‘Expelled’

I believe you Ned. You are right though. It does keep coming back. And I’ll keep on believing in science, which tells me I evolved from an ape. I did find it interesting that Bauer said that Darwinism is supported by atheists. Kind of sounds like he means that all supporters of this are atheists, and that it is “blind faith”. He kind of hypocrasizes himself by saying this. Any religion, is based on “blind faith”. There is no solid proof that God exists. The bible isn’t one of them, it’s a tome written by men long ago about God.

Well-when I die, and my belief in God is false-then I will just be dead. If I am right, and athiests are wrong-then it will suck to be them!!!

The answer is simple: All the ID adherents have to do is present some proof or evidence that they’re correct, without resorting to the dogma of the bible. Just a little scientific method, if you please.

Can’t find transitional species? What fiction do these guys read? Who does your thinking for you?
Deny the obvious and believe that some loving god turned a curious woman into a pile of salt? Incredible! Absolutely incredible. It’s all jibber-jabber that makes uninformed believers feel good when they can’t pound a square shape into a circular hole.

Shame on you Ned Potter for reporting
this as a straight news story.
You’re a “science” reporter for pete’s
sake. There is no issue here–ID is
a philosophy with no evidence to back
it up.
If flat earthers were protesting the
teaching of a spherical earth, no one
would treat them seriously. So why
is abcnews taking the ID folks
seriously?
Again, shame on you Ned Potter — how
about standing up for science and
rationality?

I have no problem with evolutionism if it is taught as a THEORY.

This from a staunch atheist: Thanks, Raymond, for a breath of fresh and honest air. I believe as you do, that the creationists violate the truth (in every sense of the word) and twist it. I don’t believe for a minute they have an agenda, though. Their methodology is so corrupt and fanciful that they haven’t the wit to defend it properly.

I would say a theory would be an explanation, not the end all be all. Humans are just that-humans, and thinking can be flawed. Okay Andy-why is it that creationists are the only ones who are corrupt? So much arrogance…

Andy — the motive is $$$$. Those who write the creationist nonsense make fortunes selling their silly assertions to those who want to believe. It’s VERY BIG BUSINESS and the concern over anyone’s soul is obviously of little importance in the larger scheme of things.
Funny though — I serously doubt that the folk who believe this tripe have actually read the bible. Most are truly shocked by the rubbish within.

I’m reminded of Elmer Gantry, and the rest of the religious hucksters who purport to take care of the poor. They seem to have plenty of money for jets and fine homes, etc. They are the poor – poor in spirit. They don’t practice what they preach.

Andy, there are thousands of legitimate ministries and you would defame them all because of the few that have been caught stealing money? That is not being very honest and it doesn’t change the truth. Evolutionist have had decades to come up with some proof and they have nothing to show for all the money they have spent. They have proven nothing.

Daleri, I don’t recall using the word ‘all.’ Those to whom I refer know who they are. Such pious luminaries as Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and their bretheren.

“Ben Stein, the TV personality, writer, actor, lawyer, economist, and speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford”
In related news, a guy who’s been a baker, architect and cardealer will talk about how modern medical science is wrong and evil for society
(I’m being sarcastic)

The attacks on Andy are relevant to the issues presented here. Andy’s words have been distorted by people who feel they have to defend what they believe at all costs.
Did Andy use the word “all” to put down every religious ministry? No. He did talk about “the rest of the religious hucksters who purport to take care of the poor.” There *are* a great deal of religious hucksters, and while there are indeed thousands of legitimate ministries, even good Christian leaders acknowledge that these frauds hurt the testimony of all the rest. What is disturbing is that even after a “ministry” has been found to be corrupt, many of its adherents will continue to support it on the basis of faith or “God’s will.” This makes Christians look silly and stupid.
Daleri says that “Evolution is a total disgrace” without any real knowledge of what evolution is, how it is defined in science, and the rationale behind it. This is typical of many people of faith (not all of them, mind you!) who do not wish their viewpoints to be challenged by facts, but are willing without knowledge or evidence to tar other viewpoints and those who hold them as being completely evil.
But what people of faith do not understand is that if they wish to communicate their message of the Love of God, then such blind hatred of others is surely the wrong way to go about it. And blind support of those who lie in God’s name is the wrong way to demonstrate the truthfulness of their position.
Science isn’t perfect. We don’t claim it to be. It is a methodical way of collecting information and correlating it into a coherent body of knowledge. It doesn’t use “revelation” — by its very nature it cannot. It has to follow the evidence. The very willingness of science to alter positions in any area where clear evidence indicates that it must is proof of its generally honest frame of mind. Scientists who lie about the evidence are routinely exposed and their work held up to intense scrutiny — by other scientists! Those who perpetuate frauds don’t last too long.
I suggest that Daleri and other creationists who wish to challenge those who support evolution to define their terms and talk about evolution honestly and without hysteria. Let them present their evidence (and where to find it!). Tell us what bothers them. Let them listen to coherent explanations and learn what the subject actually says – not what some preacher tells them it says! There are plenty of people who work in evolutionary fields that are believers!
To be quite honest, the creationist leaders have wound up driving a lot of people from the faith by their lies and dishonest tactics. Is it too much to think that being completely open and honest is the more appropriate way to do the work of the Lord?

Daleri, I’m assuming the columns you are talking about are something like the Greek columns that supported the Parthenon. This is entirely incorrect. Science has proven that islands, including Atolls, are formed volcanically. This is done by what are known as hot spots. These are weak areas in the main tectonic plate where magma, or lava, can get through. It bubbles up and erupts long enough to form an island. Science has seen this happen. Stating that islands are supported by columns, is just plain wrong.
As for the decades of work done by science and we’ve got nothing to show for it? Well thats wrong too. I’m guessing you mean evolutionary science, and not all sciences, because that would make you look like you live in a cave and a hypocrit at the same time because you are using a computer. Science has found numerous, countless millions of fossils supporting evolution. Yes there are gaps. But as stated before, not every dead animal gets fossilized or mummified. I do agree that evolution is a theory, but it is largely supported by many, many, many observations. ID or Creationism is not.
As for your dinosaur and human walking together theory. Can you give me a place in the Bible where it is stated? I’ll go read it. Also, if humans and dinosaurs were indeed alive at the same time, why hasn’t any human remains been found in the same geologic strata as dinosaurs? Or any mammal bigger than a dog for that matter? Thats because we weren’t alive during that time. If we were, we’d have record of it, with fossils, and we’d have some sort of written record of it, in multiple locations around the world in cave paintings and perhaps even some written on stone tablets.

Thanks for the defense, guys, but my only gripe is with those who spout the bible as absolute proof, yet chide the evolutionists for “spouting evolution as dogma.” That’s hypocrisy of the first water.
Sticks and stones, etc.

Lawrence
He is talking about Dragons, we went through this with Daleri in a previous blog. – Good Luck!

Lori
Have a look in the recent archives for this column. Most of the names that you see in reply to this blog you will also find in recent related blogs. This is indeed an ongoing, and well researched, argument.

The point here is that these “academicians” feel that they were “punished” punished for taking positions promoting creationism. In science, you are only “punished” for doing bad science. If someone puts forth credible scientific evidence favoring creationism, then they would be able to get it published. Since no such evidence has yet been found, do these people think they should get published anyway just out of “fairness?” That’s not how science works.

Bravo, Raymond. Very well said.

Lawrence
Yes – we did discuss that concept and talked a little of cryptozoology as well. But it lead us nowhere. Personally I think that the myth of the dragon stems from varanids such as Megalania.
But if you and Andy want to pursue the argument further that’s OK by me. :)

“I didn’t peg Stein as a magic and superstition type of guy.”
Stein is someone, like Anne Coulter, who is not nearly as stupid as he seems. He’s just found that there’s a good living to be made by shilling for ring-wing positions. Anne Coulter is known to have had gay friends in her past even though she now makes bigoted statements. Ben Stein probably thinks creationists are idiots but knows that his bread can be buttered by pandering to them.

cturple
I was starting to wonder why I had not seen your posts.

Everything is created from something.

Joe
E=mc2

Is the problem discussed whether God exists or that God created man?
Two completely different questions with two completely different answers.

Joe, what’s a quark made of? Probably no one knows. Not peanut butter, for sure. There’s still a whole lot of stuff we know nothing about. I’m gonna make a list. Maybe Lawrence and I can figure it out, if the dragons don’t flame us.

HAHA! Thats a great one Andy! Darn Dragons.
Heres my short list:
Tachyon Particles
Faster than Light Travel
T.O.E.
Evolution vs. Creationism
How to contain Antimatter
What is Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Joe
That has not been the issue per se. Many of us believe in god and accept the fact that evolution has and is happening. The argument is the literal truth of the bible (old testament only) versus an enlightened interpretation that does not have any conflict with modern beliefs.

jock,
I couldn’t agree with you more, but sometimes film is an effective way to open up a discussion. It doesn’t look like Ben Stein is out to prove intelligent design, rather to show how ardent evolutionists cannot tolerate opposition to their views.
Lawrence,
You asked for examples and proof, so here, I’ll present one for you–a view which has long been held by creationists, and is now finally starting to be accepted by many evolutionists as well:
Creationists believe that many geological features were formed by catastrophic events, rather than millions of years of erosion and sedimentation. For example, they would say that the Grand Canyon was formed in a massive catastrophe, namely the flood of the Bible.
After the Mount Saint Helens eruption, a small canyon (about 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon) was formed in one day from a mudflow stemming from the eruption. Today, it has features like the Grand Canyon, including a small river flowing through the bottom of it, and thousands of layers of sedimentation. We now know that this can happen within a day, it does not take millions of years. A flood on the scale of the one described in the Bible, along with the associated eruptions and earthquakes, could have created the Grand Canyon in a very short time. (Incidentally, a flood of Biblical proportions would also explain the presence of so many marine fossils in the Canyon.)
This also demonstrates another important part of the debate–evolutionists and creationists often look at the same facts and interpret them in different ways. In this example, the Grand Canyon itself was the “fact”, it was just interpreted more than one way. The sedimentary layers supported either theory; the marine fossils were explained either by a flood or by the presence of an ancient sea, depending which side of the argument you were on. More evidence was needed to prove out which interpretation was more likely.
So what is frustrating, is that evolutionists so often say “oh, you’re a creationist, nothing you say is valid science, it’s all blind faith” and science misses out on a lot of good insight because of personal bias closing off discussions.
I could bring up a lot more, but then my post would be pages long… and I’m sure I’ve already said enough to get jumped all over =)

I originally posted to debate, but I agree completely, pretty much verbatium with Lawrence.
A quark is a composite fermion made of protons and neutrons. And it probably has more to do with peanut butter than you think.

Joe, I stand corrected. Thanks.
Lori, I reiterate what I said to you. But you might pause for a breath now and then.

Can we all just please take a biology class? Just one? For everyone who doesn’t “believe” in evolution (I don’t “believe” either, I accept it as the best scientific explanation for observations of life on earth) – go ahead and live without all the medical advances that have been made BECAUSE of scientific understanding of evolution.

On one side of the scale put a bible
on the other put all the bones, core samples, carbon dated artifacts and all the animals that currently inhabit the earth. Does GOD exist? I don’t know.
Did Darwin piece together a theory based on evidence collected from around the world? Yes. Is every mystery solved about how we got her..NO. But I don’t feel sorry for the way the anti-Darwin/Evolution crowd is treated, they’re just getting a small taste of the medicine they have served up since Darwin made his discoveries. No on from their side has ever been jailed or publicly ruined for their religious beliefs..John Scopes was jailed and may of those good Christians would have liked to have hanged him for the crime of thinking and using his mind to see something other than DOGMA. So What’s up with “Thou shalt NOT KILL” it’s just so inconvient not to be able to smite your ememies…So many contridictions.

I just don’t get how a book written several thousand years ago, by mud-hut dwellers barely out of the stone age and edited by thousands of hands between then and now causes such a stir when someone dares say it isn’t factually accurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of creation myths floating around the ether, yet the extreme “vocalness” of the Catholic/Christian community is influencing state policy, something that is suppose to be totally separate from religion.
I was raised Catholic, I believe in God and Christ. However, I don’t believe the bible is the end-all, beat-all authority on science simply due to the FACTS I presented above. The bible has changed in the last 2000+ years, there have been additions and omissions, tweaks to fit ideology, society, monarchy and economy, to think otherwise is foolish at best and dangerous at worst.

Quiet Ed – I’m at school today – killing time in the library between Native American Culture and Paganism and Witchcraft.

…and people!!! The Bible has described two different kinds of dinosaurs that have only relatively recently been discovered. The Bible has been describing these two dinosaurs that were created the same time as man written 5000 years ago!!! Evolution is a total disgrace!
Daleri: So now you’ve changed your story from “the bible wrote about the Brontosaurus” to “the bible wrote about whatever was discovered last week.”

Lawrence,
Yeah well I’m married too =) My husband and I manage to debate on a lot of this, even though we usually agree! I guess I always end up playing devil’s advocate. It’s no fun talking about something if we’re just agreeing with each other all the time (and that doesn’t require thinking, either).
Actually, many cultures have legends of a catastrophic flood… which, while not scientific proof of one, is certainly compelling!
Flood theory is much more complex than anything I could fit in a small post, but one key part of it holds that the earth was flatter before the flood; that the massive upheavel surrounding the flood–earthquakes and volcanoes–would have resulted in the mountains and ocean trenches we see on the earth today. (Again, catastrophic events shaping the earth’s geology.) Also, this volcanic upheaval would have deposited a huge amount of molten material under the existing ocean; the lava being less dense than the existing cool ocean floor, it would have raised the sea level.
So a global flood could conceivably have covered the entire earth at that time, and much of the “water receding” would be attributed to rapid formation of mountains and valleys, as well as the lava cooling and bringing sea levels back down.
Here is some of the evidence which suggests a worldwide flood:
- The marine fossils I mentioned in the Grand Canyon are also found in many other locations in the world, including the Himalayas.
- “Fossil forests”–consisting of tree trunks buried upright–”grow” through millions of years worth of rock strata. Why wouldn’t the trees have eroded long before they could be buried? The creationist view is that these trees were buried under layers of sediment in a catastrophic event (another phenomena that was seen at Mount St. Helens).
- There are plenty of examples of fossils which had to have been created instantly: there are several of fish buried while eating other fish; one of an ichthyosaur in the midst of a live birth; a find several years ago of hundreds of jellyfish buried in sand so quickly that they didn’t have time to rot in the sun.
These are just a few examples…
Evolutionists might reject these as evidences of a global flood, but again, they simply have an alternate explanation for the facts. This doesn’t prove their point or disprove the creationist explanation, so the creationist view deserves fair consideration.
I feel like I’m back in college…

If you do not believe in the whole Bible, than which parts are true and which are not? If you say that Noah’s Ark and flood are false, then do you believe Jesus is the son of God? How does one pick and choose what is correct and what is not?

Lori- Again, you cite some examples that could lead to either interpretation, but what about the other types of evidence that are NOT consistent with a young Earth, such as the radio-isotope evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. You would have to suspend the laws of Physics to make that one consistent with creationist theory.
Science is about a body of evidence. The ambiguity of one piece of evidence can be clarified by all other available evidence. Evolutionary theory is supported by an enormous body of evidence in ALL fields of biology (anatomy, genetics, ecology, behavior, cell biology, etc.).

deb
The new testament was written over the past 2000 years by CHRISTIANS, the old testament was written long before Christ by the wisest men at the time who by our standards were ignorant savages. What do you think?

Evolution is only a theory; it can never be a scientifically proven fact. Deal with it. I’m not saying that it doesn’t make sense because it does and there is evidence but so what. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in 6 days. Obviously God’s days can be as long as God determines and the process of creation can be whatever He wants it to be and if He created it all to incorporate an evolutionary process that’s His prerogative. What the bible is very clear on is that God made man in his image and breathed his life into him and gave him a soul. You may find fossils of man like creatures all over the earth but I doubt you will ever find a fossil of a soul. If man evolved from ape and there were many many sub groups of man leading up to man where the hell are they now? None of them survived at all? How come there aren’t hobbit like little almost men running around now? There are apes still hanging around right? They survived, how come all of the almost man like predecessors didn’t but the apes did? How come man is the only creature with speech capacity, walking completely upright without an opposable thumb like toe on his foot? How come there isn’t something in between apes and man still around? Evolution should not be taught a scientific fact and other theories should be considered. There is a whole lot that evolution doesn’t and cannot explain and account for it has gaping holes in it and that is why it is nothing more than a theory.

Quietman – Good question. It’s not my field, but as far as I have read it seems to be assumed that all of the planetoids that would have been running into each other were formed at the same time out of the same disk of dust or whatever it was that coalesced into the solar system. So I suppose the moon would be the same age as the Earth either way.

Well folks, we must remember what we are actually talking about here evolution, as in the slow change of creatures over time to adapt to habitats, or Darwinism, the belief that every thing came to be and evolved from one creature into another merely by chance. The latter, if anything is “blind faith”.

bunboy – In science, a “theory” never becomes a “fact.” A theory is an organizing principle that explains a large number of separate facts. There are many, many proven facts that support the overall theory of biological evolution (descent with modification).
You also ask why the many sub-groups of primates and “pre-humans” went extinct. There are many reasons species go extinct. Some can’t adapt fast enough in a changing environment; others are just unlucky. For every species existing today, there are over a thousand that have already gone extinct. Extinction is a very natural part of change-over-time.

Lori
DNA from Mammoths is the best they can do. Older DNA is too damaged. They have NOT gotten DNA from Dinosaurs (they ARE too old) but extracted PROTEINS that were similar to modern birds. NO DNA!

bunboy
The old testment was much older than the science that you mentioned. It was passed down by word of mouth before writing was invented. Math and science came from people with writing, none of which were bible authors so I still consider the original authors both ignorant and stone age savages.
Prove otherwise.

jock59801: That’s all very reasonable but your explanation simply doesn’t account for the gap. We have apes today and we have man today. Evolution has always displayed that neat chart with all the little man like guys in between apes and man. Where’d they go? They should be here today just like the apes. Well where are they?

tbone – “Darwinism” is NOT the “belief that every thing came to be and evolved from one creature into another merely by chance.” First of all, evolution is not Darwinism – the theory has been modified since Darwin first proposed it. It doesn’t “belong” to anyone.
More important, Evolutionary theory does NOT say that species changed due to chance. It says that there was a relentless selection process, over millions of generations, constantly favoring the traits that best designed the species to its environment (for example, fast bunnies lived longer and were able to reproduce and pass on their “fast” genes to the next generation).

Most scholars agree that the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC. The first pure alphabets emerged around 1800 BCE in Ancient Egypt. Also forms of writing have been around since before the 4rth millenia. Proved.

If we could understand the workings of God….we would be in his presence.

Sorry,
HIS presence.

…DNA dating research shows that DNA is completely broken down within 10,000 years. So how to explain DNA found in insects which are claimed to be millions of years old? Unless a special condition can be found to explain this one, science would demand that we accept these fossils are less than 10,000 years old…
You cannot find DNA in a fossil, period.
Simplified Reason: DNA is an organic compound, fossils are mineral replacements for material, usually bone, from a long dead animal. There are no dinosaur “bones” only rocks in the shape of dinosaur bones, that is what a fossil is.
If you are referring to the insects perfectly preserved in amber ala Jurassic Park, that unfortunately, was science fiction. While insects from around that time period are found preserved in amber, no viable DNA has ever been extracted. The special condition in this situation is the amber itself, which essentially stops decay by encasing the insect in a water and air proof crystal, however, it does not decay completely, thus no usable DNA.

Jim,
Actually the dictionary defines a fossil as a “remnant, impression, of trace of an organism…” so you are being overly specific.
Please note my post above with example from National Geographic.

bunboy
Not Hebrew. The Hebrew tribes were a nomadic people with a spoken language for millenia but not writing. The older languages you speak of are Egyptian, Babylonian and the oldest known (to date) Sumarian. Science and Math comes to us from the Greeks and Egyptians and is not as old as writing itself because the concept of zero was required for higher maths and the older languages had no zero. The first known symbolism is found in the form of a stone python in an African temple. The earliest concept of a single nameless god from Egypt. You really need to do some research.

Margie
In NJ?

Quietman: The earliest Hebrew script was derived from a Phoenician script. The modern Hebrew script was developed from a script known as Proto-Hebrew/Early Aramaic. The earliest known writing in Hebrew dates from the 11th century BC.
Once again it is you who need to do some research pal.

bunboy
Adam is NOT in the new testament, that is the OLD testament. The new testament was authored by christians and they did not exist before christ. Yes, Christ and SOME of his followers were Jews UNTIL they started following Christ as that MADE them christians. Evolution and the bible are not mutually exclusive, I fully AGREE. Evolution and the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the OLD testament, however, are mutually exclusive and that is what the entire argument is about.
As to extinct Apes. In all genera there are species that go extinct for one reason or another. From the study of teeth and wear patterns and chemistry of the bones we can deduce what the primary diet was and whether there were more than one species in competition in that area and in some cases (not all) which one survived to produce our lineage.

Margie
Just curious, your comments sounded very much like something my daughter Margie would write. :)

Let me see if I understand what is being said. In order to believe in Evolutionary Theory, you would then have to believe that a dog could be a monkey, or a fish could be an elephant?
Is this correct? Can you prove that could not happen….. according to Evolutionary Theory of course.

Oh Really?
So we are the “good mutations” who don’t kill?

Lori
Sorry if I was not clear – NO UNDAMAGED DNA has been found going back to the Mesozoic. Only simple protiens which comprise the DNA have been isolated. But they are still looking for that lucky break. The Neandertal DNA is badly damaged, so is the Mammouth DNA and they are not that old. The Mammouth DNA is the least damaged and the Japanese are trying to bring one back to life ala Jurrasic Park.

Margie
We are the result of a long series of good mutations that did not kill all of us. It did kill some of us but not enough to curb our growth as a genus. Or are you just playing with me?

jock59801
I guess we haven’t evolved enough to become the good mutations that don’t kill? Or maybe enough time hasn’t passed for us to evolve into the next INTELLIGENT species?

Margie
An example pointed out in a previous post is a Sickle cell gene that causes the disease but protects the carriers from malaria, I think it was called S3, I don’t remember. But we have a mutation that is both good and bad in that it is bad for an individual who develops sickle cell but good for his lineage in Africa to keep from dying of malaria.

Margie
I just finished reading “Next” by M.C.
Sounds to me like you did too.

I wish I could say I can understand God and all His workings gentlemen, but my finite human mind just can’t fathom His power and wisdom. I know we are made in His image, and I would like to thank Him for the wonderful minds you have. I pray he will reveal Himself to you in a way you all can understand. No matter what level of thought you are at. I guess I just have the “faith of a child.” Thanks for the great discourse. I have to go for now.
God Bells All of You :-)

What passes for “science” nowadays is in many cases, a disguised form of witchcraft or sorcery. Think about the ‘remote control’ on a TV, etc. You point it at the object, push a button and a ‘magic spell’ is placed on the box to have it do something. If someone who died merely 100 years ago were to ‘come back from the grave’ and saw someone using such a device, he or she would probably accuse the remote control device holder of witchcraft…. And since God’s word hasn’t changed, why shouldn’t I feel the same living today????

Shawn Fahrer – Those conditions, if they ever occurred, would have been billions of years ago, not 6000. The amount of living creatures, mountains, and ice is pretty much the same today as it was 6000 years ago.

tbone posted at Feb 19, 2008 3:17:45 PM
When we landed on the moon the first time, NASA scientists, based on the proposed age of earth (4.6 billion years), feared that 4.6 billion years of asteroid impacts would have produced hundreds of feet of astral dust and the lander would ultimately sink into the lunar surface. Much to their surprise and relief, there were only a few inches. evidence of a much abbreviated time frame of asteroid impacts.
This is a myth. No such fears really existed or else NASA would not have sent people to what they feared would be their certain deaths. This is an example of creationism’s myths and lies holding on long past the point they have been shown to be false.
There *were* questions as to the rate of deposition of solar dust. 1950s estimates were way too high, partially a result of cruder instrumentation. Refinements of measurement in the 1960s brought the estimate much, much closer to the truth. There was no surprise. It was as expected.
The claim has been disproved often, and the error frequently brought to those who promote it — yet the error continues to be propagated. Why? Is it just so delicious an idea that it cannot be abandoned, even if it is a lie? Or, is the truth of the matter, no matter how obvious, unacceptable if it is presented by (shudder) an _evolutionist_?
Really now. The Scripture says to “provide things honest in the sight of all men.” We cannot do that by holding onto lies.

Everyone should know that the earth has changed its structure. The Bible says that after water covered the whole earth’s surface, water settled in the oceans and the mountains raised up for the first time in the history of the earth. Water had come out from beneath the earth and water had come down from the sky likely because of a catastrophic event. If the same catastrophic event were to happen today, a huge area of the earth would likely be destroyed because there is not nearly as much water beneath the earth’s surface as before. The Bible actually says that the water settled into the oceans and it says the mountains were raised up. It actually says that.
5. He established the earth upon its foundations , So that it will not totter forever and ever .
6. You covered it with the deep as with a garment ; The waters were standing above the mountains .
7. At Your rebuke they fled , At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away .
8. The mountains rose ; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.
9. You set a boundary that they may not pass over , So that they will not return to cover the earth . (Psalms)
1. But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark ; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth , and the water subsided .
2. Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed , and the rain from the sky was restrained ;
3. and the water receded steadily from the earth , and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased .
4. In the seventh month , on the seventeenth day of the month , the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat .
5. The water decreased steadily until the tenth month ; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month , the tops of the mountains became visible . (Genisis)

Daleri
Very good presentation.
Re: 5) “So that it will not totter forever and ever” – Flat Earth Theory?
Re: 6) “waters were standing above the mountains” – But the mountains had yet to form.
Re: 8. “The mountains rose” – Finally!
Re: 9. “You set a boundary that they may not pass over , So that they will not return to cover the earth” – And this was BEFORE the flood?
Re: 2. “Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed” – are you sure this is the right order?
Sorry Daleri but you are quoting a single source that we dont have any idea who the actual author was. In science you have to prove a point either by trial or with supporting evidence. There is no supporting evidence for the old testament and most likely never will be. Research it out, be the first one in history to come up with actual proof.

Re: landing module – Really???
Re: mountains – they rose even higher, much higher and the ocean floor opened up.
Don’t you know or haven’t you heard about the conspiracy theorist that say the earth is expanding. They have show how all parts of every continent fit together at one time and that the earth has expanded? If you have seen their demonstration, it is pretty convincing. …and what has filled the spaces between the continents??? WATER!!!
Yes, there were mountains, but not like Everest that we have today.

Communists don’t believe in God. Nazis didn’t believe in God.
Both are dangerous… because neither of them ever took the book of Proverbs seriously.
With every school shooting, I am reminded, that’s what happens when you take prayer (confessing and forsaking bad ways) and Bible (History) reading out of the schools!
The teaching of the Bible is perfection. No other teaching has perfection as its ultimate goal.

Creationism seeks to prove their case without any evidence. Its totally nonsensical.

Daleri
What would have happened if one strut fell into a hole? What if the lander had to straddle a boulder? The hydralics serve as both a leveling system and as a shock absorber for the landing. You are forgetting that this was man’s first attempt. Its always better to err on the safe side.

jock
I think that Daleri is referring to the equatorial bulge. As far as I know the only expansion of the earth was from the moon creating impact. The difference in mass between the moon and mars would have been added to the mass of the earth (with some loss to mass that had enough velocity to completely escape the gravity of the new combined planetary mass) and then there would have been orbital adjustments.

How about this, maybe it only expanded a little depending on how much water came from the sky. Maybe the land area got scrunched together a little. Maybe the ocean floor spread out and got deeper. Recent studies do suggest that is exactly what happened. Maybe the mountains were raised up. Maybe everything happened just exactly the way the Bible has said all along! Maybe these are not the only things the Bible says that are true. Maybe everything the Bible says is true. Maybe we are sinners. Maybe we have been corrupted. Maybe we have all turned away to follow our own desires. Maybe God did also send His Son to take our sins away.
Maybe the creatures that are described in the book of Job ARE dinosaurs.
Maybe there is a communist (or atheist) conspiracy to try to convince everyone that the Bible is not true.
Maybe evolution has no historical documentation to prove their case the way creationists do.

Raymond, you don’t know how much water was in the sky and you don’t know how much water came up from the ground. You don’t know how high the mountains were. It rained forty days and forty nights. It rained without stopping. All this time, water was coming out from the ground at the same time. According to the account that we have, it is very likely that it could have happened especially since the mountains rose up higher when the water was gathered into the oceans.
The testimony that we have is that the water covered the highest mountain.

Daleri, the question of how much water was “in the sky” is an interesting one.
Certainly you can talk about how much was rain and how much was the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep.” But if you believe the Scriptures the rain was the *main event.” After all, the covenant God made with Noah was that the rainbow would demonstrate that waters of rain would no more become a flood to end all life (Genesis 9). There is no mention about breaking the fountains again. The rain was the defining event.
Now Whitcomb and Morris in their book “The Genesis Flood” postulated that there was a “water-vapor canopy” which contained the equivalent of 40 feet of water. This canopy collapsed at the flood and fell as rain. But this really defies the Scriptural rendition, for the Bible says God opened the floodgates of heaven. God had promised it would be the rain that would be the destroyer — “For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” (Gen. 7:4). 40 feet of water to rain in 40 days? Well, that would be quite a rain, but certainly less intense than a hurricane! And the rain would be but, well, “a drop in the bucket.” The suggestion violated all sorts of Biblical principles (not to mention physical ones!). But hey, the founders of “scientific creationism” had to sound scientific even if they didn’t care a bit how truthful they were to the scriptures or to science.
Daleri, we know what kind of energy physical processes deliver or use. Mountain-building of any sort in any short period of time as is postulated here would be physically impossible. The heat requirements would be too much. The oceans would have boiled and all life in them destroyed. The mountains could not have cooled in the time since the Flood — we know how fast heat dissipates. The mountains are not made of material that would have cooled that quickly.
Did God make the world, or not? Did He put into place the physical processes that rule, or not? Are we able to know, by observation and repeated testing how God’s creation works, or not?
You sit there, with a computer, typing on an instrument that only is able to operate because of the uniformity of laws present in God’s creation in a host of areas. Either it works, and physical laws are physical laws, or we suspend all physical laws and have nothing but chaos.
You may wish to argue, as have some, that the flood was of such a miraculous nature that it was all one miracle after another (in which case an ark was really unnecessary except as an act of faith). You may suggest that the reason we cannot detect with any certainty *any* evidence of a single, world-wide flood event at one time is because God has hidden it from our eyes. If that is what God did, then fine — but don’t expect people to believe what there is no evidence for. You argue on the lack of knowledge, but there is real knowledge that we do have about how things work now, and there is no reason in all the universe to expect that the laws of physics have changed.
The problem you have is that you read the Bible as if it were a news report, a “factual” account. God was never concerned with the “facts.” He was concerned with a relationship with men. The Israelites could never have understood the universe as it is. But to understand that God is great? That He is strong enough to take care of them? That would be important.
Reading for facts would never have occurred to such a people. The stories weren’t there to tell “what” happened, but to instruct people on how to live.
In fighting the battle for a literal reading you are committing the great error Christ condemned the Pharisees for. They thought that in the Scriptures they had eternal life, and they took it all very literally, being careful to obey the smallest of commandments. Yet they missed the most vital message of all. They forgot justice and faith and mercy.
As a Christian, I want to understand how to live. As I scientist I want to understand this world. I see no conflict in either, and I see no reason to leave my brain at the door or put my knowledge in the trash when I go to church.

“the planet does not hold enough water to cover the entire planet”. You may be incorrect in your assessment. Remember that way back when there were 1) far less living creatures, who as you should realize are made up of mostly WATER”
Oh snap! The impossibility of the food myth aside, that has the be the most funny thing I’ve read all day

This is the best class. Received my textbook, The Upright Ape, 2007 printing.

Thank You Quietman.
I believe the cell is a creation of God. I do believe that we are not just a product of evolution myself. We are a complex creation aren’t we? I used to be a Catholic too. I know I was taught that we could believe in Evolution as long as we believed that God breathed life into us at some point? Like I said, I think if we new the workings of God we would be in His presence.
For instance, when you read Genesis, light wasn’t created until the fourth day according to our perception of it, (ie. there has to be a sun and moon, etc.)
Yet on the first day God said “let there be light.” Well then, what was the light? Look at all the inferences of “light” in the bible. Who is the light?
:-)
These are the kind of complexities I try not to befuddle my little human brain with. Did we just evolve, or were we created?
I guess I’ll ask the question when I am standing in his presence.

jnnttlc
Sounds like the first printing. Go to his website and click on first printing errata. The first 3 errors listed make those two pages difficult to read which is why I corrected my copy.
There are some mind bending concepts explained – enjoy.

Margie,
When you read the Genesis 1 account of creation you are seeing a dramatic poem and a set of parallels. God first prepares, then he populates. In the first day, he creates light (preparation). The fourth day he creates the sun and moon and stars (the inhabitants of the light). The sun “rules” the day (not that the sun is the cause of it). The moon “rules” the night — despite the fact it waxes and wanes and is usually not in the night sky all night.
The second day God separates the the earth and its waters from the waters of chaos. The fifth day He populates the sea with fishes (and according to the Hebrew, they have souls!) and the air with birds. The third day God prepares the land, separating it from the waters (seas), and on the sixth day He populates it. After He had created all the other creatures, He made man and woman, the crown of His creation.
This was not a “how” story. It was not “information.” It told the Hebrews that God was orderly. But most importantly it told them that God had made the world for them. They were not a secondary thought, or an accident, or even slaves as the creation stories of the Egyptians and Babylonians insisted. They were not in competition with demigods. The world was *theirs*, they were not interlopers. And the God who had wrested it out of Chaos had given it to them.
The creation story in Genesis 2 is patently different. Read it. It is *not* a recap of Genesis 1. The authors are different, God is described differently, and the order of creation is markedly different.
This was not, by the way, an “out of nothing” creation. The Hebrews believed that the earth was a kind of pocket of order wrested out of the unknowable and awful chaos. The firmament was a hard structure over the sky and provided God with his abode.
The Hebrews were not interested in science or how God did it. That was not the purpose of the stories. The purpose of the stories was to create in the individual an identity — they were Hebrews, God’s chosen ones and the ones God had delivered. Such an identity freed them from many of the fears the pagans around them were consumed with and allowed them to live their lives with confidence.
Don’t look for too much “science” in the Genesis passages. There isn’t any there. When we try to impose our 21st century cultural understandings on a story that is more than 3500 years old we corrupt it and miss the meaning entirely. The Hebrews of the time understood it.

QM: Found the erata data and printed it. Thanks very much.

If any school or college wants to forward ID… sure, why not. Every class should begin “Before we discuss the scientific principles of evolution, let’s discuss intelegent design. God created everything. End of story. Any questions – ask your spiritual advisor. Now let’s talk science.” Everybody happy.

I went to Stein’s site to promote the movie. They didn’t just have “Evolution” vs “Creation” but listed four different views which were something like “Darwinian Evolution” “Modern Evolution” “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism.” They didn’t sound like way-out science haters who go by blind faith. I don’t think the movie is so much about science vs religion as about a willingness to let people explore the options which sounds pretty pro-science to me. I’m going to see it tomorrow so I can decide for myself about the movie…not about the great debate.

I just thought I’d step in for a moment to mention something.
Quietman, when you say evolution is a fact of life, it might be helpful to finesse your meaning. There is a difference between so-called macro evolution and micro evolution. There is very, very abundant evidence for micro evolution. (I don’t know about you, but it amazes me to think that miniature poodles and great danes come from the same wolfie ancestors!) However, I don’t believe that you can substitute the relatively limited action of genetic mutations and variations for the serious work that macro evolution has to do. The more science searches out the make up of living things, the more complex we realize life is. There really is no such thing as a “simple” cell. To the best of my knowledge, everything alive is quite complex.
I’m not bothered by climactic variations in white and black butterflies (in fact, everyone but a few science text books have noticed that there is no actual evolution, but simply existing population variation here – creationists aren’t the only ones who sometimes keep reprinting silly things. I could mention the old one about fetuses passing through stages with gills, etc. as well since it got reprinted long after it was disproved). Nor am I bothered by viruses changing. “Micro evolution” is an observable, recordable fact. So is natural selection.
What is not particularly observable or recordable (It takes too long, of course. Not the fault of the people trying to research it! :D) and what I have issues with is macro evolution. Living things are just too complex. Have you ever read Darwin’s Black Box? That is a good source for non-Christian (if that reassures people afraid of right wing Christians) theorizing on some of the problems of macro evolution at the most basic cellular levels. The basic assertion it makes is that countless biological systems (such as sight, blood clotting, etc) are not logically able to be created in steps. So even if one or two happened by happy chance, it would be statistically impossible for all of the “irreducibly complex” systems to have sprung into existence by pure chance, and biologically improbable and sometimes impossible for them to have happened in logical steps by variation and environmental factors.

To my Friend Mike and others like him. Can you point out what about ID has been “Proven Wrong”. What papers “proved” it wrong. The issue here is that the more Scientist explore life the more Evolution falls apart. We do not see evolution in the fossil record? Many say it is so but to this day not one fossil that I have seen or read about shows me the jumps between species. Only species variation. To my knowledge not one jump between species has ever be proven to occur in a lab no matter how tweaked the experiment is. Read about Fruit fly experiments. If I am am wrong please provide the documentation. There is a book called Inconvenient Archeology that provide real verified proof in the fossil record or many species from complex to the simplest forms of life in the same layers of sediment. Many people says that ID can not be proven in a lab with experiments. This is true. I can not prove that my car had a designer in a lab either, unless the designers shows up and in the lab and make the car again while we all observe. Until the intelligence that made this universe choses to do that ID can not be proven. However Evolution can be debunked in a lab and in the fossil record. From what I am seeing that is what is occurring and the religion that is Darwinism is now crumbling and people like Dawkins can’t stand it and resort to calling names and using words like Pseudo Science. The last act of an disarmed man.

It’s a crying shame that people are so brainwashed with evolution. For those who believe that apes evolved into people, why can’t it be said that people evolved into apes? See what I’m saying? Instead, ignorant people think that they evolved from apes or mud puddles and slime.
I vouch for our loving Creator, the intelligent designer, whose name is Yahweh and he lives! I have found throughout the years that the only people closed minded that can’t think, nor can they prove anything, are the evolutionists.
Yahweh is the master scientist, and is well beyond the human mind in what they can think. BTW, the humand mind received their spark from Yahweh.

Intellegent Design has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible. Even to say that it’s connected to Theism can be sort of shaky.
Intellegent Design- something with intellegence has something to do with us being here- that wouldn’t even have to be “God” in a traditional sense. In the end, it’s a philosophy. Nothing wrong with that- I love philosophy. But it’s not based on strictly imperical evidence.
Yes, Christian’s can believe in intellegent design-many do- but your faith in Christ has nothing to do with it. They are two different items. Yes a person who believes in a “God” will have difficulty not letting that influence their overall interpretation of information- particuarly if you are believing that that God is personally involved with the universe (a Christian idea, and an Idea in many other Faiths). So, it shouldn’t surprise us that over the years dissagreements have occured.
I’m interested in what the movie actually says, but I seriously doubt that the film will effect the actually upper level acedemic discussions- too much of a pop culture film for it to do that.
Well, ya’ll have “fun” fighting…
Take the time to say something nice about the person you’re trying to intellectually destroy- and maybe try to be their friend. I hope you would..it would make my life alot easier.
God bless

Why does everyone assume a connection between the Bible and evolution. I see no reason for proof on either side of this argument. Where does the Bible claim either way? Also, before macro evolution can be shown as some kind of accidental foundation of mans existence, wouldnt it be necessary to show first the evolved accidents of Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical,Planetary,and Organic, evolutions first. These would have to be set up in the complexities to support that evolved lifeforms first. Seems too complex for all of that to be accidental. Look around you, there are signs of intelligent design in everything,if man can design and create, how can we ignore a more intelligent designer than ourselves. Are we not above the animals? Do we presume nothing is above our level, thats a lofty assumption in the least.

Teachers and scientists don’t want ID taught in science classrooms for the simple reason that it isn’t science. For a scientific theory to be valid, it needs to be falsifiable. For example, if more complex fossils were to be unearthed in the strata underneath simpler life forms, evolution could be falsified. This has not happened. To say that something is so complex that it needs an intelligent creator is not a testable thesis, even if true. How can I disprove it? Evolution, even if incorrect, is scientific; ID is not.

Just watch some of the Flintstones cartoons or visit the new creation museum. Man and dinosaur working together to make a better world. Who can argue with that? All that messing about comparing DNA between species is bunk. There is no such thing as DNA. No one even knows what the letters stand for. It’s a fraud all made up by those phony scholars called “scientists”

Thanks Mike, but I think those were JJ’s words. An honest mistake. And I couldn’t agree more with his words.
Here’s a little more for the fray:
There have been so many scientists who have held unpopular ideas at one time or another. For instance, Barbara McClintock who showed that dynamic regions of DNA called transposons exist and can move around the genome regulating gene expression. Or Stanley Prusiner, who showed that prion proteins were responsible for diseases such as scrapie, mad cow, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Both ideas went against the orthodoxy of their time. However, they stuck to it, produced the evidence and proved their theories correct, winning over those who initially opposed their work.
They did not resort to propoganda, or the lobbying of school boards to teach their theories. They did not write articles in newspapers and try to sway the lay-public (or Congress), or invent conspiracies – they used science and hard work. IDers can do the same. They have not been able to produce the evidence, however, and have now stubbornly, maliciously, indignantly, dishonestly, and dishonorably resorted to the above tactics resulting in a complete loss of respectability in scientific circles.
Anyone who supports ID is either new to the discussion and quite ignorant as to the evidence or is complicit in what may be considered a real conspiracy to create doubt in science in America. So if IDers feel maligned, they have themselves to blame, not Big Science.

To go with my last point:
Several here and on other threads have repeated the observation that mistakes and hoaxes in science are fleshed out by scientists and not by any laymen.
This proves two things: 1) IDers are not qualified to know the difference between good work and shoddy work. 2) Scientists are perfectly willing to shoot down evidence even though it backs their theories.
So when IDers claim that scientists are all a pack of liars who are only interested in furthering their agenda, it kinda rings hollow, especially in light of this new movie which clearly misrepresents the positions of those involved in the story. And if they had the ability to smell poor data and conclusions they would know that many of the “smoking guns” that they constantly avail us with in the blogosphere are in fact poorly reasoned and long past being debunked.

I apologize if this was mentioned before; I got weary of reading about 1/4 of the way through the posts. Just a couple of points as a woman with an Anthropology degree: Darwin’s theory was NOT that we DESCENDED from apes–we share a common ancestor. As a simplification, my dachsund did not descend from a great dane–but they share a common ancestor–an ancient wolf. Second: Darwin was a Christian before his discoveries and theory, and he remained one afterward. He just altered his view of the “process”.

“The word of God makes people feel righteous and infallible, and that makes them arrogant. The combination of arrogance and ignorance among the faithful is profound, it is rude, and it is always dangerous.”
Does the word of God make me feel righteous? Sometimes, but I do not expel it. Does it make me feel infallible? Absolutely NOT. Does it make me arrogant? No, although there are a great many Christians that are, unfortunately.
I agree that we are speaking of two different subjects here: Science and Theology. Sometimes they mix well, and sometimes they do not. Obviously the in the subject of creationism, they do not. Evolution explains quite a bit about our origins, but still leaves out where and how it all started. I agree creationism isn’t science, but it’s not supposed to be. God didn’t want to leave too much evidence of his hand in the matter. If he had, it would take away the importance of Faith. And when it comes to God, Faith and Belief is all that matters.

Science and Theology are inseperable. It is quite impossible to understand one without understanding the other. And that is exactly what is wrong with the current scientific Establishment. It is trying to explain the Universe without even considering that there could be a Creator.
See “Expelled” and decide for yourself. Do not let the arrogant Elitists tell you how to think.

All the people who think that ID is about religion dont know much. ID is saying that Darwins theory is incomplete, not incorrect. He is right about microevolution, but macroevolution has no proof. Darwin did not know about DNA or the structure of the cell. He thought the cell was a simple structure. Darwin was a brilliant man though he said that if there are no transitional fossils that that could completly unravel his arguement which it has.

The Evolution estabishment will NEVER accept any “evidence” from a creationaist because it, inevitably, includes – even requires – a belief in God. And, by your definition of science you cannot accept any explanation that includes the supernatural. But, by defining God out of what you will accept for consideration does not mean that He does not exist.
I’ll probably get a bunch of you “enlightened” scientists attacking my “neanderthal” beliefs but, truth be known, you are the guys who must take the leap of faith in the Big-Bang.
Youe pathetic arguments are not about “science” – you can no more prove radioactive-isotope dating, the formation of the Grand Canyon from a small sliver of water, etc. than you can that all the matter in the entire Universe was, at one time, in a steady state the size of a pin head until “something” caused it to explode.
Christianity is a rational religion – no leap of faith required.
Ben Stein’s movie did not tell me anything I did not already know(although life forming on the backs of crystals and super aliens from other plantes seeding the earth were two “scientific theories” I had not heard). He just confirmed that evolutionism is big business (isn’t that the criticism I heard of creation science) and the evolution establishment is more concerned with keeping God out and the research bucks in.

It must be 35 years since I first recognized that Darwinism mutated from being scientific to being a religion. A simple wiki on Theory and Inquiry should help anyone recognize how far science has declined.
But if that does not work, watch Expelled. Those who propose ID now join the Creationist in facing the fury of the Religious Darwinist. Now they know what it is like to be under the heel of the PC. (Understand that ID is not Creationism.) I bet my friend who was denied his doctorate 10 years ago, simply because he was a creationist, is saying “now you know what it’s like”.

I may have made a mistake. Yes, I admit it. The earth may only be 4.5-4.6 billion years old.
Even at 4.55 billion years the moon would have only been 112,744.63 miles closer. Although the moon would not have hit the earth, think of how high the tides would have been.

I haven’t read all of the posts, please pardon if I’m repeating the subject…
For the evolutionary theory (i.e. particles-to-men evolution) to be established, there must be evidence that new genetical information can be created through natural selection and mutation (the two chief methods on which the evolutionary process relies). Natural selection, as the term implies, “selects” from the genetical information that’s available. Therefore, through cycles of selection, genetic information is lost — never added. In this case, obviously mutations must be responsible for the creation of new genetic information. However, there is not a single evidence that a mutation has ever created new genetic information — only recombination of already available genetic information. So, there must be some other way that new genetic information is added (perhaps, aliens are involved?). If you do know of evidence to support the creation of new genetic information, please let me know. Until then, the evolutionary theory has no merit whatsoever…

John Locke once asked this question:
“What came first, mind or matter”?
For the materialists who do science, there’s only one possible answer to that questions. No other answers can possibly be considered.
Mindless matter came first and everything from the universe, to evolution to your decisions and actions are mind-less matter in motion. And anybody who presents factual evidence that suggests otherwise is just a toothless, “backwater”, snake-handling, idiot who also probably believes in fairies, gnomes and hobgoblins.
Today they don’t burn you at the stake, but they do burn your reputation and career at the stake for even questioning materialism.
This documentary exposes modern scientific community for what they are: puppets to this belief system. And by asking simple, direct questions Ben Stein shows his deftness as a masterful puppeteer.
Go see this documentary. It’s hilarious!

How about Piltdown Man
How about Lucy
How about all the other supposed missing Links. All fabrications. How about fetuses having gill slits, disproved in 1875, and the embryologist who claimed it resigned in disgrace. Yet it is still taught today as truth. Wake up people
examine the truth for your selves. If you see a building, do I have to prove to you there was a builder. If you see a painting, must I prove someone painted it? Logic says there is a creator by just looking at the creation!
You call people of Faith blind, at least we wont deny what is clearly seen.
To say there is no GOD, you would have to posses all knowledge have been every place in existance, to positively state there is no GOD. Yet you fault us for believing what is clearly seen by all. The Creation. Stop listening to lies and examine the evidence yourselves, then decide.

OK- nothing plus time plus chance equals everything….sure…makes sense to me!!! God has said that He will use the “wise” things of this world to confound the foolish. Evolution is nothing more than an attack on the first sentence in the bible. If Satan can accomplish that then the rest will be in question. Since God created this world some 15,000 years ago nothing has really changed.

By the way, Radagast, I talked about many more things than just the earth slowing down. Even if you take the leap year thing out, you still have a problem if you take the amount it is slowing down and back it up 4.55 billion years. You will have days that last about 4 hours. Then you have a problem with the moon.
Evolutionist have a much bigger problem then creationist do.
2 Peter 3:5 says For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
People close their eyes on purpose about God’s creation and the flood.

It is clear that IDers do not avail themselves of the accumulated knowledge of mankind, but are instead easily swayed by the truthiness of scharlatans and the ambiguities of scripture.
Everything that is known is available to the public. All I ask is that you understand it before attacking it. Otherwise your arguments are weak since you stand on a footing of ignorance. If you have a problem with a certain piece of data or a conclusion thereof, that is OK. Just please understand the thing you talk about first.
I have not been stumped in years by any argument from ID as there have been none that are new or make a complete argument. I’m not bragging. I know every supporter of evolution feels the same way. So bring it on! The review will be good for me.

Mrm. Where did you get the idea Peter thought the Earth was flat?

Mark, it’s been my experience that (warning: gross over-generalization) the same people that don’t believe evolution also don’t believe global warming (also voted W.). But since we feel we can take action against warming and the consequences, real or imagined, are dire, people tend to believe warming more readily than evolution, which is almost intangible.

“The one point I would like to discuss is why is the establishment blackballing scientists who want to condsider alternatives to Darwinism? Anyone, Anyone?”
I do not know of any evidence for that allegation. Examples from the movie have been thoroughly debunked.

What I find astonishing is the new use of the word “elitist” to describe the field of Science in general. As with much of religious dogma they seem to have a very bizarre way of twisting concepts. What could be more elitist than the thought that you were created in the “image” of an all supreme being and that belief will give you an eternal life in paradise while my skepticism of that pronouncement gives me an eternal life of pain an torture in hell? I am the elitist one?

Rich I would like to point out that nobody or at least no rational person could describe science that way. Also that is only what some Christians believe

You teach the “Big Bang” to our children as if it is a fact. Please explain to the audience reading this what happened before the “Big Bang”? Please our children would like to know since you are the self-appointed authorities on this subject.

correction:
“I command the adherents of Intelligent Design for their courage…”
=
“I commend…”

Evolution vs. Creation or Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design. If scientist base their conclusions on research and proven facts to prove their hypothesis and then questions arise on how they come to their conclusions especially if there are gaps in their theories, then how can we learn and possibly change our theories if there are no questions. Who’s to say something is fact, if only based upon probable conclusions and not factual computations. This would be absolute insanity and not intellectual science. If one of the greatest scientist of our time – Einstein – came to the conclusion that if there are missing gaps in scientific theories, then there must be an answer. He believed in a higher intelligence and stated it so and he called this higher intelligence God, Creator, Intelligent Designer he did not mention anything about religion. If humans are superior intelligent beings over every other creature on the earth then let’s use our intelligence to being more open to other scientific conclusions. Instead of pushing one-sided probable causes and getting mad because someone else might have a better conclusion, as intelligent beings we need to be a little more open minded instead of being closed? Science is about the exploration of intricate workings of how things work and discovering better and useful formulations to help the human race to excel in life. Not about foolish arguments on who is right and who is wrong. One thing we all know for sure and are guaranteed to happen One day we will all die, and two, we will spend eternity somewhere. Science is based upon discovering that there is something greater than our-selves. If we say we are intelligent then let’s stop being ignorant. Dr. Jack Myers

I love the new technology so I tend to buy them pretty quick. I love the iPad.