, including natural selection, can produce new information required for new species. Species have genome-determined constraints that constrain variation within specified bounds. Intelligently designed fruit flies show this; no matter the tinkering by intelligent scientists, the endless generations of fruit flies remain fruit flies. New species from old requires indeterminately massive layers of information message coding to produce new organs, features, and morphology. But the only raw material for natural selection to “select” from is largely harmful, or at best neutral, mutations. Intelligent design is currently the only logical inference from the observed material evidence of distinct species and logical inferences are what scientists do.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  19. BathTubNZ said:

    That definition of Intelligent Design simply becomes and argument from ignorance. You are also asserting without any evidence these genomic constraints. Creationists dream of these, it would prove the idea of kinds which they love to use but can never define. If you found evidence for them you quickly become ridiculously famous.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  20. RobertOAdair said:

    Human Ape is a fitting name for an evolutionist. According to this man made myth people are nothing but apes, kin to the gorilla and the chimpanzee. Darwin clearly referred to mankind’s “Simian” origin. Simia, the Latin word for ape is the root of Darwin’s word. I have little trust in people so delusional they think they are animals. Everybody, most certainly, does not know that “The wall of separation between church and state” refers to the establishment clause in the Constitution.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  21. BathTubNZ said:

    Robert, comments like that just show how deluded Creationists can be. We are Apes because a CREATIONIST 300 years ago made us APES. It’s our biological classification. This classification was done 100 years before Darwin wrote his book. Before he was even born. Do you also deny that you are Mammal? Do you deny that are a Chordate? Do you deny that you are a Eukaryote? If so, rather than just stomp your feet, please identify for us how you do not meet those biological classifications.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  22. RobertOAdair said:

    The Constitution was hammered out by Christians against the background of the English established church, the English Civil War and the Restoration period which included The Great Ejection of the Puritans from the Church of England. “no establishment of religion” meant one thing and one thing only: no national established church like the English church. Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress voted for the printing and distribution of Bibles. Everyone understood that this was a Christian nation. Contemporary documents are replete with these facts. Apparently evolutionist apes don’t know how to read or study history.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  23. RobertOAdair said:

    By the Bath tub, is that your real name? Are you an actual ape with an actual name or a computer generated fantasy? Apism certainly is a self fulfilling prophecy! Look at Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the murder of the unborn!

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  24. BathTubNZ said:

    So basically we can take it you have no actual point to make, and can’t defend your previous statements. Excellent job.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  25. Human Ape said:

    Wellman asked “What do evolutionists have to fear?” That’s ridiculous Wellman. I’m no more afraid of your childish belief in magic than I am afraid of the flat earth idea. A good question is what are you afraid of Wellman? Why are you so terrified of evolutionary biology? Why are you afraid of studying science? You must be afraid of science, coward, because you obviously don’t even know what science is. Hint: scientists don’t invoke magic to solve scientific problems. You wrote “preaches evolution’s doctrines in the classroom” What? Teaching science is preaching? Basic facts are doctrines? Your problem Wellman, besides being a cowardly wimp who feels threatened by reality, besides being scientifically illiterate, besides being a religious extremist who is no better than a terrorist, is that you’re just plain stupid. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  26. Human Ape said:

    Jack Wellman wrote “Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination at the cellular level.” Translation: MAGIC is obvious upon close examination at the cellular level. Grow up Wellman. Calling magic “design” doesn’t make it any less childish. BathTubNZ wrote “Are some comments missing?” A better question would be “Have some comments been censored by the cowardly brain-dead Jack Wellman? I’m used to cowardly Christians who love censorship, so I saved all my comment here: http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-more-time-christian-theocrats-no.html

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  27. Human Ape said:

    Jack Wellman, what Bible website have you been copying and pasting from? Is your crap from the anti-science Christian Discovery Institute? Instead of copying and pasting anti-science religious nonsense, instead of repeating the same lies other people have made for years, have you ever had an original thought? I didn’t think so. RickK101 asked “What is the mechanism of Intelligent Design?” A better question would be “what kind of magic wand did your magical designer use?” Was it like Harry Potter’s magic wand? Grow up Wellman. Your stupidity burns. You disgrace your country. You disgrace your Christian death cult. You’re a pathetic coward who prefers magic instead of reality. And you call magic “design” as if that’s going to fool a normal person. You could be ignored Wellman, but your disease is out of control in Idiot America. The problem is your business, Wellman, which is called LYING-FOR-JEEBUS, has become a lucrative industry in America. There’s no shortage of gullible morons who believe every word you professional liars write. Like you Wellman, they will throw out all of science before they throw out their dead Jeebus. You can give up trying to stick your Jeebus into America’s science classrooms Wellman, because even if you successfully make America a Christian theocracy, biology teachers will quit their jobs before they agree to put your supernatural magic into their science lessons. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  28. Human Ape said:

    “I have little trust in people so delusional they think they are animals.” RobertOAdair, what do you think we are? Plants? And Christians wonder why everybody laughs at them.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  29. leafs_fan_jd said:

    RobertOAdair “Look at Nazi Germany” Ok lets!! “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic. Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church. Hitler was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.”

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  30. RobertOAdair said:

    Those of us who have a knowledge of history and are not lying charlatans, know that Hitler was a demagogue. He would tell anybody anything to promote his cause. Pretty much like evolutionists. A lie is an abomination in the sight of the Lord and an ever ready help to an evolutionist. You Know, like Nebraska man. Educated people know that the Hitler regime was Atheist to the core, driven by exaggerated nationalism, social Darwinism and Darwinian eugenics which was the justification for his “Racial clensing”. The evolutionist myth is intrinsically racist. Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler is one of many scholarly books which documents these facts. Read Mein Kampf, it explains Hitlers big lie technique. You’ll like it. You may pick up a few pointers.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  31. RobertOAdair said:

    Since you bring up cowardice, I’ve never seen an evolutionist who was not yellow all the way through. Why don’t you cloaked assassins of the intellect use your real names and give us your background for your fulminations?

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  32. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair What exactly are you talking about? Cowardice? Its 2010, your electronic footprint is whatever you want it to be. Come into our century instead of living 2000 years ago. Evolution has mountains of evidence instead of “Faith” in a magical man in the sky (and there is no evidence for a God) Science, Biology and Evolution are based on evidence — whether it be genetic, observable or testable. God was needed 2000 years ago when man was barbaric and there was no form of government or police to control society. There is no need to have an imaginary friend any more…In fact, man has created life without a god (look up Craig Venter creating the first replicating synthetic bacteria). Its pathetic that religionists still hold on to such a childish notion of an all powerful being, who sees everything and controls everything…what a bunch of BS

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  33. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair by the way, the reason people try to use nom de plumes or various user names on the internet is because they do not want the entire world knowing who they actually are. For example, I now know you have a “Theology Degree” from the non-accredited Indiana Christian University. That degree was a waste of time and money…

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  34. PaulBurnett said:

    RobertOAdair wrote “A lie is an abomination in the sight of the Lord…” Here’s a quote from Judge Jones’ 2005 Dover decision which found that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science: “It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the Intelligent Design Policy.” Creationists Buckingham, Bonestell and Buell lied under oath in Federal court – as so many creationists do to support their mythology. Granted, some of them, like Jack Wellman, base their lies on their willful ignorance of science – but some of them know better. RobertOAdair continued: “…the Hitler regime was Atheist to the core, driven by exaggerated nationalism, social Darwinism and Darwinian eugenics which was the justification for his “Racial clensing”.” Was Darwin also responsible for the ethnic cleansing described so lovingly and approvingly in the Bible? “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:21) Oh, wait, that was before Darwin was born – so who is to blame for the numerous instances of ethnic cleansing mentioned in the Bible?

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  35. said:

    Trying to prove evolution by fossil evidence leads to the same problem that Darwin struggled with so that there remains a gaping hole in evolutional proof. And that is the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. “Why,” Darwin asked, “if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So evolution does not appear observable by fossil evidence. Darwin continued, “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous,” he wrote. “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory” (Darwin, pp. 260-261). Nothing has changed this to date. Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. Darwin believed that evidence would show up later. It has not. Since there is not sufficient transitional fossil evidence for evolution, where does this leave the opinions of the experts? The lack of fossil evidence is not a paleontologists trade secret anymore. Science writer Richard Milton is not alone in noticing that the missing links are “…included in every part of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from bacteria to Bactrian camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibians—living partly in the sea and partly on land—and hence on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans [253].” Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253. By the way Human Ape (real name apparently witheld we presume), insults like “being a cowardly wimp” weaken your argument. You are attacking the person, not addressing the issue.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  36. BathTubNZ said:

    Yeah Hitler loved Darwinian Evolution, that’s why Darwin’s work was Banned in 1936. Well it makes as much sense as anything else Creationists come up with.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  37. Duderman said:

    “Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. Darwin believed that evidence would show up later. It has not. Since there is not sufficient transitional fossil evidence for evolution, where does this leave the opinions of the experts?” There are hundreds of transitional fossils; this is a straight up lie. Richard Milton also believes the Sun is powered by Cold Fusion. You fail, Jack.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  38. said:

    leafs_fan_jd, by your reason that since Hitler was a “Christian Soldeir”, then Stalin was an atheist, and therefore we should expect the same from all athesists! I will not lower myself to this type of reasoning. Its ridiculous. Stalin was an atheist and he was responsible, in fact, Communisism, atheist by design, was responsible for more human beings killed than any other form of government or any single human ever in the history of mankind. Yet, I have friends that are atheists and we agree to disagree, yet remain friends and I will not assume that since they are confirmed as an “Atheist Soldier”, that they are associated with the likes of Stalin. That argument and reason, leafs_fan_jd, is simply irresponsible and ridiculous. It is an insult to those who choose not to believe in God, and I will not lower myself to that type of reasoning or argument. That is making sweeping generalizations of “all” that defies logic.

    August 8, 2010
    Reply
  39. PaulBurnett said:

    Jack Wellman wrote: “Trying to prove evolution by fossil evidence leads to the same problem that Darwin struggled with so that there remains a gaping hole in evolutional proof. And that is the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions.” That was over a century ago! You creationists should stop quoting Darwin, and read, for instance, Dr. Kevin Padian’s expert witness testimony and slideshow which were part of his sworn Federal Court testimony in the 2005 Dover trial – see http://ncseweb.org/news/2007/05/meet-padians-critters-001159 for a more up-to-date summary proof of evolution from the fossil record. (By the way, Dr. Padian is a university professor and a paleontological museum curator – an actual living scientist.) Evolution has evolved a lot since Darwin’s time. Quote-mining obsolete scientific literature is a favorite occupation of creationists, but it’s intellectually dishonest. And quoting Richard Milton is a problem – he’s not a “science writer” but an anti-science writer. In addition to denying evolution, he believes that homeopathy, iridology, psychokinesis and remote viewing are valid. Richard Dawkins, who has published many more books than Richard Milton, described one of Milton’s pseudoscientific essays as “twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand”.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  40. Duderman said:

    Here is what Jack quotes from the case: “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” Here is the quote in context: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision [482 U.S. 578, 594] forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42 . In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.” Just a bit of a different meaning; typical quote mining misrepresentations by a creationist. Epic fail.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  41. RobertOAdair said:

    Bath Tub, your senseless raving is simply a typical evasion of a bankrupt irrational ape mind. The connection between Darwinism and the ideology of the Hitler regime is simply an undeniable historical fact documented by Weikart and many other responsible scholars. In any event, whatever you say, it’s apparent you have no education. The pontifications of a nameless nobody too cowardly to put his name to his ignorant and often slanderous remarks constitute nothing I can take anymore seriously than a poison pen letter.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  42. BathTubNZ said:

    The Banning of Darwin’s work is also a historical fact Robert. Your baseless accusations simply reveal to everyone that you have no actual evidence for what you say. You’re the one that has to resort to insults as a response. And you are the one who apparently has the All knowing, all powerful God on their side. And the best you can do is have a childish tantrum? Which Fruit of the Spirit is that? Joy, Love? Self Control perhaps?

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  43. RobertOAdair said:

    Leaf fan jd, or whatever is another nameless nobody who, while having no education himself presumes to pass judgment on one of my doctors degrees. Underlying this criticism is the ignorant implication that all unaccredited degrees are worthless. Those of us who have studied logic (terra incognita to evolutionists) understand this as a thesis: All unaccredited degrees are worthless. Oxford and Cambridge do not have accredited degrees ergo they are worthless. Harvard University did not become accredited until 1929 thus all degrees issued prior to that were worthless. There are many recognized schools which are not accredited and some accredited schools that are not recognized. Nameless nobodies can not claim to be authorities about anything. This why anonymous poison pen letters are usually not given credence.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  44. RobertOAdair said:

    Bath Tub or thingamabob or whatever, what is your name? Are you any body? Thank you for your latest non-statement.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  45. BathTubNZ said:

    The assumption on your part that this is an anonymous name is completely erroneous on your part. BathTub/BathTubNZ is simply my internet handle which I have been using everywhere for about 14 years now, and is quite attached to my real name if you bothered to look. But I will save you the time, my name is Nigel McNaughton.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  46. RobertOAdair said:

    Mr. Wellman, congratulations! Nobody has been able to refute anything you have said!

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  47. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair, everything Jack Wellman has said has been refuted. Yourself and Jack Wellman should contact Professor Neil Shubin (http://pondside.uchicago.edu/oba/faculty/shubin_n.html). If you have any questions or concerns about Evolutionary Biology. Its pointless for us men of science to argue with uneducated people. We have evidence, we have genetics, we have the truth; Religion has faith. — oh and by the way Oxford university is: Accredited and a thousand years old (which is more that the 2 cracker jack universities you paid to get your degrees from. Wtf is Honolulu university anyway?).

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  48. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    @RobertOAdair The reason your degree is judged to be bogus is because of the errors you are spouting. Regardless of whether or not you and Jack admit it, all of the evidence supports evolution, none of it falsifies evolution, and no evidence supports a literal reading of Genesis. Either your interpretation is wrong, or the whole Bible is false, or God is a trickster to plant so much evidence of so many different types that clearly shows evolution happens.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  49. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair, Just to provide some background on Neil Shubin. He is the evolutionary biologist, whose team hunted for the first “walking fish” in rock that was 375 Million years old. This creature, Tiktaalik, is the ancestor of all living land animals with 4 legs — including birds, reptiles, mammals. This has been proven by turning on and off the genes that create appendage bones. Now do some research and open your eyes. I have given you a key to something unexplored in your world — if you choose to do nothing, you are bordering insanity.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  50. RobertOAdair said:

    Well, well my degree is no good because a nameless nincompoop who has no education and is too yellow give his name and background and is petrified that his anti-rational, murderous religion is being dismantled and exposed for what it is. I am so impressed.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  51. RobertOAdair said:

    Oh, I forgot is your main qualification that you play the guitar or is that phony too?

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  52. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair I actually have 3 degrees from the University of Toronto — 2 Science undergrads and an MBA. and are you saying that Atheism is a religion? Because that would be as stupid as saying ‘not smoking’ is a habit.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  53. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    @RobertOAdair I am and have been known as “The Bicycling Guitarist” since the early 1980s because I ride a bicycle while playing guitar at the same time. I’ve done this tens of thousands of miles on the same bicycle, the past twenty years with the same guitar, and have written hundreds of songs of which one in particular, called “Evolution”, addresses this issue. Basically, you and Jack are in denial of what is real. How can you deny the overwhelming evidence evolution happens? Your faith is incredibly strong to be able to deny reality so completely.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  54. RobertOAdair said:

    Leaf, wouldn’t Yellow Leaf be a better name to hide behind? Take a good, thorough course in logic. Learn that real science operates with paradigms which may or may not be true. Study the ad hominem fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, refusal to discuss, selective evidence, insufficient evidence and the fragility of empirical evidence, that there is little in real science which can be proved, thus we knowledgeable people use the terms verification and demonstration not proof. In the area of philosophy of science operationalism has been very popular. It has also been stressed that integrity, of which you have none,, is essential. Most of your fulminations take us into the realm of philosophy, not science. In philosophy, a superior field to science, we learn that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” and that “Ideas have consequences.” Apes know nothing about such things.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  55. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair, its actually the Toronto Maple Leafs, which I am a fan of. And you really just gave me a good laugh — “philosophy, a superior field to science” haha. How can you state that Philosophy, aka crap made up in people’s heads, is superior to Science, which is evidence based?? Wow, I did not realize I needed to deal with insanity.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  56. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Science does have inherent limitations. It can only deal with what we observe and measure (btw, that includes evolution!). Also, any system of which one is a part cannot truly be objectively studied and understood from within that system. Still, evidence is a much stronger base to reason from than one’s interpretation of the scribblings of late iron-age desert nomads.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  57. RobertOAdair said:

    Meanwhile in the real world, Yellow Leaf, Thomas Henry Huxley and Ernst Haeakel said that evolution is a religion. they are principal founders of your crackpot religion which has been instrumental in so much mass murder like The murder of the unborn. Mass murderer Carl Sagan Justified this crime against humanity by reference to Haekel’s fraudulent drawings of the human embryo and the long disproved recapitulation theory. Both of these are still being used to huckster your phony religion. Have you no shame?

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  58. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair lol, your “insults”, and I use that term quite loosely, mean nothing – get an education from a real university

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  59. RobertOAdair said:

    Well, Yellow Leaf, As I guessed, you can only claim to have training not education. I take it you never did study logic. Your use of the language of the gutter, especially your notion that that is really getting down to it shows the essential savagery of your murderous religion. Back in more civilized times than than these, universites often taught a course in the limitations of science which pointed out that science is based on belief in certain presuppositions which cannot be proved. All knowledge is based on faith. Your crude illiterate ejaculation about philosophy is itself a philosophical statement which is either true or false. Most of your statements actually fall into this area. As to your blind faith in empirical evidence, Such evidence can be easily overturned by more evidence. Many scientists believe that scientific ideas are not true, merely useful. But an uneducated True Believer like you wouldn’t know about that either. Another important source of truth is the testimony of reliable witnesses. Real science deals with what can be directly observed, repeated and tested. What happened a million years ago cannot be directly observed, tested and repeated. Historical Geology is is mostly Science Fiction, extremely bad Science Fiction.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  60. RobertOAdair said:

    Once again, Yellow leaf, you are pontificating about a subject you know nothing about. You have no education, only technical training, you don’t even know the meaning of the word “university”, you didn’t attend one. We have no way of checking whether you attended this tenth rate institution you claim to have graduated from. If you are a typical product, tenth rate is well justified! Did all your teachers use gutter language? Were they all so ignorant of logic? Were they all so intellectually dishonest and confused about reality. Did they all advocate the murder of the unborn? Under the impact of atheistic Secularism, Canada’s birth rate has dropped to 1.4. It’s a dying nation. Atheism is the greatest cultural failure in all of history. Atheism kills1

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  61. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair you are insane. keep thumping that bible. We ARE a great country — its nice knowing when you get sick you never have to worry about a medical bill (EVER). So yes we are a great country and a great society; we allow everyone to marry, regardless of race or sexual orientation. We encourage the right to choose for a woman, to take care of her body and her life. Those are principles that have us recognized as the best country on Earth — in fact, Americans put Canadian flags on their back packs so that they are not harassed when travelling through foreign countries!! As for a 10th rate school, theres no comparison between the University of Toronto and Honolulu University (or more like Cracker Jack box Honolulu University). I’m not even going to bother acknowledging your retarded comment.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  62. Duderman said:

    RobertOAdair is a perfect example of why religion is bad for society. He does nothing but spew hate and vitriol and everyone and anything he finds threatening to his faith while providing no single positive affirmation of his faith. Keep it up, you are doing a great job of proving why it is so necessary that religion be kept as far as possible from government.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  63. said:

    Dr. Adair is spot on the mark in his regarding that Christianity strengthens a society, as did atheistic communism weakend the former USSR. Mr Duderman, you must realize that Christians live by the Word of God as found in the Bible and this is part of the reason it helps a nation and society in general. In Romans, these are the type of citizens that are extremely beneficial to society. We are to submit to governing authoritie(Romans 13:1-7). We are to love one another which is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10). Specifically, Rom. 13:1 says “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” I thank God for our Christian heritage and foundation and the very fact that you have freedom not to worship is what this nation was founded upon. Freedom to choose, freewill to choose, and freedom for the people. In which verses in Romans that I quoted from the Bible do you have such a problem that you say, “religion be kept as far as possible from government.” It is a violation of the First Ammendment to require believers not to partake in this governement and authorities whereby they defend your right to disagree.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  64. said:

    Yes, you encourage a woman to have the freedom of choice for her self, leaving no choice for the child. Pro-choice for the woman is no-choice for what is a human being.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  65. leafs_fan_jd said:

    Jack — you insult every person who has attended University by referring to Robert O’Dair as a Doctor. In order to be given a Doctor of Philosophy (PH.D), the institution needs to be accredited — I have paid a lot of money to go to a real university, attend class, pass lab exams and course exams to get my university degrees. Its an insult that someone can pay $25 to some garbage, non-accredited diploma mill and claim to be a Doctor. Did you contact Neil Shubin yet?

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  66. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman – And I suppose you donate all of your income to help single mom’s raise their children because they cannot afford to — because that seems to be the Christian way: “Do not abort the child, let the child be born”. Then when the child is born, you run like the wind to get away from supporting it.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  67. RobertOAdair said:

    Ah, Yellow Leaf, yellow to the last! We still don’t know your name, can’t check out your lies. John Bear, the leading expert on alternative schools, included Honolulu University in his book The One Hundred Best Alternative Schools. But, of course, no one is an expert if they disagree with you. Canada was, in many ways a great country before fascists like you took over and started outlawing Christianity. Now it is dying, soon it will be extinct like the Dodo bird thanks to your death dealing religion.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  68. RobertOAdair said:

    Thank you, Yellow Leaf for confirming that you are a fascist. Who else do you plan to murder besides babies out of the womb as well as in the womb, Christians and the elderly. It is such a courageous thing to be a hero at murdering helpless babies in the most brutal, inhuman way possible! But I forget, you are not human, you’re a savage ape! Your greatest living philosopher, Peter Singer tells us that it’s unfortunate that newborn babies are so cute, it interferes with killing them. And this is what you learned in your so called institution of higher learning. Your ape brain cannot understand why we fear you degenerates!

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  69. Duderman said:

    “It is a violation of the First Ammendment to require believers not to partake in this governement and authorities whereby they defend your right to disagree.” Typical strawman and hyperbole; I did not say that any person should be barred from participating in government. The concept of religion has no place in government and the progress of the civil rights movement in the 20th century is proof of that. I do not see a hundreds year history of Christianity seeking equality for people of color or women. The truth is that a free and democratic society has consistently shown a higher moral standard than any religion. Governments founded on religion have a long history of persecution; that was true over 200 years ago when the Declaration of Independence was signed and only confirmed since then.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  70. RobertOAdair said:

    Yes, Duderman, High moral standards! Killing, murdering helpless babies by the tens of millions in your bloodthirsty insatiable lust to kill. You don’t see because your blind!

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  71. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @RobertOAdair man oh man, its not a baby until 24 weeks. like I said to Jack Wellman, the Christian motto “protect the unborn” but when its born: “go to hell and stop using social assistance for help”. And I am sure your wife or daughter would be the first in line for an abortion if they were impregnated by a rapist. but thats getting off topic. @RobertOAdair, in light of your diploma mill degrees, I will now refer to you as CrackerJack-OAdair. CrackerJack-OAdair – what you need to do is take a university (a real one) course in introductory Biology and then Genetics. You can then revisit this debate.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  72. said:

    The fact remains that you will not find the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution or in the Articles of Confederation or in the Amendments, and especially not in the Declaration of Independence. You can not dispute that the separation of church and state is not to be found in any legal document in the Unites States. A heartbeat can be detected even weeks after gestation, an fetus responds to noise, diet, stimulation, etc. For those who support abortion (save for the mother’s life), should thank their mother that she wasn’t pro-choice, lest no voice of which to support abortion or anything for that matter. If you were growing tomatoes from seed or from starters, and you destroyed the seed, you’ve destroyed the plant. If you even destroyed the seed, you’ve destroyed that plant. Back to the subject thou, evolution can not explain the origins of life or the universe. Creationism can and does. Dawkins said in The God Delision Debate DVD* [2007, fixed-point.org] that “we don’t know the cosmology…cosmology is waiting for its Darwin (46:40)”. Expect delays here. Creationism DOES explain it. Dawkins admits we can not explain the origin of the universe (:51). Creationism does. Dawkins continues saying that life, all life in fact everything came from bacteria, but we don’t know the process (:25). Creationism does. * Dr. John Lennox, a professor of science & also a theologian debated Prof. Richard Dawkins, both of Oxford University. Thus, atheism is faith-based.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  73. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman you are wrong. What creation does is try to explain everything with an explanation of nothing.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  74. leafs_fan_jd said:

    Atheism is a non-belief in god. If you consider that a religion then you MUST consider not smoking a habit.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  75. Duderman said:

    “Back to the subject thou, evolution can not explain the origins of life or the universe. Creationism can and does.” No it doesn’t; Creationism has absolutely no explanatory power. You are saying God did it; you don’t know how God did it, you don’t know why God did it and your ‘answer’ explains nothing. Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet, that is all. Continuing to insist that it should explain more only reveals your ignorance; by which I mean your refusal to learn anything about the science you are criticizing. And yes, the first amendment adequately defines the separation of church and state and has been doing so for over 200 years.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  76. Duderman said:

    Atheism is not a belief system, it is a position. The position is that people who are professing that a God (or Gods) exist have not sufficiently demonstrated that proof that a God (or Gods) exist. Basically an Atheist does not accept the current evidence for the existence of a God (or Gods). You are an Atheist Jack, towards every God except one.

    August 9, 2010
    Reply
  77. said:

    Talk about no answer power: Evolution can not answer, nor does it even attempt to answer the questions of the origins of the universe, and of life. Can you explain it? Not likely.

    August 10, 2010
    Reply
  78. BathTubNZ said:

    Right, because it’s not trying to. Seriously you might as well complain that your plumber won’t fix your car.

    August 10, 2010
    Reply
  79. said:

    I think a plumber might come up with a better theory than one that can’t explain the origin of life, nor of the universe. I will say that don’t worry if I don’t comment for a day, for I will be out of town, but will respond asap. I will close for now with saying that if as Dawkins’ believes, life evolved by random events like blind watchmakers, and he is still awaiting a “Darwin to explain the origins of the universe and of life”, then maybe I will call the plumber. He might have a better chance of answering from a blind theory. By the way, chance is not a noun, it is powerless, as I said, do effectually create something and that an unguided process, by random chance or events, makes it impossible to ever prove, definitively and conclusively, that evolution is a fact. It is sheer blind faith. Blind as Dawkin’s watchmaker.

    August 10, 2010
    Reply
  80. BathTubNZ said:

    Do you expect Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Relativity to explain the Origin of Life or the Origin of the Universe? Because that’s the argument you are making here. Taking 1 Scientific Theory and then complaining that it doesn’t explain things outside what it’s intended to cover.

    August 10, 2010
    Reply
  81. Duderman said:

    Well Jack, Evolution is the theory that best explains the evidence gathered from the world around us. It’s not perfect and nobody except Christians who are willing to continuously lie about everything they don’t agree with claim it should be perfect. But at least it explains some things, unlike your pet theory which explains nothing. I call you a liar because again you are trying to say that Evolution is based on random chance; please, please, please do some reading and try to broaden your mind. I am forced to conclude that you have no interest in what Evolution, or science for that matter, really is; you just want to continue to spout the same lies over and over again. Not surprised, but it does seem slightly unchristian.

    August 10, 2010
    Reply
  82. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    First, I must compliment Jack for allowing dissenting comments on his blog. Most creationist web sites and many creationist blogs don’t do that. Asking evolution to explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe shows gross misunderstanding of what evolution is and what it does explain. For explaining the diversity of life on this planet and its geographical distribution now and in the past, evolution does quite well. All the evidence we can observe on this subject supports evolution, none of it falsifies evolution, and no evidence supports a literal reading of Genesis. That’s just the way it is. If you don’t like reality, take it up with your God. Evolution was a fact before Darwin recognized it and proposed his theory of natural selection to explain that fact. It is just as much a fact of nature as gravity is, and we actually understand much more about the mechanisms of evolution than we do about those for gravity. That we share common ancestry with other apes is at least as certain as the earth going around the sun instead of vice versa as Christians used to insist. Most of those who argue against evolution are sincerely unaware of how much evidence there is of so many different types that all point to this reality. They have been LIED to by sources they trust.

    August 10, 2010
    Reply
  83. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    I can’t believe the irony of the second paragraph of this article. Jack, if you substitute the word “creationism” for “flat earth” in that paragraph, you are accurately describing the situation in the USA today, part of which you are responsible for by publishing your books of misinformation (lies?) about evolution. Whenever anyone throws numbers from polls at me about how many adult Americans doubt or deny the fact evolution happens, that it is just as ridiculous as if half the adult Americans insisted the earth was flat in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It really is that obvious, and IF you are a sincere seeker of truth, it wouldn’t take you very long to find the evidence showing you are wrong about the common descent of humans with monkeys not being real.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  84. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    I was a little sloppy on the proofreading before posting that last message. After saying about what I would do whenever people throw numbers from polls at me about how many people don’t accept evolution, I meant to say then “I reply” that it is just as ridiculous as if they thought the earth is flat. I left out those two words and the meaning can be read to imply the opposite of what I actually meant.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  85. RobertOAdair said:

    Bicycling Guitarist, do you have any education? Your triumphal stupidity always amazes me! “Throwing statistics at me” like the majority of scientists accept evolution? The latter is an invalid appeal to expert opinion. But you wouldn’t know that because you have never studied logic and have no idea of how thinking is done. Like Duderman you condemn lying, yet so much of the “overwhelming evidence” you site is proven fraud and deception. What you, and the equally irrational, Duderman don’t know is that most of this discussion pertains to philosophy not science, something else that you do not know anything about and, in your triumphal stupidity, you have no respect for. The statistics you disdain prove that you can’t make your case with intelligent people who have examined both sides and seen that you haven’t got a case. Your arroganse and hatefulness also helps to turn people against you. Your “flat earth” remarks are the circular reasoning of the True Believer which is what you religious fanatics really are.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  86. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @crackerjackodair you have no education — why are you questioning other people’s education? paying $25 to some non-accredited institution, like Honolulu university, for a PHd does not mean you are educated.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  87. RobertOAdair said:

    Leafs-whatever, thank you for your wonderful, anonymous poison pen letter! Ad hominem attacks like this are really the best that people so deluded they think they are apes can do. The underlying premise of your attack is that “all unaccredited schools are diploma mills” is simply nonsense. Harvard university became accredited in in 1929, your premise, if true, would mean that, prior to that, all their degrees were worthless. Honolulu University was listed in a book entitled The 100 Best Alternative Schools. John Bear, an actual person, is a recognized authority on the subject. Apism is such a self fulfilling prophecy!

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  88. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Yes I am educated, and regardless of what degree you may have or what institution it came from, on this subject at least you obviously have a mind that is firmly closed. NONE of the evidence found supports a literal reading of Genesis. ALL the evidence found so far supports evolution and NONE of it falsifies evolution. Despite these facts, you and Jack continue to spread lies. Why is that? It seems most unChristian.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  89. said:

    I would like to thank Dr. Wells who has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is also author of “Charles Hodge’s Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1998) and also “Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2000). This would be a good read for believers in evolution to examine the gaping holes in your theory. 1. Jonathan Wells who wrote “Survival of the fakest.” The American Spectator (December 2000/January 2001). Anyway, evolution is part of what is called the Historical Science; interpreting evidence from past events, based upon a presupposed philosophical point of view. Evolutional theory is interpreting evidence from the past, since they can not do so by means of observation, testing, measuring, repeating, and as falsifiable by experiment. One way to “reduce the practical impact” is to use repeatable uncontrolled experiments to gather data. What about symbiosis evolutionists? Take this example: Algae and the Fungus of Linches. The fungi provide vital protection and moisture to algae while the algae nourish the fungi with photosynthetic nutrients that keep them alive. “Neither population could exist without the other, and hence the size of each is determined by that of the other” Neither of them could of survived without the other… so which came first, the Fungi or the Algae? If evolution were true, then both of these organism would of evolved separately.. but… neither could of survived without the other. Hmmm….

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  90. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    I realize words like “ALL” and “NONE” usually result in false statements, but the facts are as I stated. That is why I can’t subscribe to your religion, at least not the Biblical literalist view. I love Christ and his teachings, but when fundies try to tell me that the evidence isn’t there for evolution or that there is just as much evidence (or even ANY) evidence to support their view, well, I know better. Either your interpretation of Genesis is wrong (for most of the Bible’s history it was read as allegory and not taken literally), OR your God is a liar to plant so much evidence that makes it LOOK like evolution happens and the literal reading of Genesis is bunk. Why would a loving God do that when the chances are it could fool people using the senses and reasoning He gave them and lead those people to eternal damnation? That trickster type of God is more like Satan than Jehovah.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  91. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Not true Jack. Evolution is happening NOW and we observe it NOW. Also, the past leaves traces that can be observed. It isn’t a matter of viewing the same evidence from differing perspectives. The nature and amount and different types of evidence are neatly explained and predicted by evolutionary theory while that same evidence falsifies a literal reading of Genesis. Again, either your God is a liar in His Book or in His Creation or you are wrong to insist on a literal reading of Genesis as science and history. It is good of you to allow dissenting comments though on your blog. I greatly respect you for that.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  92. Duderman said:

    Here we go again, Dr. Wells has published but not on evolution or intelligent design; so why are you dropping his name? Your appeal to authority is transparent and tantamount to a lie; you try to create the appearance of knowledge where there is none. At what point Jack are you going to answer any of the points raised by myself or others instead of trying to introduce new and pointless information? Just because you don’t understand how lichens developed doesn’t mean others don’t. A gain, Wells has published a grand total of 3 articles in his entire life and none of them are about evolution or intelligent design, books don’t count as science because they are not peer reviewed. Your entire comment is a red herring, try responding to a criticism once in a while and actually debate something. In a previous comment I called you a liar because you continually and intentionally misrepresent what evolution really is, and you are still doing it; it is not historical science.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  93. RobertOAdair said:

    Well, bicyle boy, besides riding a bicycle and playing the guitar you have no apparent qualifications for pursuing this discussion. “Lying for Jesus” is not a Christian doctrine but lie after lie after lie is the proven practice of evolutionists. Since you have never studied logic and demonstrably have no knowledge of the most elementary logical fallacies, you obviously cannot judge the validity of the evidence. You’re sort of like someone trying to do open heart surgery with a can opener. You don’t know what the word education means, you might have some sort training not far removed from brainwashing, but not education. Anyway, being a moral coward, you will not give your name or the name of any training institution you attended so no one can check you out. How would an apostle of the blood drenched creed of Atheist evolutionism have any knowledge of what is or is not Christian? You also know nothing about philosophy and pursue what is, not science, but a philosophical discussion. This has a lot to do with why you and your murderous, conscienceless kind are losing. Ideas have consequences!

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  94. said:

    I do respect your opinion and we can agree to disagree, for as you told Dr. Adair, and myself I presume, “you obviously have a mind that is firmly closed” which I do not agree with. I would restate that as you can not convince me for the theory remains less than convincing. This leaves only three possibilities in my opinion, as stated by the late C.S. Lewis: Either Jesus Christ is a liar, He is a lunatic, or He is telling the truth. I believe in the latter, for God can not lie & neither can I say He is a lunatic. You can post additional comments if you wish, but this discussion is going no where fast and neither of us appear to be be going to change our positions as we both seem thoroughly convinced. Nonetheless, thank you for your comments and your passion for your beliefs. I understand that you are sincere, but sincerity is no respecter of truth.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  95. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Thank you Jack, for your polite reply. As for Robert, it doesn’t matter what credentials I have or don’t have. The facts are what they are and can be checked by anyone. Robert has it backwards: it is the creationists who have demonstrated time and again blatant dishonesty about this subject. That is a proven fact. Even judges have commented on it in their rulings. Creationists continue to spew distortions and lies that have been refuted a thousand times. A scientist (most scientists anyway) will not continue to say something once it has been falsified.

    August 26, 2010
    Reply
  96. RobertOAdair said:

    Well, bicycling primate, what basis is there in your ape religion for telling the truth? What basis is there for thinking that logic is ontological? Is there any absolute truth. You’re the great philosopher (who never studied philosophy}. So explain this. one philosophical lie, dear to the hearts of evolutionist True Believers is “Religion is based on faith and science is based on knowledge.” First of all there are many types of faith not just uncritical acceptance. Secondly, all knowledge is based on faith, scientific knowledge especially. Furthermore, many philosophers of science doubt that science is or could be true. We find this in Pragmatism and Operationalism. Kuhn comments that science operates according to paradigms which may or may not be true. So while evolutionism may be an excuse for murdering the elderly, the feeble and helpless babies, there is little reason to think it’s true, at least for a large number of scientists. Another example of evolutionist lies is leaf-whatever’s lying comments about my paying $25 for my degree and that all unaccredited degrees are worthless. This happens thousands of times, it is the regular practice of evolutionist rhetoric! Then there are your 20 or so fraudulaht primitve men. Five or six were based on manufactured evidence and the rest on Insufficient Evidence. Four foot bones don’t cut it. But, of course, since know nothing about Logic you don’t know what I am talking about. One can go on and on about your lies and frauds, but you can’t refute these facts so you will not discuss them. Failure To Discuss is another logical fallacy. Evolution! Lies! Lies! Lies!

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  97. RobertOAdair said:

    Oh bicycling primate it doesn’t matter what credentials you have? So if someone is going to do open heart surgery, it doesn’t matter if he knows anything about it? Or if he is drunk or sober? “Facts are facts” But you don’t deal in facts! You deal in outright lies, denial, faulty inference, twisted arguments and unjustified conclusions. You do not know the language of science. You talk of proof when an informed person would talk of verification and demonstration, both a long way from proof. The best you can manage is ridicule, evasion, dogmatic assertion and lies, like the lie that the creation story has virtually always been interpreted allegorically by Christians. Where did you study Hermeneutics? Or the history of it.? You have not answered any arguments presented by Wellman, much less refuted them. But since you think credentials are so unimportant, I’ll see if I can arrange a flight for you in a blizzard with an unlicensed pilot. Let me know when you’re ready for this!

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  98. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    What a fine example of a Christian you are, Robert (in case you’re dense; I’m being sarcastic). A lot of projection going on in your posts. It seems everything you accuse others of is what you do the most. I am Chris Watson and have been known as “The Bicycling Guitarist” since the early 1980s because I ride a ten-speed bicycle while simultaneously playing guitar. IF you really had any training in logic, it has obviously been wasted on you. How do you explain the overwhelming evidence for evolution of so many different types that each stand alone yet corroborate each other in stunning fashion? It completely blows your creationist b.s. out of the water. Either you are ignorant of the evidence, too stupid to understand it, wicked, or insane. It was an atheist who said that. I don’t normally agree with atheists, but that summation of the creationist position seems pretty accurate.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  99. RobertOAdair said:

    Well bicycling primate, as usual you have failed to respond to nearly everything I have said. What about your fraudulent primitive men? What about the lies about my degrees? What about the fact that you have not studied logic and don’t know the most elementary principles of the subject? What about the fact that in the context of your crackpot religious metaphysics logic cannot have any ontological significance? It just popped into existence by happenstance. It has no necessary connection with the rest of reality. What about all the evil social consequences: The murder of the unborn, Nazism, Communism and all the other lying fascist tyrannies for which the evolution myth supplies the metaphysical foundation? What about your lunatic attitude that nobody knows anything but you? Evolution is dogmatic Atheism dedicated to trying to prove God does not exist. Who is your favorite N.T. Christian, Judas Iscariot?

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  100. Duderman said:

    @ RobertOAdair “So if someone is going to do open heart surgery, it doesn’t matter if he knows anything about it?” So where is your biology degree that makes you the authority on this subject? Your philosophy degree does not apply, especially since you do not appear to know what Ontology actually is. I have read a number of your comments and your attempts to link logic and Ontology vary between pathetic and hilarious. There is not one single reputable philosopher that would claim that an Ontological argument has a place in a science discussion. You are a fraud and a liar; you’re not even good at that.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  101. RobertOAdair said:

    Dear Dud, Do you have any education? You make all sorts of pontifical statements about subjects you have never studied and know nothing about. Philosophy is a superior subject to science, especially a soft science like Biology. Real science, not evolutionist pseudo-science, is based on a number of philosophical foundations without which Science cannot exist. Science arose in Christian Europe because it was permeated with Christian Theology as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out in his classic work Science and the modern world. He was a real scholar and a thinker not a nameless assassin of the intellect. Most other scholars who have studied history concur with his insight. Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Is the real rational, the rational real? Is the universe governed by natural physical laws? These and other questions must be settled before it is possible to have a science. Of course your conviction that there is no connection between logic and reality undermines the possibility of your having anything meaningful to say on this or any other subject. But since you think that what degrees I have or don’t have is of such pivotal importance, what degrees do you have? a B.S in Basket Weaving, Mobile Homes, what? It’s evident Logic was not among the the subjects you studied.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  102. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Crackerjack Odair. Once again “ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????” How dare you try to make fun of someone else’s education when you have none yourself? You may think you are educated, but when you pay for a degree and don’t write tests or do assignments into an accredited university — “then you ain’t done $%#$” Throughout this entire thread your answers have been comical and provided a great laugh, but I cannot sit back and listen to your banter about the “great christian church” being the reason for the enlightenment of science. You are a MORON. Two words will provide the best example for christianity’s incompetence: Galileo Galilei. Look him up.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  103. RobertOAdair said:

    Leaf-whatever. Name please? Tell us about your fully accredited education which makes you an authority on philosophy and the history of Science? In what, A.A. in Basket Weaving? B.S. in Mobile Homes? Alfred North Whitehead was a distinguished scholar, certainly not a moron. Why should we listen to a nameless nobody who believes there is no connection between his, I can’t say ideas, lets say notions, and reality? Usually the people who use gutter language to make their points are perceived as low life bums. Does that description fit you?

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  104. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @crackerjack I could care less what you think – I’m not splattering my real name over the internet. Especially, not on some christian fundamentalist website. Do you know what one christian minister actually told me? No matter what he does he will never go to hell because he’s christian — he can even get away with murder. He can go to jail on Earth, but his soul never has to answer to any person. How eff’d up is that? Thats your religion…Good ol’ christians. But I will give you this much: Honours BSc. Biology, BSc. Computer Science and Master of Business Administration from accredited universities in Canada.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  105. Duderman said:

    Well Dr. AllKnowing and superior scientist Adair why don’t you list the 20 fraudulent ‘primitive men’ you keep bringing up? Give us the names and dates of their discovery, and then explain how they were discovered to be hoaxes. This would be called information, data, facts; something you never use. By the way, Atheism isn’t trying to prove God doesn’t exist; Atheism is the position that there is no evidence for a God(s) that justifies a rational belief in such an entity. It is not that I don’t believe in God; I don’t think that the belief in God is rational or sensible; there is no evidence that makes a belief in God a reasonable decision.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  106. leafs_fan_jd said:

    Duderman, I also find it extremely funny how religionists also try to put the onus on Athiests to prove that God does not exist (as their evidence for the existence of God). That would be like me trying to sell my house to Exxon, telling them there is no evidence for oil not to exist under my house, so you can have the house for $5 Billion.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  107. RobertOAdair said:

    Well, leafs, what is your real name. Since you are a chronic liar we can’t just believe you have these degrees from a school in dying Canada (destroyed by Secular Humanism’s destructive culture of death). Give us your name so we can check your story. They didn’t teach English. What you would have said if you were literate is “I could NOT care less.” Did they teach you to express yourself in the language of the gutter? Did they also teach you your bigoted hatred of Christianity? Do you hate Jews too, like your co-religionist Adolf Hitler? As a Cherokee Indian I object to the intrinsic racism of the evolution myth. The Trail of Tears was justified and motivated by it.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  108. leafs_fan_jd said:

    wow, crackerjack odair, you really are daft. I just finished telling you that I will not share my name because of crazy christians who say they can murder people and will be forgiven by god. Honolulu U does hand out degrees to anyone. And Adolph Hitler was a CHRISTIAN. he was born a Catholic and if you claim otherwise, you are lying and will go to hell to hang out with the devil. 666!

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  109. said:

    I can attest to two of the most famous (or infamous?) hoaxes ever that was claimed to be a transitional fossil, purported to be evidence of human’s descending from ape. The “Piltdown Man” is a famous Anthropological hoax concerning the finding of the remains of a previously unknown early human. The hoax find consisted of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, East Sussex, England. The fragments were thought by many experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early man. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni (“Dawson’s dawn-man”, after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human. The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man Another example is Nebraska Man which was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant “ape of the western world” and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Although it does not appear to be a deliberate hoax, this original classification proved to be a mistake. It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the basis of a tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amedee Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of “Pithecanthropus” (now Homo erectus), the “Java ape-man”, for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: “a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  110. Duderman said:

    Well Jack, that leaves 18 more; the point here is that what Robert O Adair said is a lie. There are not 20 fake ‘primitive man’ hoaxes that he can list. He has made a claim to portray Evolution in a negative light and cannot substantiate the claim. He is a liar. He is incapable of actually engaging in a debate on a subject and merely tries (and fails) to impugn the character and intelligence of everyone that does not agree with him. Of course Nebraska Man doesn’t really count as it was only the discoverer that made the claim that the tooth belonged to a hominid and then the press ran wild. Contrary to popular creationist claims Nebraska Man was not presented at the Scopes trial and never had standing as an accepted hominid species. A tooth was found, misclassified and then corrected. Piltdown Man was proven false because science never stops questioning itself.

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  111. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    The fossil record shows about a dozen transitional species between the common ancestor of chimpanzees and modern humans. Some of these, perhaps most of them, may not be direct ancestors of homo sapiens but they are at least cousins. The older fossils show more ape-like features, and over time the fossils found show more and more human-like features. Some creationist authors claim that these transitional forms are either fully ape or fully human, but some of these fossils are SO transitional that different creationists cannot agree which side of the fence to put them on. How transitional can you get? Nebraska Man was never accepted by the scientific community but serves today as a shining example of the dishonesty and desperation of the creationist camp. Piltdown Man is an example of the self-correcting nature of science. What some creationists don’t get is if we actually did find transitional forms of the cartoon version of evolution they present, that is, if a dog gave birth to kittens or we found a transitional fossil of a cross between a crocodile and a duck, that would FALSIFY our current understanding of evolution. The creationists say if we don’t have such forms, that evolution can’t be true. This shows how little they understand what they are criticizing.

    August 28, 2010
    Reply
  112. said:

    I am grateful for the self-correcting nature of science, as in Homo habilis. There is a growing consensus among most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types – such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an ‘invalid taxon’. That is, it never existed as such. Love corrections.

    August 28, 2010
    Reply
  113. RobertOAdair said:

    Well bicycling primate, why don’t you do a human interest article on what it’s like to be an ape? You think my remarks are so laughable, you’re certainly entertaining a lot of people on Associated Content with your ignorant remark about allegory.

    August 28, 2010
    Reply
  114. Duderman said:

    Well Robert, your most recent comment simply proves everything that has been said about you in this comment thread. You ignore all challenges to your factually incorrect statements and simply make yet another personal attack. You are only cementing your reputation as a an idiot and a liar, good job. Produce your list of 20 fake primitive man fossils or shut up; you are a joke.

    August 28, 2010
    Reply
  115. 1CaveMan said:

    Very informative blog here Mr. Wellman. I think most Americans know that the constitution does not really prohibit the teaching of creationism in schools. (although I’m sure your detractors below don’t want us “commoners” to make any decisions on that for ourselves) But, we have this political correctness system here where those who can’t win an honest open debate just sue for censorship in the liberal packed courts. Look at the irrational and hateful comments of the atheists below for a good example of what you are up against. Honestly, to me, these people are so pathetic. It’s sad really, the evidence of creation is all around, more abundant than air, yet has less weight with these geniuses than Professor Osborns tooth. Which, by the way they all went gah gah over when it was first brought out but now all play innocent mistake. Sad little boys playing with dumb little toys.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  116. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @1CaveMan not sure I understand your logic. “Things are beautiful so there must be a creator?” What if you told a Physicist, things fall down because there is a creator? Or a Geologist, Plate tectonics are due to a creator? Or a Chemist, Redox reactions occur because there is a creator? Are those explanations good enough? The answer is a big fat NO. This is why Science stays in the realm of the Natural world and God stays in the realm of the Supernatural — its like Oil and Water; they don’t mix. Note: I am done trying to debate the existence of God, with people on this site, because its impossible for them to prove the existence of God and what “you feel” does not qualify. Creationists need to come to an understanding: 1) Science IS hard. If you don’t understand it, you cannot throw up your hands and say “A creator did it” 2) The theory of Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life on this planet and does not explain the origin of life. If you try to insist the theory of evolution should explain the origin of life, then you should also figure out how the Theory of Gravity explains the origin of life. 3) Do not bother trying to poke holes in the character of Darwin as an argument against Evolution. Character assassination does not mean if you can prove something wrong with a person then their lifes work is wrong. If that were the case then Calculus would be questioned all the time — Sir Isaac Newton was an Alchemist, trying to make Gold from Lead (which everyone now knows is impossible). 4) Fakes in science happen all the time. Just like in real life, people lie all the time. Just like the Religious minister Ted Haggard lied and is a fake christian. Just like the Bush campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, faked hating gay marriage and now is actually gay!!

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  117. leafs_fan_jd said:

    and to finish off my about fakes comment: Fakes in science are found and corrected. The entire system moves forward with eyes wide open NEVER EVER with eyes shut.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  118. RobertOAdair said:

    Well leafs, what’s wrong with murdering people? Your crackpot religion helped mightily to legalize the murder of the unborn. You kill 3,000 helpless babies everyday. One cannibal tribe in New Guinea would race into a village, grab a man by the hair,pull him back, slit open his abdomen, pull out his intestines, cut off his fingers and while he was still alive, eat him until he died. Most decent people hearing this would find this revolting and say “What primitive savages!” But your religion does the same thing. It cuts up human beings alive, it crushes their skulls and sucks out their brains and cuts them up in pieces! 3,000 every day. Then you say this is not murder, it’s abortion. You can justify any crime against humanity simply by renaming it. Your racism is not tyranny and mass murder, it’s scientific Darwinian Eugenics. That’s what your hero Hitler whose crimes you are eager to misrepresent. You will, as usual, deny all this. Tell it to my fellow Cherokee Indians! The reason you won’t give your is because you’re yellow all the way through!

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  119. RobertOAdair said:

    Well Dud, name please? You have no name, no education. All you do is ignore every argument presented by Mr. Wellman and me. You not only know nothing about logic but you can’t refute the fact that within the framework of your religion’s metaphysics, you cannot justify logic having any ontological significance. You are so ignorant, you don’t even know what the word means and confuse ontology as synonymous with the Ontological Argument. When it is pointed out that you do not have the intellectual tools necessary for the task you have undertaken, you confuse that with an ad hominem attack which it is not. If you knew anything about logic you couldn’t make that mistake. When you try to argue with educated people who have intellectual integrity, you are way out of your league. Your gutter rhetoric plays well in the dives you frequent, especially when everybody is has consumed their beer. It’s not working here. Your irrationality, inhumanity and hatefulness simply turns people off. You can only persuade your fellow apes which is why you continue to lose. Soon 60% , maybe 70% of the American population will embrace Creationism and wonder why we are being forced by the Radical Left to finance their religion.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  120. Duderman said:

    Robert – My name has nothing to do with my argument, my level of education has nothing to do with my argument; attempting to introduce them as a part of the argument is the definition of the ad hominem attack. I am not talking to Jack, I am talking to you; the liar Robert O Adair that cannot produce the 20 fake hominid fossil he claimed existed. As with previous posts, you saying it does not make it true; please provide some evidence in support of your claim.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  121. 1CaveMan said:

    @leafs_fan wow the depth of your delusion is greater than even I had first suspected. Let me TRY to help you here. first of all I didn’t say anything about beauty being proof of creation, although, its better evidence of intelligent design than a fossilized jaw bone is evidence we all evolved from hominids. Second, if you told a physicist things fall down because there is a creator as you accuse me of doing, his answer may actually be a big fat YES if he is one like Newton who subscribes to real science. Now let me address your “list” of things creationists should understand, 1.Science is hard. LOL yes and for that reason most of us in the real world won’t accept just throwing up your hands and declaring it all made itself happen buy accident. We know, even without the help of darwinian thought police that these things don’t happen in the real world. 2. “the theory of evolution is an explanation” hogwash. its a pathetic theory adhered to by those who don’t want there to be a God, so that in your misserable little world you have something to shield you from the truth. (only till you die) You compared the ridiculous theory of evolution to the “theory” (??) of gravity. MY, MY, MY, in one fell swoop you strip bare your ignorance for all to see. Gravity is a LAW of physics little man, one, by the way, which was first articulated by Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of all time, a christian and creationist. 3. do not poke holes in the character of Darwin. No problem, he had none. 4.”fakes happen in science all the time” AT LAST!! something we can agree on. As for Mr. Adair’s reference to the fake hominid fossils. He has a very valid point since there is no such thing as a hominid and all the so called missing link fossils are therefore fraud! LOL

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  122. BathTubNZ said:

    caveman is a poe right? has to be.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  123. said:

    Caveman is spot on the mark. Acclaimed atheist and pro-evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, says that “…the whole question of sex and why it is there, Muller’s Ratchet and all, is another story and a difficult one to tell. Maybe one day I’ll summon up the courage to tackle it in full and write a whole book about the evolution of sex.” Hmmmmmm…[p. 83, Climbing mount improbable. Richard Dawkins First American Edition. 1996. (P. 83). Theories and laws, as Caveman pointed out clearly, are not the same thing, as he said about Newtons Three Laws of Gravity, not Three Theories. Statement of Newton’s First Law state that an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an outside force and an object in uniform straight line motion will stay in that uniform straight line motion unless acted on by an outside force. Newton’s second law says that the force needed to accelerate an object equals the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration, or: Force = Mass X Acceleration. Newton’s Third Law is deceptively simple. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The terms action and reaction refer to forces. Now these became laws because they passed the Scientific Method to determine them as laws and not as theories; they were observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable. What seems astonishing is that the very dogma of evolution has never been proven nor can ever be. By the way, natural evolutionary processes can not even account for the origin of all living species & evolution has never been and never will be established as fact; it remains forever locked into its state as a theory. Anyone knows that theories and scientific facts are not the same thing. It is not even “scientific” in the truest sense. Science and the establishment of scientific facts deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory & humans have never created life from inorganic matter. Anyway, scientific facts can furnish no knowledge at all about where the human race came from or how it got here since life comes from life. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than it is a scientific fact or law. In fact, it takes more faith to believe that life spontaneously generated than that it had a cause. And Louis Pasteur declared this “theory” dead on arrival about 100 years or so ago.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  124. leafs_fan_jd said:

    its funny knowing that a bunch of morons who follow a religion whose doctrines were put on paper 2000 years ago are trying to tell scientists how they need to do their job. Good job religionists — oh and don’t go see a doctor when you are sick (all anti-biotics are a product of evolution).

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  125. said:

    Antibiotics actually originated with Penicillin in 1928. This was a DISCOVERY by the British Alexander Fleming, and note the he discovered them, he didn’t invent anything. Fleming’s accidental discovery and isolation of penicillin in September 1928 marks the start of modern antibiotics so how can this be accurately said to be the product of evolution. It is the product of decay. I’ve known a few bachelor’s who have also “discovered” penicillin in foods left too long in the frig. How can you say it was invented when it was already in existence. There is NO indication that it is the product of evolution. That’s like saying Newton invented gravity….No, he discovered it. It had already existed in nature. Nice try though. I am sorry you resort to name calling, e.g., “these morons” or those who follow religion…like Isaac Newton,(1642-1727) Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) now, lets see, its Mr. Bacon one of the fathers & founders of science…YES! Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) KGalileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  126. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Crackerjack odair nothing of what you have said proved that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. @Jack Wellman, do a search on Evolution papers on Nature.com and you will find over 70,000 papers proving the theory of Evolution.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  127. BathTubNZ said:

    Jack, you do understand the difference between Theories and Laws? Laws are aren’t explanatory. Theories don’t graduate into Laws. Laws are descriptions of behavior, not explanations. The Laws of Gravity, as well as things like Keplers Laws of Planetary Motion, etc are *explained* by The Special & General Theories of Relativity. Theories are the top of the pile. You can’t get any better. Heliocentric Theory, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, etc, they aren’t sitting around waiting to be voted into Law.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  128. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman “Isaac Newton,(1642-1727) Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) now, lets see, its Mr. Bacon one of the fathers & founders of science…YES! Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) KGalileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Robert Boyle (1791-1867)” Every single one of those men lived before Charles Darwin, how do you suppose they knew about his theories? As well, the church had Galileo under house arrest because he dared to say the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Just as a side note, today we know the Earth is in a solar system that is on 1 arm of the milky way galaxy, which is one galaxy out of millions. Do you think Galileo knew that? So I am confused why you have given us a list of scientists who were all born before the Theory of Evolution was even proposed? Why would you try to lie?

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  129. BathTubNZ said:

    What is the point anyway? We can just give you a list of Christian Scientists today who do support Evolution.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  130. leafs_fan_jd said:

    And the number 1 christian Evolutionary Biologist I would refer everyone to is Dr. Ken Miller (Professor of Biology, Brown University).

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  131. said:

    Friend, I have endured much name calling. The fact that they were born before a theory was invented, is a lie? I don’t understand your reasoning. I will conclude with this. You said, “its funny knowing that a bunch of morons who follow a religion whose doctrines were put on paper 2000 years ago are trying to tell scientists how they need to do their job. Good job religionists—oh and don’t go see a doctor when you are sick (all anti-biotics are a product of evolution).?” I simply responded by providing a name of some of the greatest scientists were Christian. This is no lie my friend. I mentioned that penicillin was not invented, it was discovered (& quite by accident, not by evolutionary processes..)and had already existed, so you were incorrect. The type of logic you use is like saying Newton invented gravity. No, it had already existed, he just discovered it. You continue to call us names…”moron, a liars, idiots, crackerjacks”, etc., however I will not lower myself to that kind of personal attack and respond in kind. That is 3rd grade level behavior. You are attacking the person and not addressing the message. Sorry you have to resort to such tactics, as it tends to weaken your arguments. This happens when someone can not respond to the comments. They attack the commenter. So, anyway, its been interesting, and since you can neither persuade me, nor is there any hope of your persuasion, then I want to thank you at least for taking the time and trouble to comment. It shows you have passion for this subject & I DO appreciate your effort and respect your sincerity.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  132. RobertOAdair said:

    Caveman, Unlike the apes, certainly makes a lot of sense. The evolution myth can never be proven because it’s supporters are incapable of rational thought. Scientific theories may be verified but not proven especially when they are based on lies and fraud such as all those phony primitive men. A classic study of them is Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow. Unfortunately the 4th grade reading skills of the evolution crazies wouldn’t enable to read it unless they had someone to help them with all the big words.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  133. BathTubNZ said:

    I’m so glad Robert that you aren’t letting the Evilutionauts bring you down to their level. Truly you are a shining example of the fruits of the spirit and the transformative power of Christs love.

    August 29, 2010
    Reply
  134. RobertOAdair said:

    name please bathtub? Education? Thank you for another poison pen letter. Poison pen letters are anonymous, abusive missives written out of spite and malice to harass the recipient.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  135. BathTubNZ said:

    I already gave you that info Robert.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  136. RobertOAdair said:

    Well bathtub, why don’t you do a human interest piece on what it’s like to be an ape and how much you get a kick out of killing helpless babies and how frustrated you are that you can’t kill them out of the womb. Please publish your picture, the one with the sloping forehead, the deep set, closely set eyes, the ridge of bone over them, the weak chin and if possible the calluses on your knuckles. Am I ridiculing you? Maybe it’s because you’re ridiculous.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  137. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Robert keeps mentioning abortion in this discussion. In the Bible God tells us “Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!” I’m not in favor of abortion as birth control, but come on. For supposedly being so educated, and especially for supposedly being a Christian, Robert is not setting a good example in this debate. To answer an earlier comment, Jack mentions the debate about the correct classification of Homo Habilis. The point is that we have found so MANY fossils now that sometimes there is some confusion over how to classify them. That doesn’t mean that h. habilis isn’t a valid species. It means that some of the fossils that were assigned to it may in fact belong to different species. This shows MORE evidence of evolution, not less as Jack implies. So how do Jack and Robert account for the FACT that at the time when h. habilis existed there were ape-man fossils but no modern humans, and that older fossils are more ape-like and more recent fossils more human-like? Btw, that book Bones of Contention that Robert touts has some flawed assumptions. Its author claims that once a new species develops that its ancestor species must die out, so the observed fact that some ancestral hominid species overlap in time somehow disproves evolution. Even that nestbed of insanity Answers in Genesis disagrees with that author on that assumption, which might be the only thing on the AiG website that isn’t a lie or distortion.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  138. said:

    Please find me the verse or scripture that says that “God tells us “Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!” I have taught Sunday school for over 25 years & this is not in the Bible. This is absolutely false. By the way, h. habilis, originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, the fossil was the center of much debate concerning its species. Assigned initially to Homo habilis, the skull was at first incorrectly dated at nearly three million years old. The differences in this skull, when compared to others of the Homo habilis species, are too pronounced, leading to the presumption of a Homo rudolfensis species, contemporary with Homo habilis. It is not certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo, or if H. habilis was, or if some third species yet to be discovered was. Sorry, nice try though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  139. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Psalm 137:9 It is NOT false. it’s in the Bible so it MUST be true! And the point I am making about h. habilis still stands. Whether or not any of the fossils showing the transition from apes to humans are direct ancestors of ours cannot be shown (at least not at our current level of knowledge). Still, they are at least cousins to us, and are what is expected and predicted if humans share common ancestry with chimpanzees and other living things. Find a fossil rabbit in Precambrian times and you’d blow holes in evolution, although it still explains so much so well that it is unlikely all of it would be overthrown. We have found many ape-man fossils from millions of years ago and no fossils of modern humans from that time. How do you account for that fact?

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  140. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    Also, even if we didn’t have ANY fossils at all, there is enough evidence of other types to demonstrate that humans are evolved from other forms of life. The fossils are the icing on the cake, a plus, and so far, all the evidence of any type anyone has found supports evolution, no evidence yet found falsifies, and no evidence supports a literal reading of Genesis as science or history. If you don’t like reality, take it up with your God. Could it be possible, just maybe, that your principles of Biblical interpretation need reexamination?

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  141. said:

    My point is that unless you can show me the scriptures, you can not prove it, it remains false. That quote is not in the Bible, therefore your quote is false. If indeed it “MUST”(sic) be true, then show us.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  142. BathTubNZ said:

    Granted Psalm 137:9 isn’t the sort of verse that you teach in Sunday School, but yes it is in the bible Jack. Again Robert, I am so glad that Christs love is so prevalent in your life that you don’t need to resort of endless strings of red herrings and strawmen. I’ve already asked you to explain why think you don’t meet the biological classification of human. Frankly I don’t feel the need to meet any more of you demands until you actually answer my question. Or you can continue to stamp your feet like a child and throw tantrums and show how much better you are than us godless heathens. Your call.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  143. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack, I have respect for you…you still allow us to debate– good for you. so your statement “nless you can show me the scriptures, you can not prove it, it remains false.” 3 simple questions: Can you explain how God created the heaven and the earth at the same time — when the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years old and the Universe is about 13.5 Billion years old? Can you explain how there was light (Genesis 1:4-5) before light producing objects (Genesis 1:16)? If the earth is only 6000 years old, how is it that the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is 20,000 years old? Thanks!

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  144. said:

    7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!” 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- 9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. So you took text out of context and made it a pretext. Nice mis-qouting there. If I taught this in Sunday school, it would be to show what the Babylonians do…plus the “heathen” made their children to pass through the fire, that is child sacrifice. Now I will not stoop to the level of saying since you are an atheist (or agnostic?) that I associate you with this type of behavior. No, but atheistic societies have such a history as this.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  145. said:

    Thank you for your comments. I believe it is good to hear from both sides in a civil voice and I too respect your views my friend. I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. In Genesis one and verse one to verse two, there is no reference of time. Some believe that there is a gap in this frame. I do not know but I could also ask you how did life originate or how did the universe come into existence. If it has always existed, it seems it defies cause & effect, so this is an enigma to evolutionists too. Given that, in reading Genesis 1:1 or any other Bible verse outside its context is one of the worst things that a person can do. When we look at Genesis 1:2,3 we see that it begins with the conjunction “and.” So this fact indicates that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are part of one continuous thought. Remove the period at the end of Genesis 1:1 and read it as originally intended: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void…” The conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 tells us that Genesis 1:1 is not a summary of the creation account! This verse is a factual statement of what God did at the beginning of the first day. The Bible, written in the original Hebrew, does not give verses & chapters. Plus, there are other context clues that tell us that this is not a summary statement. If you continue to read the Genesis creation account, we come to the real summary at the end (Genesis 2:1). Wouldn’t it be superfluous to have a second summary at the beginning? A In summary, the text claims that God created the heavens and earth on the first day. What do the heavens consist of? Well obviously it is stars, galaxies, etc. So God created, at the very least, the stars and the earth. The original language, written in the Hebrew, translates “heaven and earth” which speaks of the entire created universe. Please let me know what you mean. Do you claim that God created the earth first and that the rest of the heavenly bodies were created later? If you are trying to interpret it this way, it would be like saying that God created “nothing” and the earth. If God had only created the earth, the Genesis 1:1 would have said, “In the beginning God created the earth.” So, we can safely say that God created the entire heavens and earth at the beginning of the first creation day. As for the apparent age of the universe, how do you not know that something was created in an already mature state. There was fruit in the Garden of Eden already bearing fruit… Now, can you answer my question that I posed earlier? What do evolutionists theorize about the origin of life? Or, is this just unknown?

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  146. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman “What do evolutionists theorize about the origin of life? Or, is this just unknown?” The origin of life is not explained through the theory of Evolution. If you are looking at evolution to explain this then you will not find an answer. The Theory is an explanation of how we have a diverse landscape of life forms on this planet, not how it got started. If you want to discuss origins, you will have to talk to chemists and biochemists — who will need to discuss the nature of hydrophobic and hydrophilic water molecules, amino acids etc etc. It is not in scope for an evolution discussion.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  147. said:

    That is exactly my point. Evolution is a theory and theories can’t explain the origin of life. Spot on the mark friend. It is not in the scope of evolution, nor is it know by chemists and biochemists. They too can only hold to a theory, an assumption, a hypothesis.

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  148. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman Lets take a step back. The purpose of this article was to ensure that Creationism was taught in school as science — which is not possible because it is a religious tenet. So I am confused as to how Evolution is somehow at fault for this?

    August 30, 2010
    Reply
  149. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    You are right about that, Jack. Evolution can not and does not explain the origins of life nor the origin of the universe. Neither does it try to. That is not what evolution explains. However, you are wrong to say that evolution is “just a theory.” So is gravity! Evolution is a fact, not “just a theory.” Various theories have been proposed to explain the observed fact of evolution, but the fact remains and some people don’t like it because it conflicts with their interpretation of a book that was written a long time ago by people who had far less knowledge of the natural world than we do today. Now I know you believe that the Bible is inspired by God. That is fine. But if this earth is also created by God, and all the life on it, then why oh why does He make it LOOK like the earth is billions of years old and life evolved? I would rather not believe in any God than believe in one that tries to deceive us, especially if the penalty for being fooled is eternal torment. That doesn’t seem like a God worthy of worship.

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  150. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    What I mean by “So is gravity!” is that evolution is no more nor no less “just a theory” than gravity is. In other words, it is an observed fact of nature, like gravity is. And that evolution cannot explain the origin of life nor the origin of the universe is not a weakness of evolution. It is a weakness in your understanding of evolution. I believe you are a good man and you mean well, but you have been misinformed about this subject. I also know that being a good man won’t get you into heaven. The problem I have with a literal interpretation of Genesis is that the evidence of the world God created falsifies that interpretation.

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  151. leafs_fan_jd said:

    @Jack Wellman, Not sure if you every watch ‘Through the Wormhole’ hosted by Morgan Freeman on Discovery World, but yesterday there was a show on the origins of life — to which evolution was excluded, but they went through various theories and scenarios. One of which, as a Biology grad, I did not recall but find it fascinating. Its called a Shadow Biosphere. Essentially the hypothesis is that there isn’t just one tree of life — there is a major Tree, which all cataloged living organisms belong to…but there could be other forms of life on earth that did not arise through the original “genesis” over X billions of years ago. And there are examples in animals called Extremeophiles. In lake Mono in California there are bacteria which consume arsenic to accelerate DNA production. So there are alternative theories on life’s ORIGIN, which is not as simple as God did it. That’s the fundamental difference between science and religion: Science is about discovery. If you are interested, here is some of the work being done on the shadow bioshphere (http://www.astrobio.net/index.php? option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2161) As well, you need to figure out the word theory. Theory is not the same in English as it is in Science. Theories are not thoughts or ideas. This has been explained multiple times in this thread so I am not going to bother regurgitating.

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  152. leafs_fan_jd said:

    edit: “ever watch” not every watch

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  153. said:

    Thanks, I’ll check this out. I noticed that they still held to “various theories and scenarios” so I will not expect anything concrete. Thanks. Yes, I do know the difference between theory and law: Theories: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of “hypotheses” that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. So theories CAN BE DISPROVEN. Laws: A law A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain ‘why’. Example: Consider Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn’t explain why it happened. What is important is to realize they don’t all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. So, I DO understand the word theory and theories can be and HAVE been proved wrong. Laws and theories are light years apart. One is established, one can be proven wrong.

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  154. leafs_fan_jd said:

    Sorry Jack, you have it a little backwards. Laws can become obsolete and do not explain phenomena. Laws in nature are essentially what evidence shows us. “Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.” Theories do not graduate into laws or vice versa…but Theories are more powerful, in that they can be used to predict.

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  155. said:

    Scientific theories and laws are both similar in that they are deduced from empirical observations and are used to predict outcomes. The only difference is that Laws are much more well established by the scientific community and hold very few critics. You are wrong, theories are underwhelming when compared to laws. I recommend a good source. Theories are LESS powerful. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-are-scientific-theories-and-scientific-laws-similar Scientific law CANNOT be experimentally disproven. Scientific theory is required to be challenged, to attempt to be disproven. http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Scientific-Law-Vs-Scientific-Theory Theories can not become laws, because the purpose of a theory is different from a law. Thus evolution can NEVER become a scientific law and theories, as is commonly known, can be disproved! A theory explains a law. The law of gravity states that there is gravity- this is clearly a fact, and is concrete. Einstein’s theory of gravity (or whichever theory is currently supported) explains how gravity works. Theories can be replaced if another, better explanation is formed. New theories do not need to be radically different from their predecessors, and can simply be modifications (although if the modification is very slight, it may still be considered the same theory). http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_theory_become_a_scientific_law

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  156. leafs_fan_jd said:

    Jack you are sourcing non-scientific sources. Those links are questions posed to the public, not educators. And the answer on Chacha is blatantly wrong. For example, try this site:http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Scientific-Method.topicArticleId-8741,articleId-8579.html Cliff’s notes are used to educate high school students and have a great explanation of the differences. Or try this: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm And a great explanation is Myth1 here:http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

    August 31, 2010
    Reply
  157. TheBicyclingGuitarist said:

    You seem reasonably intelligent, Jack. Substitute “creationism” for “flat-earth” in the second paragraph of your article here and it accurately describes the situation in America today regarding public school science classrooms. That a significant number of adult Americans are so ridiculously wrong about this subject is due largely to the spread of misinformation by certain denominations of Christianity. How does that bring honor to Christ? With that substitution: “It would be irresponsible, of course, for you to allow the creationism view into the biology curriculum.”

    September 2, 2010
    Reply
  158. Human Ape said:

    I’m a bit late here, but I would like to provide the correct definition of a scientific theory. Please notice that a theory is the highest level of understanding in science. A theory is higher than a law and higher than a fact. THEORY: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have. — National Academy of Sciences http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

    September 25, 2010
    Reply

Leave a Reply to PaulBurnett Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.