Secular Group Seeks to Ban Biblical Creation from Public Schools in Scotland

Bible V pdEDINBURGH, Scotland – A secular organization is pressuring Scotland’s Parliament to ban the teaching of biblical creation in all public schools, claiming that evolution is the only ‘established science’ that explains the history of life.

The Scottish Secular Society (SSS) is an organization in Scotland that seeks “to support and further the cause of secularism.” The society was founded by secularist and homosexual activist Garry Otton, who says he has a deep hatred for religion.

“As a secularist, I hate religion and feel I have every right to,” Otton wrote on the SSS website.

The SSS is now seeking to ban the teaching of biblical creation in Scotland’s public schools. In a petition filed on Sept. 4th, the secular organization urged the Scottish Parliament “to bar the presentation in Scottish publicly funded schools of separate creation and of Young Earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent, and deep time.”

“Evolution, meaning the common descent of living things and their change over time, is, and has been for generations, the unifying concept of the life sciences,” the petition claims. “The deep time necessary for this evolution had been recognised by Scottish geologists over a century earlier.”

Other pro-evolution organizations, including the U.S.-based National Center for Science Education (NCSE), have expressed support for the anti-creation petition. Citing recent “creationist encroachments” on Scotland’s schools, NCSE’s executive director insisted that “the forthright and uncompromising presentation of evolution” is key to proper science education.

Last week, Scotland’s Public Petitions Committee reviewed the pro-evolution petition and heard arguments from two members of the SSS. The committee decided to endorse the petition and recommended it to three Scottish educational agencies for further review.

  • Connect with Christian News

Though evolutionists in Scotland are delighted by the recent developments, many Scottish Christians say the petition is inappropriate and biased. David Robertson, minister at the evangelical St. Peter’s Free Church in Scotland, accused the SSS of attempting to “undermine and attack Christianity in pursuit of their sectarian and bigoted anti-religious beliefs.”

“The Scottish Secular Society is so terrified that children might be infected by the idea that God the creator actually had something to do with creation that they are asking politicians to decide what should be taught in science lessons,” Robertson stated, according to The Scotsman.

“Could we not have a more tolerant and Christian view of science?” Robertson asked. “And could we not encourage children to think about the issues for themselves, rather than just tell them what to think?”

Robertson says the SSS activists are promoting their religious views at the expense of the biblical creation view.

“They are just seeking to impose their religious view upon the whole of society and turn their philosophy into a state doctrine imposed by force,” he contended. “[They are] using science as a kind of Trojan horse to get their philosophical and religious views taught and to discourage questioning.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

    Of course the secular group says that evolution is the only established science describing the history of life. Creationism is not science, it’s religion. Even most Christians don’t have a problem with evolution. The Pope accepts evolution, every Anglican I have ever met also accepts it, to the best of my recollection. Trying to teach creationism in schools outside the context of religious education is an absolutely certain way to undermine any public trust in the involvement of the Church in schools in any way at all.

    Claiming that evolution is anything other than a scientific fact is also a great way to look ridiculous because evolutionary biologists in the US have had decades of experience in showing that it is, time after time, in courtrooms and debates. It is a debate that creationists simply cannot win, however sincere they may be. Creationism is a purely religious construct and to pretend otherwise is not only silly, it is profoundly damaging to the cause of Christianity.

    • jennylynn

      The Pope is not Christian and does not follow Jesus Christ. He makes his own rules, he is his own God. You cannot compromise truth. Anyone who calls themself a Christian and believes in evolution is denying the Biblical account and compromisinig the Word of God which says,
      ” By the word of the LORD the heavens werre made, and by breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the water of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of HIM. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. Psalm 33: 6-9

      Genesis 1:1
      In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

      I guess people have a real problem with truth and having to submit to authority, It must be extremely painful to acknowledge that ( man at his best is a mere breath).
      Psalm 39:4-5

      • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

        You quote scripture to erect divisions between sects at a time when belief is in decline? Let me know how that works out for you.

        If you think the Bible is literally true then you are not worth debating with. It’s internally inconsistent, and provably inaccurate on numerous things, so your God wants you to be a credulous fool. Bad luck. That’s exactly what ISIS do, by the way. I do encourage you to debate with them the objective grounds on which one might decide whose book is correct.

        • jennylynn

          Yes, truth always divides. Matthew 10:34
          See how your unbelief works for you on judgement day.

          • Joe Logue

            not a lot of evidence about the jesus fella going about either

          • jennylynn

            I guess you not a student of HIS STORY.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            Guessing is not really a great substitute for establishing the facts. Have you tried actually reading what I wrote? Creationism is not science and trying to present it as such will have no good result. Just that.

          • jennylynn

            Science is behind the Bible in science. The Bible was written 2,000-3,000 years ago before the religion of science. Let me point out a few to help you understand that God the Creator is all knowing and All Wise.
            1.Isaiah 40:22 the earth is a sphere. Science then said it was flat, it has now caught up to Isaiah by saing it is round.
            2. Jeremiah 33:22 Billions of stars. Science then said only 1100 stars. Now they say billions.
            If they only had read from the one who created, it wouldn’t of took them so long.
            3. Hebrews 11:3 Creation made of invisible elements. Science was ignorant on this subject, but now they agree with the Bible.
            4. Job 28:25 Air has weight. Science said then it was weightless, now they acknowledge the Bible. Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible.
            5. Ecclesiastes 1:6 winds blow in cyclones. Science once believed it blew straight , now they know.
            6. Leviticus 17:11 blood is the source of life and health. Science use to bleed people out of ignorance. If they only trusted God, many lives would have been saved.
            7. 2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6 ocean floors contain deep valleys and mountains. Science then, the ocean floor was flat, now they have caught up to the Bible.
            8. Leviticus 15:3 when dealing with diseas you must wash your hands under running water. This would of saved many lives had they read from te creator of Life. Hand were washed in still water and many diseases were spread.
            9. Job 38:16 oceans contain springs. Science believed it was fed by Rivera and rain, now thousand of years later than God said, they believe oceans contain springs.
            10. Job 38:19-30 light moves. Science then said light was fixed in place. They finally figured out it moves.
            It amazes me how scientist in their own pride and ignorance can think they are so art when really they are a mere breath and don’t know a whole lot of anything. I hope this helps you out in your search for the real Truth. :))

          • Joe Logue

            well I am a historian but non theist and funny enough I haven’t come across much evidence although he may have been a radical Jewish preacher. Certainly not the person you seem to adore.

          • jennylynn

            I am truly heartbroken for you Joe. I will try to remember to keep you in prayer.
            1 John 5:12
            Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            I see your error. A lot of people do believe that only those whose version of Christianity is precisely the same as theirs, are actually believers. It’s always been the case: Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6

          • jennylynn

            There is only one version of Christianity. Denominations who stray doctrinally are outside the doctrine of Christ. What I mean by that, is if they decide homosexuality is ok in their denomination where Jesus said it is wrong, or when a denomination decides to compromise with evolution and buy into the lie. These are doctrinal errors and not based on the truth of Scripture. John 17:17 your word is truth.
            1 Corinthians 4:6
            Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
            Jesus is the only truth, whether you find teuth a in other things, it won’t save you or give you true life.
            John 14:6
            I AM the way The Truth and The Life, no one comes to the Father but through ME. (Jesus)

        • jennylynn

          It doesn’t matter if belief is in decline. God has to weed out the wheat from the chaff. He prophesied this would happen. There will always be a remnant.

          • LaPalmaDan

            There will always be the willfully ignorant, but happily they will always be a small minority. Those Christians that accept evolution do so because they understand that a literal interpretation of the Bible just doesn’t make any sense scientifically. Evolution doesn’t require any God, nor does it deny one. That is left up to an individual’s choice.

          • jennylynn

            Luke 16:31
            “But He ( Jesus) said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'”
            Moses wrote Genesis, and Jesus has verified these accounts over and over as literal. A christian who denies the literal interpretation has called God a liar and undermines all Biblical authority. Not a true definition of a Christian, but one by name only.

        • Joe Logue

          I concur with some of your article but we should always debate these nutjobs other wise the will think they are right

        • Pax Humana

          Guy Chumpman, you want a fight, I will give you a fight, son!

          • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

            Which verse in the New Testament is it that tells you to go out and assault people whose interpretation of scripture is not identical to your own? I can’t find that reference right now.

          • jennylynn

            What you call as attack is called rebuke in the Bible.
            2 timothy 4:1-4
            I charge you therefore before God, and the LORD Jesus Christ who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom; preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and Careful instuction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine (truthful doctrine). Instead to suit their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what THEIR ITCHING EARS want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

          • Pax Humana

            Guy Chumpman, are you SERIOUSLY going to go down that road? You wanted to fight me and when it comes to self-defense, the Holy Scriptures gives me that right to defend myself, my family, my friends, and other people that need protection in their lives.

      • Joe Logue

        1.2 billions catholics would disagree with you about the pope

        • jennylynn

          You are right! He has become an idol to many when he is just a mere man. But it doesn’t matter what they think it matters what God says.

      • Marie Adigwe

        Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Okay. It doesn’t exactly say how God created the heavens and the earth, so what makes you think that you know exactly how he created it?

        • jennylynn

          Yes it does. :))
          By the word of The Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He SPOKE AND IT WAS DONE. He commanded, and it stood fast.
          Psalm 33:6-9
          Most people do not want to acknowledge God’s infinite wisdom and power. Our brains are too small to comprehend His marvelous wonders.

          • James Grimes

            Great explanation Jennylynn. Marie is a troll on this site and posts comments that are designed to argue and to be disagreeable.

    • Joe Logue

      good , well said as a non theist I agree with your points

  • Owen King

    If Mr Otton was trying to stop Cultural Marxism in schools and saying ‘I hate homosexuals and I feel I have every right to do so’ he would be vilified as a hate figure.

  • jennylynn

    It does not surprise me at all that an atheist/gay wants to remove the Biblical account. Why would anyone who embraces sin want to be convicted of the coming judgement. It is brutaly painful when a person comes face to face with their own depravity. He does not want to acknowledge the God that wants to rescue him nor does he want anyone else to know about Him and His coming judgement on sin. People often reject that which they fear!

    • Rebel Druid

      If you want the Christian creation story allowed in science classes then inevitably the creation stories of other religions would be allowed in as well on the same basis. Do you want that?

      • jennylynn

        Evolution is a religion that denies God. Anything that takes faith is a religion. Evolution is not science. There is no observational evidence .

        In the forward to ORIGINS OF SPECIES (100th edition)0 Sir, Arthur Keith admitted , “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

        If you want to remove the truth of the Bible which has been proven historicaly, archeologically and scientifically up to exact dates and locations, then you are not teaching anything to kids but lies and garbage which is what Devilution is. It must be removed as a false religion not taught in schools.

        • Skeptic NY

          “Evolution is a religion that denies God.” No, Evolution is a scientific theory which accounts for the diversity of life on earth and which makes testable predictions. That evolution happened is a fact. It says nothing about a god or gods. Just like General Relativity is a theory which describes gravity – it makes predictions and says nothing about god or gods – just like all scientific theories.

          • jennylynn

            Scientific theory depends on observational evidence which there is none. Can you make a rose from nothing?

          • Rebel Druid

            What is the observable evidence of God’s existence? By this I mean what evidence do you have that specifically proves your God’s existence and cannot be inferred to mean other deities like Zeus, Allah, Amaterasu-omi-kami, Ahura Mazda etc.

            What about you? Can you make a god from nothing? If everything has to have a pre-determined cause then what caused God? If your answer is to the effect of ‘God has always existed’ then that is special pleading and your entire logic falls apart. Because if one thing in the chain of cause & effect doesn’t have to have a cause then nothing else does.

            “Scientific theory depends on observational evidence which there is none.”

            There is: the example of diversification of island finches over generations, the gradual immunity of British rabbits to rabbit poison in the 1950s, the spread of bacteria which are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics.

            Do you get updated flu shots every year? What about any pets you might have? If evolution isn’t true then only one set of vaccinations would suffice for your entire life.

          • Geoffmead

            If you think that variation among finches and rabbits is evolution, then you obviously don’t understand the theory. The changes you mention are natural selection – which all creationists believe in. Evolution is the idea that pond scum turned into human beings, and there’s no observational evidence for that kind of evolution.

          • Rebel Druid

            “If you think that variation among finches and rabbits is evolution, then you obviously don’t understand the theory. The changes you mention are natural selection”

            Then obviously you don’t understand evolutionary theory because its full title is “Evolution by Natural Selection”. That’s how creatures evolve; desirable traits are kept, traits which hinder the success of the species are discarded.

          • Geoffmead

            No – you don’t understand natural selection! Each change would need to have some selective advantage to be passed to the next generation. Natural selection is a conserving mechanism which help things to survive, not change into something different. Take, for example, the theory that bats evolved from non-flying, shrew-like ancestors. If a shrew-like creature started to develop longer fingers on its fore-limbs it would impede walking, and risk its survival. It would certainly not be a “desirable trait”, so natural selection would weed out any individuals which began to develop such a change in its forelimbs In this case, it’s worth noting that the oldest fossil bat is 100% bat, so there is no evidence such a change took place, anyway.

          • jennylynn

            Observational evedence is so abundant that I would not be able to give it justice.
            I will just state a few.
            1. The laws of entropy. This in itself refutes evolution. Life and matter do NOT evolve, they devolve. We are not gaining energy as your millions of years would need, we are winding down.
            2. Biogenesis pre science. Before science even existed God had already wrote about it in His Word. Examples I can give in another email. Would take the whole page.
            3. The laws of Chemistry, mathematics and physics.
            4. The DNA shows a complexity of design which requires and intelligent designer.
            5. Prophecy. God revealed Himself through the Bible, which approx. 30% Is prophecy.
            Over 300 prophecies in Jesus alone. I know if you go into your empty garage and find a car in there you will know it had a designer. Why? Because of the complexity of creation, you know that it did not just happen over millions of years, humans and the solar system are much more complex and we obey laws of the universe, like gravity and thermodynamics, which requires a law giver.
            There is one well-known law of life: the law of biogenesis. This law states simply that life always comes from life. This is what observational science tells us: organisms reproduce other organisms after their own kind. Historically, Louis Pasteur disproved one alleged case of spontaneous generation; he showed that life comes from previous life. Since then, we have seen that this law is universal with no known exceptions. This is, of course, exactly what we would expect from the Bible. According to Genesis 1, God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their kind. Notice that molecules-to-man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. Evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals. But this is inconsistent with the law of biogenesis. Real science confirms the Bible.

            Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey.

          • david ramseur

            And laws come from a lawgiver. Evolutionists somehow believe that nothing exploded and then over billions of years transformed into human beings! A believer in theistic evolution would say “Well, God contained all of the purpose and laws of the universe in that explosion and it has just worked itself out”. The only problem with this is that it appears to be impossible for evolution to work! Observing the cosmos, the cell, and DNA lend infinitely more credence to the world being created from the beginning as it presently is (except for the creatures that have gone extinct).

          • Rebel Druid

            “Evolutionists somehow believe that nothing exploded”

            No they don’t – unless you can show me where it says they do. Evolutionary science deals specifically with life in it’s various and changing forms, not with the universe and its history.

          • Rebel Druid

            Unfortunately the reasons you have given can be applied as “evidence” for the existence of creator deities other than your own.

            The law of entropy does not refute evolution – while it can be described as a measure of disorder in the universe, it does not claim that natural processes cannot occur. Indeed – you try to argue that a natural process such as evolution cannot occur because of entropy, then you argue that natural processes (as described in the sciences of chemistry, physics etc) prove the existence of a creator. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it.

            If everything must have a cause then what caused God? And no, “evolutionists” do not believe life spontaneously formed from non-living chemicals – please show me which text on evolutionary biology or biochemistry says this.

          • James Grimes

            Read Romans 1 about the evidence of God’s creation. It’s good enough for us.

          • Rebel Druid

            I think I’d rather rely on the accumulated learning of scientists who have qualifications in their respective fields and have dedicated their lives to understanding those fields rather than the ramblings of a late Classical era religious zealot who spent much of his time persecuting one group or another.

          • James Grimes

            Congratulations.

        • Joe Logue

          Not much archeological evidence about your pal moses

    • http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk Guy Chapman

      Yes, people often reject that which they fear. Creationists are the leading example of this problem. Well done. Luckily most Christians don’t seem to fear evolution at all.

  • Tina Taylor
  • The Last Trump

    The concept of a Creator is so far outside of the box, that’s it’s simply unthinkable. Not even allowed to be part of the equation with most “scientists” regardless of where the evidence leads. You should be very aware of this bias. If you think “scientists” are going to reveal evidence of a Creator you are sadly mistaken. I’ve come across tonnes of overwhelming evidence of design, but here’s just a few links that might interest any objective researcher seeking the truth.

    Play Hide

    (90 min “The Privileged Planet” – Findings confirm the unexpected uniqueness of the Earth, which against all odds defies the vast number of variables necessary for life to exist in an extremely harsh and unforgiving universe. Perhaps even more shocking is the startling realization that we appear to be optimally positioned in our galaxy for scientific discovery. Incredible evidence exists that the precision in variables like the size, distance, and orbit of our moon were designed to propagate scientific discovery. (e.g. Incredible leaps in science occurred thanks to the precise design of an eclipse…like we were being helped along…)

    Play Hide

    (60 min “The Case for a Creator” – A former evolutionary atheist unexpectedly discovers God through modern scientific discoveries. And he is not alone. More and more, scientists confronted with startling, cutting-edge evidence from many areas of research, no longer believe the universe just ‘happened’ or that life arose by mere chance. Behind a universe of staggering complexity, they are seeing clear signs of a Master Designer. Research on our planet, the universe, “not-so-simple” cells and DNA presented. )

    Side Note: It’s refreshing to hear honest researchers simply report on the data and candidly admit where the evidence appears to lead. But this honesty comes at a terrible price. You would think that the scientific arena would promote objectivity and serious consideration of all ideas. But that’s not what we find. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It is the goal of every researcher to get published. But in academia, peer review is used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication. And under this flawed system, the acceptance of a new find trumps its actual validity: “We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” (Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet).

    “The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.The peer review process may suppress dissent against “mainstream” theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts’ are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones.” (Wikipedia, “Peer Review,” various sources, references 41-48.)

    Under such restrictions, as you would expect, researchers are forced to go along if they want to get along. Otherwise their careers are over before they’ve even begun. And it is within this environment that for some bizarre reason intelligent design has been absolutely barred from all discussion.

    Guillermo Gonzalez is one of the astrobiologists who co-wrote the book, “The Privileged Planet,” and is interviewed in the above documentaries. He was an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University. When I checked into his background a little deeper I was disappointed to learn (but certainly not surprised) that after publishing his views in the book that he co-authored, his tenure was subsequently denied by the university when it came due. “Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole may experience pressure to favor noncontroversial lines of academic inquiry. The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions as they see fit, and to report their honest conclusions.” (Wikipedia). After many appeals he has since moved on and currently resides at Ball State University in Indiana as an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy.

    Two years prior to his consideration for tenure, approximately 130 members of the faculty of Iowa State University signed a statement opposing “all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.” Similar statements were issued by faculty at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa. A total of approximately 400 professors signed the three petitions. Here are a few of the statements made:

    “Intelligent Design has become a significant issue in science education, and it has now established a presence, even if minimal, at Iowa State University. Accordingly, if you are concerned about the negative impact of Intelligent Design on the integrity of science and on our university, please consider signing the “Statement on Intelligent Design by Iowa State University Faculty” below. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of “science and technology,” convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.”

    Wow. Does that sound like objective scientists to anybody? Banding together to pre-emptively strike down any and all theory of intelligent design, regardless of evidence. A Creator is just too unthinkable for these “scientists” regardless of where the evidence leads. Even the TV show, Ancient Aliens, is more objective than this bunch and regularly exposes the ridiculously flawed version of history we are required to believe. They, too, however, have an unthinkable attitude toward God, and so attribute our creation and assistance to aliens. The responsibility for the overwhelming evidence for our design has to belong to someone, right?

    How very strange that any honest research that leads to logical conclusions pointing to intelligent design should be such an affront to the establishment, and so, be discredited straightaway. Once upon a time we formed theories based on evidence. Today we force the “evidence” to fit the theory and discard what doesn’t fit. This inexcusable bias and intolerance to truth is, alas, the reality of the “science” of today. Shameful. We really have to do our own homework and fully utilize the Internet. Mainstream channels are unreliable and you simply won’t find the truth on T.V. Hats off to the folks who are risking everything by resisting these academic bullies, sacrificing promotions and careers to reach us with the facts. We can make up our own minds from there.

    http://y-jesus.com/more/scienc
    http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/phy
    http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/sci
    http://www.discovery.org/scrip

    So why the bias against God? The Bible is very clear about the fact that Satan is an actual being, not a fairy tale, and he and his angels are the “gods” of this world. Perhaps you’ve heard of the UFO phenomena witnessed by societies and governments world-wide? Would it make any sense whatsoever that the name of Jesus put a sudden stop to alien abductions?

    https://www.google.ca/search?q

    Ever wonder why everything in antiquity was built on such massive megalithic scales that we can’t even duplicate today? Supposedly by early man, a mere step away from monkeys! Bible tells us that there were giants back in the day and many civilizations have discovered and displayed the remains of giants in the past. So where are their remains today? Giants don’t fit the evolution model we are “required” to believe in so somebody decided we didn’t need to know. Don’t believe in giants?

    https://www.google.ca/search?q

    You see, once you start doing your own research and looking under a few rocks you will be amazed at the all the deception you discover going on around you. So who’s lying and why? Bible explains that too. What a book!

    Do yourself a favour and try God at His word. Humble yourself before Him and ask Him to reveal Himself to you and guide you in discovering the truth. You will have put the ball in His court and done your part. What could it possible hurt, right? Give Him a chance to show Himself to you and you will never be the same again. And all doubt will be gone for good.

    The bottom line is: Once you start looking at both cases you quickly realize the evidence isn’t quite as one sided as we were led to believe. At least, not in the direction we were pointed in.

  • david ramseur

    Ask any evolutionist why he believes in Darwin’s theory and he/she will tell you, “It is well documented and proven in science”. They will then shoot off a list of commonly used examples of variation within species also known as adaptation or micro-evolution to prove their point. Such examples are doctored moths, dysfunctional fruit flies, differing beaks of the Galapagos finch, Archeopteryx, etc… Surely they were indoctrinated of the theory’s concrete validity throughout their academic education.

    But, pointing out that both creationists and evolutionists readily agree that variation within a species is true and that they are committing a category error stops their argument in its tracks. The cold hard truth for evolutionists is that genetics is no friend to evolution. It is a theory in crisis. Breeders have known for over 1 hundred years that there are limits to how much genetic change can occur within any species. The closer you get to those limits the more unhealthy and less resiliant the organism becomes. Once those limits are crossed the organism becomes sterile and ceases to reproduce. This is because mutations to gene sequences in the DNA code are almost always deleterious. Genes are hereditory and species reproduce only after their own kind. In order to cross the species barrier it is not enough to gradually modify the existing DNA code. An entirely new blueprint or construction would be required. New genetic material that communicated traits not found in the preexisting code would have to be added. But where would this new genetic information come from?

    The DNA code itself is analagous to computer software. It is an irregular, specified sequence that only becomes intelligible under the lens of a linguistic convention. This description suggests that the code is a product of intelligent design. Furthermore, the chemical properties themselves do not produce the message. Information comes from the realm of the mind. Matter alone does not produce information. Information is therefore imposed upon the sequences of DNA code from an outside source. This outside source would most logically be the transcendent creator of the Bible as only the God of the Bible is described as fully transcendent of His creation.

    DNA is made up of certain proteins. However, these proteins are only produced at the direction of the DNA code. Therefore, the Nucleus which contains Chromosomes made up of DNA, the Ribosomes which produce proteins, the Cytoplasm and Endoplasmic Reticulum which contain Ribosomes, the Golgi Complex which is responsible for sorting / packaging specific proteins, and the Versicles which transport various products around the cell would have to be instantaneously created an in place for the cell to properly function. Back in Darwin’s day little was known about the cell. It was thought to be a simple blob of jelly (protoplasm). However, with the technological advancements in the field of science such as the electron microscope we are able to probe the inside of the cell. What has been seen for the last 40 to 50 years is a complexity unrivaled anywhere else in the universe. The cell is analogous to a bustling factory town all perfectly timed and miniaturized. The odds that purposeless random chance combinations of molecules could instantaneously produce such a thing are beyond astronomical. The experts know this is impossible but their motivation for holding on to a refuted theory is emotional not scientific. Irreducible complexity is simply the fact that ordered structures need a minimum number of interconnecting parts in place before they can start to function. Without the minimum number of staggeringly complex parts of the cell in place, natural selection would have not yet even begun.

    Creationists, contrary to the popular beliefs of cocktail party scientists, argue from what they know. The explanatory filter is utilized to sort between products of chance, law, and design. Products of chance are objects of little complexity. For example, if you randomly picked scrabble letters out of a bag it is ludicrous that you would end up with anything complex and of meaning. Products of law are regular repeating patterns of little information content such as sand ripples on a seashore. For example, if you picked a d out of the bag and there was a law stating that every time a d is chosen it must be followed by an e, s, i, g, and n, you would not be able to get very many words. Products of design are irregular and specified to convey a meaning or accomplish a purpose. The DNA code is made up of irregular strands of chemical markers that become intelligible thru the decoding mechanism of a linguistic convention. DNA has the tell tale , empirical markers of design according to the explanatory filter. Therefore it is possible to empirically detect design when it comes to life. This should be expected though because there are already many industries tasked with detecting design in the world around us. For example, detectives, insurance companies, academic fraud bureaus, etc…all must distinguish between objects of natural forces and intelligent design.

    Creationism really is the science of common sense. While philosophical naturalists pretend to be purveyors of science, creationists have the benefit of the most straight forward reading of the evidence. The former agree that the world appears to be ordered. But they believe that this appearance is just an illusion, a trick fobbed off on us by our genes. When we look at the fine-tuning for life on Earth in regards to the universe’s physical constants (ie. strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electro-magnetic force, mass of electron to proton, etc…) it makes sense to believe that it is teleological. But in desperate attempts to define science as purely natural cause and effect, Evolutionists propose wild ideas such as multi-verse theory to stack the deck against such high improbabilities or a self knowing universe that evolved humans so that it could be self-aware and thus more real! These theories are nothing short of sheer, unbridled speculation though. Even positing that evolution exists, they claim that it happens too slowly (millions of years) to observe or too quickly (punctuated equilibrium) for any evidence to show up in the fossil record. They slow it down or speed it up to the point that it is invisible! This is not science.

    Serious evolutionists have known for decades that the theory just does not work. But while entropy, abiogenesis, irreducible complexity, limits to variation, fine-tuning of the universe, and the utter lack of transitional fossils refute the theory; evolutionists cling to it because they are pre-committed to their assumptions about philosophical naturalism, that the physical is all that there is. Admitting to willfull deception and fraud to advance this world-view normally does not hinder the evolutionist in his/her belief that it must be true. I say normally because there are many scientists at the top of their fields of research that have become creationists. Whatever the case, one cannot claim that moder evolutionary science is the fantasized world of objectivity that it is held to be in the popular culture.

    A major problem for philosophical naturalists though is the fact that the implications theory of evolution teach that our genes determine everything about us, even our behavior. This means that people are powerless to resist the tyranny of their genes. If everything we see is a product of purposeless random combinations of matter in motion, then we are an accident. If survivability is the only criteria for our behavior, objective morality ceases to exist. Genuine altruism has no biological purpose and therefore has no real place in our behavior. You see, when philosophical naturalists follow the implications of their theory far enough they cannot live by it. Creationists believe in an objective moral code and in selfless acts of genuine altruism because they believe that we were created by a righteous, holy, and personal creator who values us and gives us immense dignity. Dignity does not really exist in philosophical naturalism though. So what do the evolutionists do? They claim that we are determined by our genes, but when they get too uncomfortable with this idea they tell their genes to go jump back into the primordial soup as if it were even possible!

    The reason why the theory of evolution is so popular is because it provides no resistance to doing whatever you want to do. It is a flight from accountability. It is also what philosophical naturalists have successfully co-opted science to be defined as. It’s kind of hard to have a different opinion when it is automatically defined out of bounds from the outset! The funny thing is that evolutionists do not play fair. They say that religion has no place in science yet evolution is every bit as religious as say Christianity. For example, it tells you where you came from, where you are going, and how to get there; all devoid of observable evidence!

    • jennylynn

      Excellent! An irrefutable response to mass ignorance.

      • david ramseur

        Thanks Jennylynn!!!

      • M1cksturbs

        Glad you liked it.

    • M1cksturbs

      Ask any evolutionist why he believes in Darwin’s theory and
      he/she will tell you, “It is well documented and proven in science”.
      They will then shoot off a list of commonly used examples of variation within
      species also known as adaptation or micro-evolution to prove their point. Such
      examples are doctored moths, dysfunctional fruit flies, differing beaks of the
      Galapagos finch, Archeopteryx, etc… Surely they were indoctrinated of the
      theory’s concrete validity throughout their academic education. You have the cheek to talk about scientists being indoctrinated. Two words from your book ‘Mote’ and ‘Beam’.

      But, pointing out that both creationists and evolutionists readily agree that variation within a species is true and that they are committing a category error stops their argument in its tracks. The cold hard truth for evolutionists is that genetics is no friend to evolution. It is a theory in crisis. Breeders have known for over 1 hundred years that there are limits to how much genetic change can occur within any species. The closer you get to those limits the more unhealthy and less resiliant the organism becomes. Once those limits are crossed the organism becomes sterile and ceases to reproduce. This is a fact, but only where the given gene pool is artificially narrowed by breeders, or indeed members of particular religious sects, which provides some hope that you will eventually become extinct. This is because mutations to gene sequences in the DNA code are almost always deleterious. Patent nonsense which completely disregards the role
      of RNA in genetics. Genes have been proven to fuse, as happened to the joint ancestor of the Chimpanzee and modern humans (look it up), without which we would not exist Genes are hereditary and species reproduce only after their own kind. There is no such categorisation in science as ‘kind’. It is a construct of creationists to try to explain the disparity between irrefutable scientific evidence and ‘what it says in their holy book’. Trans-species reproduction is well documented, even among the human population with around 3% of our genes coming from Neanderthals. But presumably, holy reproduction does not have such constraints as we are all descended from Adam and Eve and show no signs of becoming infertile so far.

      In order to cross the species barrier it is not enough to gradually modify the existing DNA code. An entirely new blueprint or construction would be required. New genetic material that communicated traits not found in the preexisting code would have to be added. But where would this
      new genetic information come from? We’re back to RNA again aren’t we?

      The DNA code itself is analagous to computer software. It is an irregular, specified sequence that only becomes intelligible under the lens of a linguistic convention. This description suggests that the code is a product of intelligent design. It is nothing like computer software, it would be a pretty poor programmer who allowed for no variables and included swathes of code which had no overriding function for producing people ‘in god’s image’. These surface from time to time when people are born with tails and extra nipples. Presumably you would have these unfortunates burned as abominations? Furthermore, the chemical properties themselves do not produce the message. Information comes from the realm of the
      mind. Matter alone does not produce information. Information is therefore
      imposed upon the sequences of DNA code from an outside source. This outside source would most logically be the transcendent creator of the Bible as only the God of the Bible is described as fully transcendent of His creation.

      DNA is made up of certain proteins. However, these proteins are only produced at the direction of the DNA code. RNA again. Try reading some science papers. Therefore, the Nucleus which contains
      Chromosomes made up of DNA, the Ribosomes which produce proteins, the Cytoplasm and Endoplasmic Reticulum which contain Ribosomes, the Golgi Complex which is responsible for sorting / packaging specific proteins, and the Versicles which transport various products around the cell would have to be instantaneously created and in place for the cell to properly function. Do we have an irreducible complexity argument coming up? Back in Darwin’s day little was known about the cell. It was thought to be a simple blob of jelly (protoplasm). However, with the technological advancements in the field of science such as the electron microscope Presumably designed by the Vatican we are able to probe the inside of the cell. What has been seen for the last 40 to 50 years is a complexity unrivaled anywhere else in the universe. I thought so. The cell is analogous to a bustling factory town all perfectly timed and miniaturized. The odds that purposeless random chance combinations of molecules could instantaneously produce such a thing are beyond astronomical. I refer you to the Scrabble argument. The experts know which ones? this is impossible Would you like a very long list of those that don’t? but their motivation for holding on to a refuted theory is
      emotional not scientific. Irreducible complexity is simply the fact that
      ordered structures need a minimum number of interconnecting parts in place
      before they can start to function. Utter balderdash. There are countless
      examples of intermediate species with features evolved from even the most unpromising origins. I can cite many examples, such as the creationists’ favourite – the flagellum.
      Without the minimum number of staggeringly complex parts of the cell in place, natural selection would have not yet even begun.

      Specious argument alert…Creationists, contrary to the popular beliefs of cocktail party scientists, Who? argue from what they know. Imagine that! People who work with what they know! The explanatory filter is utilized to sort between products of chance, law, and design. Products of chance are objects of little complexity. For example, if you randomly picked scrabble letters out of a bag There it is. it is ludicrous that you would end up with anything complex and of meaning. But if you did it for billions of years, you would, just based on statistical likelihood. Products of law are regular repeating patterns of little information content such as sand
      ripples on a seashore. For example, if you picked a d out of the bag and there
      was a law stating that every time a d is chosen it must be followed by an e, s,
      i, g, and n, you would not be able to get very many words. Products of design
      are irregular and specified to convey a meaning or accomplish a purpose. The
      DNA code is made up of irregular strands of chemical markers that become
      intelligible thru the decoding mechanism of a linguistic convention. DNA has
      the tell tale , empirical markers of design according to the explanatory
      filter. No it doesn’t. You cannot observe the nature of electricity by looking at a wire. Therefore it is possible to empirically detect design when it comes to life. This should be expected though because there are already many industries tasked with detecting design in the world around us. For example, detectives, insurance companies, academic fraud bureaus, etc…all must distinguish between products of natural forces and intelligent
      design. Not true in the case of the financial sector. They look for patterns and anomalies just as scientists do. But like detectives, they know a fraud when they see one, as indeed do I.

      Creationism really is the science Creationism is not a science of
      common sense. Or the inability to discern the difference between fact and fantasy. While philosophical naturalists pretend to be purveyors of science, creationists have the benefit of the most straight forward reading of the evidence. The former agree that the world appears to be ordered. But they believe that this appearance is just an illusion, a trick fobbed off on us by our genes. When we look at the fine-tuning for life on Earth in regards to the universe’s physical constants (ie. strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electro-magnetic force, mass of electron to proton, etc…) Spurious argument- this has nothing whatever to do with evolution – stick to the point. it makes sense to believe that it is teleological. But in desperate attempts to define science as purely natural cause and effect, Evolutionists propose wild ideas such as multi-verse theory to stack the deck against such high improbabilities or a self knowing universe that evolved humans so that it could be self-aware and thus more real! People write scientific papers on all sorts of speculative ideas. These are put forward for peer review, and sometimes ridicule, but I note that there has been no creationist paper published for peer review in the last hundred years. I wonder why? These theories are nothing short of sheer, unbridled speculation though. Firstly, you know full well, that theory, in science, does not mean a wild stab in the dark, it is open for review and challenge. Secondly, you have proof? Even positing that evolution exists, they claim that it happens too slowly (millions of years) to observe or too quickly (punctuated equilibrium) for any evidence to show up in the fossil record. There is ample evidence in the fossil record. This is such a hoary old chestnut that I am surprised you dragged it out of retirement. Please don’t bother again. It has been refuted countless times. They slow it down or speed it up to the point that it is invisible! This is not science. A bit like the young-earthers do with the speed of light you mean? Serious evolutionists have known for
      decades that the theory just does not work. Names please. I don’t want to see a list of dimbulbs with doctorates from bible-college either. But while
      entropy, abiogenesis, irreducible complexity, limits to variation, fine-tuning
      of the universe, and the utter lack of transitional fossils That is an utter
      lie. refute the theory; evolutionists cling to it because they are
      pre-committed to their assumptions unlike you of course about
      philosophical naturalism, that the physical is all that there is. Admitting to
      willfull deception and fraud to advance this world-view normally does not
      hinder the evolutionist in his/her belief that it must be true Pot and kettle
      there I think. I say normally because there are many scientists at the top of
      their fields of research that have become creationists. Names and
      Universities please (see my note above about bible colleges) Whatever the case, one cannot claim that modern evolutionary science is the fantasized world of objectivity that it is held to be in the popular culture. Unlike people
      who believe in deities then? A major problem for philosophical
      naturalists though is the fact that the implications of the theory of evolution
      teach that our genes determine everything about us, even our behavior. You cannot distil fact from implication. This means that people are powerless to resist the tyranny of their genes. Appeal to nature argument coming up…If everything we see is a product of purposeless random combinations of matter in motion, then we are an accident. If survivability is the only criteria for our behavior, objective morality ceases to exist. Genuine altruism has no biological purpose and therefore has no real place in our behavior. There are a lot of scientists and philosophers who would disagree with that point. But of course, you have the manual. You see, when philosophical naturalists follow the implications of their theory far enough they cannot live by it. Creationists believe in an objective moral code and in selfless acts of genuine altruism I am an atheist and I have raised millions for a childrens’ charity because they believe that we were created by a righteous, holy, and personal creator who values us and gives us immense dignity. As do Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and most other religions. Dignity does not really exist in philosophical naturalism though. So what do the evolutionists do? They claim that we are determined by our genes, but when they get too uncomfortable with this idea they tell their genes to go jump back into the primordial soup as if it were even possible! No they don’t. Cite examples..

      The reason why the theory of evolution is so popular is because it provides no resistance to doing whatever you want to do. It is a flight from accountability. Spurious argument. You cannot claim moral rectitude for evolutionists or Christians and by definition, place everyone else outside its bounds. It is also what philosophical naturalists have successfully co-opted science to be defined as. It’s kind of hard to have a different opinion particularly in
      your case when it is automatically defined out of bounds from the outset! You are a fine one to talk! The funny thing is that evolutionists do not play fair. They say that religion has no place in science yet evolution is every bit as religious as say Christianity. Evolutionists do not get together to worship Darwin, nor do they launch crusades or burn people to death who disagree with them. For example, it tells you where you came from, where you are going, and how to get there; all devoid of observable evidence! What complete tripe. Devoid of observable evidence? There is a hundred years of scientific research which has provided nothing but observable
      evidence. What evidence do you have that your particular tooth-fairy even exists? None at all. Nor will there ever be any. You are a dying breed and, thank goodness, have been out-evolved.

      • david ramseur

        I provided the evidence of God’s existence (DNA, Cellular Structures, Ordered Cosmos, etc…) You disagree. You think you are so much smarter. But I detect that your disagreement comes from a hatred of God (emotion as opposed to logic). Pride goes before a fall my friend. Anybody can argue the most solid evidence out of existence in a blog post. I challenge you to re-examine your blind faith in philosophical naturalism and Darwinism by extension. I challenge you to search some of the hopeless comments by evolution’s supposed experts on how they admit that it doesn’t really work, where they let the cat out of the bag. Most of them still keep the faith though. I understand that it is traumatic to have the theory that you have been indoctrinated in your entire life pulled out from under you. You are trying to save face, trust me I get it. Take a critical look at what you believe again and see where it falls thru the cracks. God bless!

        • M1cksturbs

          You provided no such thing, because there is no proof, apart from the blind faith of which you hypocritically accused me. Answer the questions I asked you, name names, list the eminent creationist scientists and where they obtained their degrees. By making an ad-hominem attack on my ‘faith’ you are merely diverting attention from the fact that you have no proof that has not been, at best, debunked and at worst, ridiculed, and no answer to the perfectly straightforward questions posed. I have not been indoctrinated by ‘evangelical atheists’ (they only exist in the febrile imagination of creationists), I was raised in a churchgoing family and am more familiar with the bible than most christians. I have also read the Koran, the Rig-Veda and the Talmud (just for a little balance) and am familiar with the writings of Josephus, the political history of the Middle-East, the writings of the Gnostics, the Apocrypha, Gilgamesh and Osiris/Dionysus, I have been accused of ‘hating god’ previously. It is a ludicrous accusation. I no more hate your god than I do the tooth fairy. What I hate is people who lie and paint it as truth. Quite what motivates them to do that remains a mystery. But i guess the alternative of oblivion is too scary for most. I find it rather comforting.

          • david ramseur

            My my, you are certainly educated. Good for you. A man who is always learning but never able to come to the Truth. This was prophesied as a description of the end times. What motivates people to believe that God is real, that the Bible is His Word of Truth? Nature bears witness to God, the moral code bears witness to God, and God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. Read Chapter’s 5-8 of Nancy Pearcy’s book “Total Truth”. Watch “A Question of Origins” and “Evolution Vs. God”. These three resources bury macro-evolution. The Theory of Evolution is ludicrous, it doesn’t make sense. We can intuitively deduce that a sand castle or Mt Rushmore are products of intelligent design but we can’t do the same when it comes to much more complex and specified life forms? Natural selection is not a viable mechanism for evolving molecules to amino acids to proteins to DNA to completely different sequences of DNA code. Those who still believe that Evolution is a fact are mere lemmings pretending to be objective while they trust that the expert scientists (many of whom are just as biased against the clear evidence) know what they are talking about. But when pressed for answers they cannot present a credible case for how evolution could work or for why anybody should even believe that it has ever happened. There is zero scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. No transitional fossils, no life from non-life, no observations of evolution happening, nothing.

          • M1cksturbs

            Well David. Once again you evade the questions by disambiguation and digression. Neither of the sources you mention are recognised as valid authorities on the matter, at least outside those whose response to an argument is either to purely contradict (which most people grew out of by the age of ten), or ram their fingers in their ears and say, ‘lalala, I’m not listening’. Let’s go back to an old favourite. The Grand Canyon. The fossil record in the Grand Canyon is clear and consistent. It shows progression from simple creatures (an ideal congregation there) at the lowest level, to more advanced creatures at the highest. The usual argument from creationists is that during the ‘flood’, the more advanced creatures moved to higher ground. This might be a valid point, were it not for the fact that only primitive conifers may be found at the bottom and all of the fossil remains of deciduous trees at the top. Presumably, the more advanced trees, upped-roots and sprinted uphill to save themselves? It is a crock David, a demonstrable and proven crock and there is not one word a creationist has ever said on the matter which would convince anyone presented with clear and rational evidence of this, and countless other examples of the creation myth.- excepting of course those in the ‘lalala, I’m not listening’ camp. There are ten of thousands of examples of transitional fossils, with more being discovered every day. But of course, you will be saying ‘lalala’ at this point rather than keying in ‘transitional fossils’ to your favoured search engine. With advances in modern palaeontology, it has even been possible to extract strands of DNA from dinosaurs, which link them clearly to their descendants, modern birds, with which they share many significant features. You have already accepted that micro-evolution has been proven beyond doubt, but up until a few years ago, this was entirely rejected by creationists. Are you spotting a pattern here yet? Does the sun revolving around the earth ring any bells? The tide has turned and we are rapidly approaching the point at which religious belief will be consigned to the history books. Human society needed superstitious beliefs to explain that which otherwise was beyond comprehension. The gap between what we know and what we don’t is getting ever smaller and it will continue to shrink. This of course is a terrifying prospect to anyone who has faith in a deity and they will doubtless continue to struggle to make their voices herd for many years to come. But the world is becoming secular; congregations are dwindling away. There are those of course, with personality disorders and other ‘health’ issues who will draw comfort from the ‘safe’ message that belief offers, those who have exhausted every other avenue of help available to them, and for those who are approaching the end of an unhappy life, faced with their impending death, for whom the prospect of kind words and eternal salvation are an attractive option. For these people, the church is a great comfort and considerably eases the burden on social services and on mental health professionals. For that reason (and I rather like some of the hymns), it would be a shame to see it disappear entirely. But, you have become an endangered species. It is of course possible that some kind philanthropist may set up a reserve of some kind, perhaps even a breeding programme, to prevent extinction, but I fear that just like the Neanderthals, you will eventually all fade away. I am not quite at the point at which I am knocking on people’s doors and asking them if they have ever considered not believing in a deity, but I do feel that it is my duty to future generations to try to dissuade those who might be led down your particular evolutionary dead-end, that there is a rational alternative. There are no gods. No-one watching over us, we take our chances along with every other living thing, and when we die, we go back to the same component parts we did before we were born. To quote the old song, ‘we are stardust’. There is no magic garden and we have no eternal soul to save. I (and many others) am quite happy with that arrangement. I don’t need saving, I am not frightened or fearful of any omnipotent deity, nor any of the other bogeymen like satan invented to scare people into submission. I do not believe we are all descended from Adam, or indeed the many other variations on his name you will find in other belief systems. I don’t wish you, or any other believer ill, I just want you to keep your belief to yourself and stop trying to persuade the hard-of-thinking into your camp.

          • david ramseur

            Creationists have always believed in micro-evolution aka adaptation / natural selection / variation within the species. That is observable and has never been in doubt. Does a result from a search engine actually verify the existence of transitional fossils? Or is the internet towing the philosophical naturalism line along with the majority of academia and the media? You seem to believe that transitional fossils exist because someone said they do. But I hate to break it to you man, the utter lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology. They have had over 150 years to discover one since Darwin published his Origin of Species. None has been discovered. What have been discovered are full remains of 100% distinct organisms. A transitional fossil would include biological structures in progress such as half a wing or half a tail or half a lung. This we do not see. There have been quite a bit of cases of fraud though in order to dupe the masses into believing Darwin’s theory. Neanderthals were ordinary human beings who may have suffered from Syphilis. Where in the Bible does it say that the sun revolves around the Earth? From our vantage point it appears that the sun revolves around the Earth, this is apparent motion. I don’t know of any passage in the Bible that unequivocally states that the sun revolves around the Earth. I know that you can think critically. I know that you are intelligent. That does not make you immune from falling for a powerful delusion though. This delusion is the fantastical myth of macro-evolution. God bless!

          • david ramseur

            In the past decade, studies of plant spores have been made in the formations of the Grand Canyon. Spores of the conifer were found in the Permian, Mississippian, Cambrian and Precambrian, and pollen of flowering plants were also found in the Precambrian. No evolutionary theory can accommodate these findings

          • david ramseur

            Polystrate fossils are found extending through multiple layers of sediment. Many trees have been found fossilized in a vertical position through layers of coal, sandstone, and other sediments. Certainly, the trees would have decayed if millions of years had occurred between the different strata.

            Geologists fail to accept that the only reasonable explanation of polystrate fossils is that the layers formed quickly around plant and animal life before they had time to decay. Seems to correspond with the biblical account of the worldwide Flood, doesn’t it?

          • M1cksturbs
          • Geoffmead

            You issued a challenge: “List the eminent creationist scientists and where they obtained their degrees.” There are hundreds if not thousands of qualified scientists who reject evolution. I suggest you obtain the recently-published book “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels”, which is authored by nine PhD. scientists who obtained their doctorates at secular universities, or the 96-minute documentary of the same name, in which no less that fifteen PhD. scientists explain how evolution’s supposed strengths are, in fact, its fatal flaws. It’s a popular myth, propagated by secularists, that all qualified scientists believe in evolution.

    • Joe Logue

      I think you seem to have your silly nonsense from answers in genesis and the great scientist ken ham

  • david ramseur

    The SSS sounds more like the Nazi SS!

  • Alex

    I am also a Scotsmen, but really. What does it take to get some sense in these guys head, I thought much more of my countries of origin. Maybe they need a new CH Spurgeon again!