Big Bang Blunder: Scientists Retract Alleged Proof of Universe’s Beginnings

Galaxies Big BangA team of astronomers who jubilantly announced last year that they had found proof of the Big Bang have now retracted their statements, admitting that their evidence was faulty.

In March of last year, astronomers using the BICEP2 telescope at the South Pole announced the discovery of “primordial gravitational waves” from the universe’s beginning. Proponents of the secular model of origins eagerly touted the discovery as “smoking gun” evidence for the universe’s rapid inflation during the Big Bang.

“This is a genuine breakthrough,” declared Andrew Pontzen, as reported by The Guardian. “It represents a whole new era in cosmology and physics as well.”

“To me, this looks really, really solid,” added cosmologist Marc Kamionkowski.

One well-known media outlet even predicted that the discovery would “almost certainly” earn a Nobel Prize.

However, less than a year after the triumphant announcement, astronomers have retracted their claims and admitted that the findings were not proof of the Big Bang after all. In a recent statement, the European Space Agency conceded that the astronomers’ conclusions were incorrect.

“Unfortunately, we have not been able to confirm that the signal is an imprint of cosmic inflation,” researcher Jean-Loup Puget said in the statement.

  • Connect with Christian News

Evidently, the BICEP2 telescope merely detected ordinary interstellar dust in space—not primordial gravitation waves.

The confession came as a major embarrassment to scientists who believed they had found incontrovertible proof for the Big Bang. According to a widely-circulated Associated Press story, BICEP2 researcher Brian Keating acknowledged the inaccuracy of his team’s original statements, saying, “We are effectively retracting the claim.”

“It’s disappointing,” Keating admitted. “It’s like finding out there’s no Santa Claus.”

Various media outlets have lamented or criticized the astronomers’ recanted assertions. BBC News described the “quashed claim” as “painful.”

Recent media reports
Recent media reports

“It is the announcement no one wanted to hear,” Space.com reported. “The most exciting astronomical discovery of 2014 has vanished. Two groups of scientists announced today that a tantalizing signal—which some scientists claimed was ‘smoking gun’ evidence of dramatic cosmic expansion just after the birth of the universe—was actually caused by something much more mundane: interstellar dust.”

Paul Steinhart, a professor of Physics at Princeton University, noted the “serious flaws” in the astronomers’ research. He further argued that the current inflationary model for the origin of the universe is fundamentally “unfalsifiable” and therefore “untestable.”

“No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes,” he wrote in an article for Nature. “Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable. … [T]here exists a spectrum of other models which produce all manner of diverse cosmological outcomes. Taking this into account, it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.

Cosmic inflation plays an integral role in the Big Bang model, so the current lack of testable evidence for it presents a challenge for secular scientists. Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research, says now would be “a good time for secular scientists to take a hard look at their biases and presuppositions.”

“Why is it that they are willing to entertain bizarre explanations for our existence (other universes, the seeding of life on Earth by space aliens, etc.), but they are unwilling to consider biblical creation?” Thomas wrote in a recent online article. “Why do otherwise brilliant scientists embrace logically fallacious explanations for our existence?”

“The answer is quite simple,” Thomas continued. “Acknowledging creation requires that we acknowledge our Creator, and for many, that is simply unacceptable.”

“Creation remains the best scientific explanation for the reality in which we live, and science continues to point to our Creator,” he concluded.


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
  • Gary

    Why would anyone pay an astronomer? Because they are desperately looking for explanations that don’t involve God.

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    Admission that you made a mistake is, I believe, a hallmark of a good scientist/scientific organization. Certainly more admirable than believing that you are infallible.

  • Paul Hiett

    “Creation remains the best scientific explanation for the reality in
    which we live, and science continues to point to our Creator,” he
    concluded.

    That has to be the most ignorant statement put forth this year. “Creation” is a myth, with absolutely no scientific proof to support. Creation requires faith to believe in, not proof, which makes it as viable as thinking that the world rests on Atlas’ shoulders.

    • Josey

      Not true, creation is shown all around us and God’s glory in it is shown. You can see it and if you do not it is because you choose not to see it and believe, that you are without an excuse as is said in Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

      • Paul Hiett

        The existence of the earth and everything on it is not proof of your choice of a deity’s existence. Also, quoting the Bible is not, never has been, nor will be, “proof” of the Bible. The Bible is merely the claim.

    • Jerry_In_IL

      Darwinism is the myth, as science is beginning to prove. And science has not a clue how life began, zero evidence for life arising in a primordial soup. The only scientists who hold to that are still living in the 1950’s and haven’t kept up with the research. On the other hand, Christians who get bent over the term “Big Bang” ought to check on the origin of the term. It was coined as a pejorative for the notion that the universe had a beginning, but that first event when the universe sprang into being is not in conflict with Genesis 1:1, and since nothing BEGINS to exist without a cause, the “big bang” is one piece of evidence for the existence of a Creator

      • Paul Hiett

        Well, there’s far more evidence for evolution than anything else. Also, your “god of the gaps” argument fails as badly now as it was the first time it was presented. Just because science can’t definitively prove something does not mean that the supernatural is correct. You’re simply trying to fill in the gaps of ignorance with mythology..something we’ve been doing for thousands of years.

        Furthermore, your very argument of “nothing begins to exist without a cause” is more of an argument against your choice of a deity being real than in support thereof.

        • Patricia White

          Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore has a cause. Every effect must have a cause, but a cause doesn’t need a cause. God is an eternal Being, Who exists in and of Himself and wasn’t created. An eternal uncaused Being. Independent from some antecedent agent. That is above our human comprehension, but what other kind of God would you prefer?

      • dark477

        and what research is that?

  • Weary Warrior

    The last two paragraphs are great!

  • The Last Trump

    Scientists across the globe are confirming that the data they are finding indicates that there is nothing random or “evolved” about the universe. It’s actually shaken some of them up to discover just how “fine-tuned” our universe is. In fact, all indicators point to a match with the order of events as listed in the book of Genesis.

    The Bible for thousands of years has told us that creation began SUDDENLY when God proclaimed, “Let there be light.” Further, the Bible repeatedly states that God has “stretched out the heavens.” Interesting choice of words as it turns out. Scientists today are confirming that our universe indeed had a BEGINNING, a SUDDEN explosion of LIGHT followed by rapid EXPANSION. Yet, only a short time ago Albert Einstein and his peers, the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century, were CONVINCED that the universe was a constant. That it just always WAS. And so the scientific “crowd” scoffed at Bible believing Christians with their ridiculous Creation account. Until Hubble came along and with scientific measurement CONFIRMED the Biblical account of Creation. Einstein and the greatest minds of the twentieth century, WRONG. Bible RIGHT.

    Only the truly ignorant and uneducated continue to claim “Creation” is a myth, with absolutely no scientific proof to support. Creation requires faith to believe in, not proof”.
    Time to catch up with modern science, you God haters. Time to catch up to the BIBLE.
    Your ignorance just makes you look foolish.

    • Paul Hiett

      Many cultures and societies around the world have had creation myths as well. What makes your so different?

      • bowie1

        Many of the others have explanations that make no sense such having a turtle supporting the earth on its back. The biblical accounts have no such absurd type explanations.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          They believe an anthropomorphized snake conned a person into eating a piece of fruit which caused us to be smarter than we were. And that we committed incest to start the population.

          • lynn

            It wasn’t a snake. Though they be hid in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them. I don’t know of many snakes that live in the bottom of the sea. Find that in your bible if you can, but I doubt it.

        • Paul Hiett

          Talking animals.

          Really?

          • Jerry_In_IL

            Yeah, how absurd to think that a parrot could talk.

          • Paul Hiett

            A parrot does nothing but mimic sounds. Care to try again?

          • Oboehner

            Exploding dots.
            Really?

          • Paul Hiett

            No one claims the big bang is a fact. That’s the difference between Creation and Evolution.

          • Oboehner

            Right, they just allude to it every chance they get, just like “billions of years”.

          • Paul Hiett

            The billions of years is a fact…the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is about 14.5 billion years old. What was your point on this?

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz….
            A “fact” with no proof, how does that work? If you believe it hard enough it becomes fact?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Radiometric dating is real. No matter how badly you dislike science.

          • Oboehner

            How do we know the earth is billions of years old? Why radiometric dating. Well how do we know radiometric dating is accurate? Duh, because the earth is billions of years old.
            Love that circular reasoning.

          • MisterPine

            We know radiometric dating is accurate because:

            1. It depends upon radioactive decay, which is known to be extremely stable, not influenced my chemical processes, and which can be measured quite accurately. Thus the physical principle of the method is well established.

            2. The dates obtained by radiometric dating are verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating. The multiple checks verify that the rate of isotope decay does not change over time, and it verifies the accuracies of the methods.

            For dating back to about 35,000 years, sediment layers are precise. Sediments include different types of pollen depending upon the season. Consequently, individual years can be identified by season, so there is no possibility of layers being confused. Sediment columns giving an unbroken history for more than 25,000 years have been identified in about 30 locations around the world.

            Coral growth patterns are also seasonal and provide a long independent date history. The coral record verifies that radiometric methods are accurate.

            3. The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other.

          • Oboehner

            The age of a rock cannot be measured using radioactive (radiometric) dating as no one was around to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological existence, thus any age determination is based on assumptions (faith). A serious problem with all radioactive dates is that they are ALL based on presumptions about the past, you can get any date you want depending on the assumptions you wish to make.

            “The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other.” Checking a flawed system by using the flawed system is ludicrous at best. Ice cores? Ever hear of the “lost squadron”? It was found under more than 250 feet of ice which in evolutionism time they were there for thousands of years, perhaps Piltdown Man was a pilot. Tree rings? What is the oldest tree known to exist? Billions of years old? Not even close, so you seriously in your little cut and paste, expect me to believe that proves any dating system can go back even tens of thousands of years with any accuracy? Sediment layers as with rocks, without someone recording every step of their development and existence are as untrustworthy as ice cores. Coral growth patterns have been demonstrated to grow at vastly different rates depending on the conditions. Your little “proof” crumbles like a house of cards when logically and truthfully examined. Whatever would you do without assumptions and speculation based on preconceived notions – or faith.

            The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record.

          • MisterPine

            So because “no one was around to measure the radioactive elements” that makes it a matter of faith? No. If you use that “eyewitness” approach, there are other aspects of the world beyond our senses too which we know are there. Atoms and molecules for example are much, much too small for any human to examine first-hand, thus we rely on exotic equipment such as electron microscopes and atomic-force microscopes to “see” them. The sun and the planets of our solar system – does anyone these days doubt their existence and distance from us? The young-earth worldview that the early is only a few thousand years old has not been scientifically defensible for at least 100 years.

            Reliability of radiometric dating: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php
            Geology and evolution studied without a “time machine”: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/time-machine.php

            And so radiometric dating is not based on presumptions of the past.

            The typical Young Earth argument involving the Lost Squadron argues that ice core dating cannot be a valid because ice in Greenland accumulates too fast for wafer-thin layers found in ice cores to be annual layers. As evidence that the ice in Greenland accumulates too fast for ice core dating to be a valid method, Young Earth creationists, i.e. Larry Vardiman, cite the example of the Lost Squadron. It was a squadron of six P-38 fighters and two B-17 bombers that landed and were abandoned on the Greenland Ice Cap. In 48 years, they were buried under 263 feet of ice. This is a rate of snow accumulation of about 5.5 feet per year if subsequent compaction is ignored.
            In this case, Young Earth creationists failed to understand that the rate at which snow accumulates within Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap. At the location where the Lost Squadron landed near the coast of Greenland, the rate of snow accumulation is considerably greater than the rate of snow accumulation within the interior of the Greenland Ice Cap where the ice cores have been collected. Inland from the Greenland coast, the average annual snowfall decreases dramatically to rates consistent with those calculated from the ice cores. Because of the difference in rate of snow accumulation, the use of the depth of burial of the Lost Squadron” as an argument against the usefulness of ice core dating lacks any scientific validity. It is like using rainfall records in Syndey, Australia to predict the rate at which a pond in Alice Springs, Australia would fill. In addition, the Lost Squadron landed on an actively moving area of the Greenland Ice Cap, quite unlike the areas in which ice cores are collected which are stable and motionless relative to it.

          • Oboehner

            “The young-earth worldview that the early is only a few thousand years old has not been scientifically defensible for at least 100 years.” Soft tissue found in dinosaur remains, the slowing of the earth’s rotation, the moon pulling away from the earth’s orbit, decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the amount of salt in the ocean, total lack of humanoid skeletal remains and artifacts, etc., etc. According to evolutionists, Stone Age humanoids existed for 190,000 years before making written records which start about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man supposedly built huge monuments, made ornate cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he not record history then for two thousand centuries? And where are all the humanoid remains, there should be piles over 190,000 years. All we ever see is a pathetic pile of 30% bones and 70% imagination known as “Lucy”, or outright frauds like Piltdown and Nebraska Man.

            Radiometric dating? Take any rock that has been dated as being old, then tell me how anyone could come up with the starting amount of radiation to come even close to being able to determine the actual amount of radioactive decay. They can’t, it is merely assumption and speculation based upon their humanistic religious world view of “billions of years”. “And so radiometric dating is not based on presumptions of the past.” So someone was there recording the data billions and millions of years ago then.

            In this case, Old Earth evolutionists failed to understand that the rate at which snow accumulates within Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap, or any other ice cap. since no one was there during the process, no one can say what the snowfall rates were in ANY area in which ice cores were taken. Attempting to shoot down your own measuring system because it doesn’t fit the preconceived religious model is sadly pathetic – not science. I chipped a chunk of ice from my driveway and upon examination, it was 500 years old – and no you can’t claim it wasn’t definitely stable and motionless . “…ice core dating lacks any scientific validity.” Ice layers are more likely to be created by thaws and subsequent re-freezes than by seasonal activity further tossing ageing process into the crap heap.

          • MisterPine

            Soft tissue:
            Over 65 million years, there’s plenty of time for other life forms to contaminate the bones of a dinosaur.

            Slowing of the earth:
            This argument is based on exaggerated numbers. The earth has slowed down, but not nearly to the extent where a bulge would have formed around the equator billions of years ago due to blazing high speeds.

            Moon pulling away from the earth’s orbit:
            This little atrocity could only have come from Kent Hovind. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn’t amount to diddly squat. Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself. A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use.

            Decay of the earth’s magnetic field:
            http://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html

            Salt in the ocean:
            Hovind again, I assume? Kent Hovind is assuming that salt cannot be removed from the oceans. The more sophisticated creationists, such as Melvin Cook, know better than to make that assumption. Here’s what Cook had to say:
            The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73]

            Thus, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world’s rivers. Consequently, no age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content. There is no comfort here for the young-earth creationist.

            Lack of humanoid skeletal remains and artifacts:
            In 1994, a complete skeleton dating between 3.2 and 3.6 million years ago was found. Omo I and Omo II are each at least 130,000 years old and hominid skulls.

            Why would he not record history then for two thousand centuries?
            Because we were not humans for billions of years. In fact in the evolutionary chain we only started to resembling a modern human after around 2-3 million years ago.

            Where are all the humanoid remains:
            An often repeated creationist canard insists that all known human fossils would fit on a billiard table. This was probably true in the late 19th century, but it has not been true for a 100 years. Known human fossils number in the thousands and represent the remains of hundreds of individuals. They are more numerous and better studied than the fossils of any other vertebrae group, because the intense interest that people have for the bones of their ancestors has driven them to devote far more effort to collecting and studying fossil humans than say fossil horses or herring. Having seen most of the major collections of human fossils in the world’s museums, we can assure our readers that those collections can no longer be laid out on a billiard table. It would be hard to cram them all into a boxcar.

            Radiometric dating:
            I have posted already on how radiometric dating works.
            Greenland ice cores:
            http://religionvirus.blogspot.ca/2008/09/greenland-ice-cores-lets-see.html

            It’s actually quite gratifying watching all of your arguments crumble and taking the smug smile off your face with them.

          • Oboehner

            “Over 65 million years, there’s plenty of time for other life forms to contaminate the bones of a dinosaur.” Nice try, but no. It was internal bone matrix, blood vessels, etc.

            “The earth has slowed down, but not nearly to the extent where a bulge would have formed around the equator billions of years ago due to blazing high speeds.” I never said anything about a bulge, and that also doesn’t explain “billions of years” and the earth slowing.

            “for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles!” Now you’re saying the earth is only 1 million years old? 1 or 2 Billion? What happened to 4.5 billion? Do the math on that.

            Your link on the earth’s magnetic field offers no more than: “It can’t be true because some evolutionist said so”. Since the fact the field is decaying upsets evolutionists apple cart, they have cooked up another fairytale of speculation that somehow another field will form and the polarity of the earth will switch. Happens every 200,000 years they claim – apparently they found this scientific data written in “cave drawings” from someone who tested and recorded it.

            “In fact in the evolutionary chain we only started to resembling a modern human after around 2-3 million years ago.” LOL another fairytale missing the point, it is claimed by evolutionists that “Prehistoric man supposedly built huge monuments, made ornate cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.” Why would he not record history then for two thousand centuries? You didn’t answer that.

            “Known human fossils number in the thousands and represent the remains of hundreds of individuals.” Sure, like Nebraska Man.

            Radiometric data, You can stop beating that dead horse, It is based on speculation and faith. Tell me how anyone knows the starting point of anything to even come close to an accurate outcome? One would have had to follow the object from it’s inception to the time it was tested to come up with a believable number. Obviously that can’t happen – you can have your un-provable speculation (faith).

            The ice cores thing was nice, more speculation and assumptions, and in no way explains the planes being “thousands of years” under the ice.

            It’s actually quite gratifying watching all of your arguments crumble and taking the smug smile off your face with them.

          • MisterPine

            “Nice try, but no. It was internal bone matrix, blood vessels, etc.” Right. Of an invading presence, not the dinosaur itself.

            “I never said anything about a bulge, and that also doesn’t explain “billions of years” and the earth slowing.” Your numbers are way, way off. The earth has slowed but not enough for you to claim a young earth.

            “Now you’re saying the earth is only 1 million years old? 1 or 2 Billion? What happened to 4.5 billion? Do the math on that.” I have. Your numbers are seriously flawed again. The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon’s gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth’s rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth’s rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit. Our moon was never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles). Thus, the “problem” disappears.

            “Your link on the earth’s magnetic field offers no more than: “It can’t be true because some evolutionist said so”. Wrong, you clearly missed the part marked “There are several fatal errors in Thomas G. Barnes’s work.” Know what “fatal errors” means? They are laid out quite clearly with facts. Not speculation. Read more about the dipole field.
            “Why would he not record history then for two thousand centuries? You didn’t answer that.” Yes I did. Because he wasn’t an actual human being at that time.
            “Known human fossils number in the thousands and represent the remains of hundreds of individuals.” “Sure, like Nebraska Man.” Sneer all you like, this quote stops creationists in their tracks, and if it doesn’t, what do you make of stories like this one that showed up in my newsfeed just this morning:
            http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31718336

            “Radiometric data, You can stop beating that dead horse, It is based on speculation and faith.” Translation: “I don’t like the indisputable scientific facts you’ve presented to me so I’ll continue to hide behind my Bible.”

            “Tell me how anyone knows the starting point of anything to even come close to an accurate outcome? One would have had to follow the object from it’s inception to the time it was tested to come up with a believable number. Obviously that can’t happen – you can have your un-provable speculation (faith).” And yet you do the exact same thing with a 2000 year old Jesus story and have no problem with it.

            “The ice cores thing was nice, more speculation and assumptions, and in no way explains the planes being “thousands of years” under the ice.” The sound of a bigot giving up. Music to my ears.

            It’s actually quite gratifying watching all of your arguments crumble and taking the smug smile off your face with them.

          • Oboehner

            “Right. Of an invading presence, not the dinosaur itself.” Nope, tested and said to be that of a T-rex.

            “Your numbers are way, way off. The earth has slowed but not enough for you to claim a young earth.” Says you, remember “billions of years”. “gives an estimate” Sure thing.

            “Sneer all you like, this quote stops creationists in their tracks, and if it doesn’t, what do you make of stories like this one that showed up in my newsfeed just this morning:” Oooh, a jawbone, and I see they used the speculative, no-way-to-prove-its-accuracy dating process again, nice. I’m sure someone with a lot faith and imagination will create a whole “missing link” out of it. I wonder what they’ll make it look like before claiming proof of evolutionism…hmmm. Yup stopped me in my tracks, it’s hard to walk when I’m laughing so hard.

            “Translation: “I don’t like the indisputable scientific facts you’ve presented to me so I’ll continue to hide behind my Bible.” Translation: I don’t have any facts, indisputable or not, so I’ll just hack on some other belief system.

            “And yet you do the exact same thing with a 2000 year old Jesus story and have no problem with it.” It’s called faith, you know the same faith you have in your religion, the rest you wouldn’t understand.

            “The sound of a bigot giving up. Music to my ears.” Back atcha.

            It’s actually quite gratifying watching all of your arguments crumble and taking the smug smile off your face with them.

          • MisterPine

            “Nope, tested and said to be that of a T-rex.” That’s some BS right there. Link to the proof please. No Ken Ham or Jack Chick sites, please.

            “Says you, remember “billions of years”. “gives an estimate” Sure thing.” Ah yes. Keep those blinders on.

            “Oooh, a jawbone, and I see they used the speculative, no-way-to-prove-its-accuracy dating process again.” Do you mean the verified, scientifically proven and accurate methods we have been discussing? Look, just because you pout and stamp your feet in the face of established science doesn’t make you RIGHT.

            “Translation: I don’t have any facts, indisputable or not, so I’ll just hack on some other belief system.” You can translate it any way you like. That’s what you do anyway. You are impervious to facts.

            “It’s called faith, you know the same faith you have in your religion, the rest you wouldn’t understand.” No, nor would most logically-minded people, who tend to understand that when science claims proof on something it can’t be unclaimed by a fundie with a KJV Bible.

            It’s actually quite gratifying watching all of your arguments crumble and taking the smug smile off your face with them.

          • Oboehner

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VbDFCndMI And they even make the asinine un-substantiated claim of millions of years just for you. Notice the rabid evolutionary religious zealots started attacking immediately.
            You seem to have the corner on blinders.

            “Do you mean the verified, scientifically proven and accurate methods we have been discussing?” LOL, the crap based on assumption and speculation estimates you keep bringing up. Do tell how one can determine the amount of radiation decay when one has absolutely no clue as to how much it started with? Verified, scientifically proven and accurate, that’s a good one ROFL.

            “You are impervious to facts.” I’m not impervious to the fact that EVERYTHING you have is based on assumptions, speculation, and just plain old faith.
            “when science claims proof on something” Claims and a buck-fifty might get you a cup of coffee.

            It’s actually quite gratifying watching all of your arguments crumble and taking the smug smile off your face with them.

          • MisterPine

            The fact that Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud has repeatedly been used by creationists and intelligent design advocates as evidence that the entirety of evolution is a fraud. The problem with this should be self-evident, but let’s go through it anyway.

            It is true that Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, which did confuse paleontologists for many years. Some scientists accepted it, others were skeptical right from the start. Since nature doesn’t lie, most scientists take field discoveries at face value, trying to explain the discovery within the current understanding of the particular field. However, anything that falls too far outside of the expected is received with a highly skeptical eye. The case of Piltdown is no exception, and it is worth noting that experts in the field almost immediately began to question the find, as they should.

            Piltdown Man was created with the objective of fooling scientists, not lay people, so it only succeeded for a short time. The very fact that it was eventually revealed to be a fake is evidence that science is inherently capable of seeing through illusion, acknowledging errors, and refining its ideas by use of the scientific method. It shows that theories like evolution are based on solid and consistent evidence that behaves in expected ways. It is also worth noting that though the creationists like to chirp about evolution’s errors, frauds, or simple mistakes, not one of those errors or frauds has been exposed by so-called “creation science.” Every single one of them, from Piltdown to Haeckel were found by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists.

            Conversely, religiously-derived creationist beliefs do not change, are not capable of evaluating the quality of a specimen, cannot identify a hoax from a real specimen, and cannot adapt to new information about the world from genetics to the size of our universe. Most importantly, they fail to provide any new understanding of the world.

            The fallacy of those using Piltdown Man to disprove evolution can be summed up thusly:

            A single forgery does not overturn the actual evidence that does exist and isn’t a forgery.
            A single forgery does not prove that all evidence is forged (this would be confirmation bias at its very worst, a non sequitur at the very least).
            Science actually spotted the fraud and corrected the mistake. Meanwhile people still insist that the Shroud of Turin isn’t a forgery made in medieval Europe.
            Piltdown Man wasn’t universally accepted by the scientific establishment because of its conflict with other pieces of evidence – it takes a lot more than that to fool practicing scientists.

          • Oboehner

            “Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, which did confuse paleontologists for many years. Some scientists accepted it.” How could that be? Aren’t all evolutionary “scientists” infallible along with all of their opinions and speculations?
            The sad part is that Piltdown was all they had, 190,000 supposed years of humanoid existence, and they have nothing.
            I also don’t believe in the Shroud of Turin do you?

            So now you admit Haeckel was a fraud, yet you earlier used his gill slits as proof, how does that work?

          • MisterPine

            Whoever said scientists were infallible? That’s the beautiful part, they aren’t, and they make mistakes, and correct them, and get better information. And interestingly science was corrrected by whom – religion? No, it was science correcting itself.

            It’s all very well to sit here and laugh and mock and point at science, which admits to its errors as it goes, and learns from them, but what have you got that improves on it? Answer: RELIGION. Your little holy book, written by uneducated goat herders.

            Never mentioned gill slits by the way.

          • Oboehner

            Your science has a lot of correcting to do.
            Creation doesn’t have to correct, it got it right the first time.
            And now for more ad hominem attacks…
            Gill slits was in one of your earlier cut and paste jobs.

          • MisterPine

            “Creation doesn’t have to correct, it got it right the first time.”

            LOL

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible

            PS: LOL

          • Oboehner

            Another religious site, most college professors refuse to accept “wiki” as a source for accurate information. This link is laughable, based on the extreme bias of a evolutionism zealot. These arguments are so thin and twisted, no one can take them seriously.

            “Of course we need to remind objectors that the scientific classification schemes of modern botany were not yet invented — classification was by appearance and function, not by biology.”

          • MisterPine

            Fine, shall we forget that site then? I can choose about 150 million more exactly like it that poke your Bible so full of holes it resembles Swiss cheese.

          • Oboehner

            150 million more just as lame, that’s peachy but it only pokes hole in their credibility – much like attempting to prove one’s religion by endeavoring to disparage another.

          • MisterPine

            How many websites do you NEED to tell you that bats are not birds, that there could not have been light on the first day of creation when God didn’t create the sun until the fourth day, that Noah’s flood is a physical impossibility, that the earth is not flat, that snakes cannot talk….etc etc etc…

          • Oboehner

            I posted a quote from your own little wiki that covered that bats and birds thing. Now about the impossibility of everything deriving from an exploding dot, life spontaneously popping up in some ooze, random mutations somehow creating the complexities of life we see today, and when everything gravitates toward disorder – the earth lasting “billions of years”, etc. etc. etc. …

          • MisterPine

            Incidentally, your whole schtick of taking the words used against you and turning them against your detractors even when it makes no sense is really adorable. So now I am left to guess what on earth an “evolutionism zealot” is. Might just submit that one to fstdt.com tonight. We’ll see if we can’t make you famous for your bafflegab.

          • Oboehner

            Either you are quite dense or you know exactly what “evolutionism zealot” is. The jury is still out on that I think.

          • MisterPine

            Oh, I think it’s time you were made famous, or rather infamous, for some of the blatantly outrageous things you’re saying.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz….

          • MisterPine

            Yes, you have a nice sleep, I’ll wake you when you’re notorious for your ignorance. Hard to know where to start, from the idea of evolution being a religion to Catholics not being Christians. Both those statements are known to provoke gales of laughter. The 6000 year old earth is a nice touch as well, but I don’t honestly think that I’ve known someone to believe all three of those absurdities simultaneously.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzz….

          • MisterPine

            I guess there is always the possibility that you would be impervious to the entire civilized world laughing at your rather insane beliefs…you ARE a fundie after all.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz….

          • MisterPine

            You can TRY to sleep your crazies away, but I’m sure it won’t work.

          • MisterPine

            What does the age of a tree have to do with the age of the earth? If, in fact, the oldest tree is 4300 years old, so what? Perhaps Kent Hovind is impressed by the fact that such a tree would have sprouted at about the time Noah’s flood ended. If that is the case, then it is time for a reality check.

            It might interest you to know that trees go back at least 8000 years without being disturbed by Noah’s flood! Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings. We could add disease and excessive activity by pests to that list.

            Creationists sometimes seize upon isolated facts in their desperate bid to discredit tree-ring dating. They either don’t understand–or don’t want to understand–that careful statistical studies have settled the issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Tell me again what’s crumbling like a house of cards?

          • Oboehner

            6273 BC, wow, a far cry from billions of years, what is the margin of error on that? Was Chuck making careful statistical studies of the tree during its entire growing process to make special note of any abnormal conditions that would scrap his entire theory?

          • MisterPine

            The date 6273 BC wasn’t INTENDED to make the point that the tree was billions of years old, it was to show that Noah’s Flood, if it really occurred, seemingly did not bother the trees in question. But I guess context doesn’t really matter much to you.

          • Oboehner

            “seemingly did not” That context?

          • MisterPine

            Sorry, would you prefer “demonstrably”?

          • Oboehner

            Nope, “seemingly” capture it just fine – more faith based speculation.

          • MisterPine

            OK, we’ll go with”seemingly” – “according to the facts as one knows them.”

            The dictionary is your friend. You should stop fighting it.

          • Oboehner

            Full Definition of SEEMING
            : outwardly or superficially evident but not true or real
            — seem·ing·ly adverb
            The first definition in the full definition column. The dictionary is your friend. You should stop fighting it.

          • Oboehner

            BTW, the age of trees was in your little cut and paste from earlier, you really should at least read your own religious material.

          • MisterPine

            You have me confused with someone else, sorry. I am posting no religious material, as I am not a religious person. My posts are all scientific facts and data.

          • Oboehner

            You have science confused with faith, everything you posted is faith-based.

          • MisterPine

            Play your little Fundie games, little one. If you’re bragging about not knowing the difference between faith and fact, you’re the one who ends up looking sad.

          • Oboehner

            When EVERYTHING you have is based on assumptions and speculation, your faith shines brightly through.

          • MisterPine

            When you’re dealing with someone who not only distrusts but does not take the time to learn how scientific evidence works, you get used to the lame deflections.

          • Oboehner

            Start learning then and stop bothering me with speculation and assumption, I don’t follow your faith.

          • MisterPine

            You need to start with basic science texts to learn how science works, to know that there is no faith involved first of all. You need to reject your fundamentalism because it has poisoned your brain. You need to learn how your dictionary works, and you need to drop the arrogant young earth creationist routine. You’re just a sitting duck for ridicule until that time and I think you know it.

          • Oboehner

            That tactic doesn’t work, claiming I don’t know how science works then trying to say your religion is science – it is a contradiction. You’re delusional, You need to learn how your dictionary works, and you need to drop the arrogant evolutionism routine.

          • MisterPine

            Exhibit A on why taking my own words and turning them around to use on me verbatim doesn’t work and makes no sense. Keep it up.

          • Oboehner

            They apply more so to you than me, I’ll keep it up.

          • MisterPine

            I don’t think so. It’s a tactic you use with everyone here. Sort of the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I”. Except you try to turn it around in every situation and it never works and never makes you look clever, so why do it?

          • Oboehner

            No facts so we yammer on about this? Zzzz….

          • MisterPine

            Do you think you would recognize facts if they were presented to you? Based on past experience I am going to say “no”.

          • Oboehner

            I would recognize facts, but none were presented.

          • MisterPine

            Apart from all the ones I listed.

          • Oboehner

            You must have listed them somewhere else, You didn’t give me any, just your religion.

          • MisterPine

            You should really see a doctor about these imaginary religions you keep seeing.

          • Oboehner

            You should really see a doctor about these imaginary facts you keep seeing.

          • MisterPine

            LOL! Yeah, me and sixteen billion scientists have it wrong, but a single deluded fundie gets to tell the rest of the world that science is really religion. Pleasant dreams, wacko.

          • Oboehner

            More flat earth blood-letting popular opinion, just can’t let that one die can you?

          • MisterPine

            Let it die? Sure, when you admit you’re the flat-earth YEC fundie whose entire belief system is a faith-based house of cards, and you are fighting an imaginary battle against people who laid claim to facts years before you were even born. There’s right, and there’s wrong, and there is off the charts crazy…your category.

          • Oboehner

            Severe lack of reading comprehension, no wonder you believe you came from apes.

          • MisterPine

            Classic fundie. You alone are right with the Lord, it’s everyone else who is wrong.

          • Oboehner

            Do you still have cravings to swing from trees and eat bananas or has the “evolved” out of you? I’m just curious since I was created and didn’t evolve.

          • MisterPine

            That’s because you don’t understand evolution. You don’t understand the concept of a “common ancestor”. You don’t understand that this a process taking longer than 5 minutes. But that’s all right. You enjoy your blinders, now.

          • Oboehner

            Why don’t you show me some actual photographs of that common ancestor, I might re-think my position.

          • MisterPine

            Got a time machine?

          • Oboehner

            Why ever would we need that?

          • MisterPine

            If you understood evolution, you wouldn’t need to ask.

          • Oboehner

            Tell me why we’d need a time machine if we know about the common ancestor, I’d just like to see it.

          • MisterPine

            You just haven’t hit a clue, have you?

          • Oboehner

            I just want to see the common ancestor, post a photo – come on now.

          • MisterPine

            I think you will find that that ancestor predates photography by, oh, a few million years.

          • Oboehner

            How do we know it even exists then?

          • MisterPine

            You know the answer. We have scientific proof.

          • Oboehner

            What proof is that exactly?

          • MisterPine

            More games?

          • Oboehner

            Quit playing them and show the proof, I want to see our common ancestor.

          • MisterPine

            No problem. Find yourself a time machine. Then we can talk.

          • Oboehner

            We can use the same time machine that was used to “scientifically prove” we have a common ancestor with the apes.

          • MisterPine

            Well, as I have said before, your issue is not with me, it is with science, who have proven all this.

          • Oboehner

            Now you’re just dancing around, my request is simple, I just want to see the common ancestor that has been “scientifically proven” to exist, is that too much to ask?

          • MisterPine

            Not at all. Fire up your time machine and off we go.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said just use the same one that was used to scientifically prove the existence of the common ancestor of man and ape. Let’s see that common ancestor, I’m ready and waiting…

          • MisterPine

            Like I said, fire up your time machine and off we go.

          • Oboehner

            You claim scientific proof of the existence of that ancestor, was a time machine involved with that or are you just stalling as the proof doesn’t exist?

          • MisterPine

            I claim nothing. Science claims it, and there is no other scientist to claim it false, and the great wealth of scientists whose combined knowledge cannot be estimated are in agreement because we know radiometric dating to be accurate. I think I have made the observation “you lose” in the past so I will just make it again. Your 2000 year old book has no science to back it up. Nothing at all.

          • Oboehner

            Popular opinion, appeal to authority, and an ad hominem attack – that’s your proof?
            In order for radiometric dating to even be remotely accurate, one would have to know the beginning level of radiation and any variables to determine the age through the rate of decay. So how does that work? And, uh, spare me the cut and paste and biased links – just the facts.

          • MisterPine

            Spare you the cut and paste biased links – I am not sure what you mean. Oh, you mean the actual science-based explanations that you are incapable of understanding? Is that what you mean? Please clarify for me.

          • Oboehner

            Have music playing during your dance job? I just want to see the common ancestor, or proof of it’s existence – is it really that hard to show something you claim is scientifically proven.

          • MisterPine

            Not at all. Just turn on your time machine and that’s all we need. It IS necessary to go back a few million years, you realize I’m sure.

          • Oboehner

            I need a time machine, but somehow all those “scientists” do not? How does that work?

          • MisterPine

            Correction, they are not “scientists”‘, they are scientists. They don’t require a time machine when they possess tools that can gauge time.

          • Oboehner

            Gauge time? You failed to answer the question of how one would know the beginning level of radiation and any variables to determine the age through the rate of decay with ANY accuracy? Gauging time doesn’t show me the common ancestor either, so why don’t you show me the scientifically proven CA? It really should be simple, so why all of the dancing around?

          • MisterPine

            You are really enjoying your little semantics game. Science knows. They have the tools and accurate data. You have nothing but a Bible.

          • Oboehner

            Dance, dance, dance, You can’t even answer a simple question, how sad. All you have are unsubstantiated claims.

          • MisterPine

            Science substantiated them ages ago, dope.

          • Oboehner

            Oh, another unsubstantiated claim, or can you show me that elusive common ancestor?

          • MisterPine

            Talk to a scientist, they are who you are arguing with. I am not interested.

          • Oboehner

            Now we have*drumroll* the big cop-out!!
            Would a college biology professor do? If so, I have, and he couldn’t answer any better than you. *sigh* No common ancestor…

          • MisterPine

            Most likely he explained it just fine but you couldn’t think outside of your Bible.

          • Oboehner

            The Bible has nothing to do with a total lack of substance or proof, sorry try another lame excuse.
            Still no ancestor.

          • MisterPine

            No one wil ever explain it to your satisfaction because you are determined to not allow yourself to believe it. But we’re not discussing something that can be argued about. We are discussing a scientific fact. So it doesn’t matter if you believe it, it’s a known fact.

          • Oboehner

            If it’s a fact, why would I have to BELIEVE, wouldn’t it be obvious? Wouldn’t you be able to show me the common ancestor?

          • MisterPine

            Not without going back millions of years in time, which is what evolution involves. I really don’t know why this is so difficult for you, you’re demanding proof, which they have in the form of radiometric dating. If you choose not to BELIEVE in radiometric dating, that’s your choice, but makes about as much sense as choosing not to believe there is air simply because you cannot see it.

          • Oboehner

            without going back millions of years, how do we know such a thing even exists? How can you test something with any kind of data when you can’t see it?

          • MisterPine

            Well guess what? Science in its wisdom has the ability to determine things like that without going back in time. And you shouldn’t have too much trouble with that if you can take things like talking snakes on faith.

          • Oboehner

            How can science determine the end result of something that they don’t know the beginning? You never answer the question on how the amount of radiation decay can be determined with out knowing how much was at the beginning, and if there were any factors that would have influenced it?

          • Paul Hiett

            Believe it not, not everything about science requires “faith”. There are, without a doubt, many cold hard facts that science has produced that you have no argument against. None.

          • Oboehner

            Do share those cold hard facts that aren’t based on assumptions, speculation and religious faith.

          • lynn

            Yeah, in the 1950 scientist claimed it was a fact that if you were in space without a pressurized suit, you would explode. Funny thing is that one of the astronauts lost a glove off his hand and nothing happened. We sure nuff better take all that scientist say is fact Huh?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I think the astronaut in question was in a vacuum chamber during training, and he lost consciousness. They were able to re pressurize the chamber and he recovered. Going suitless in space is a bad idea.

          • Oboehner

            Just as ridiculous as exploding dots.

          • oregon_man

            Even talking bushes on fire!

        • Mason McKernan

          “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.” – Job 9:6

          Because pillars are more realistic than turtles.

          • Oboehner

            “molecules just happen… somehow, probably” – Bill Nye the religious speculation guy
            Because speculation and faith is always science when it agrees with HIS beliefs.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I’ll take Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson over Ken Ham all day, every day. There’s a reason Bill Nye destroyed Ken Ham in that debate. The answer is science.

          • Oboehner

            Bill Nye knowing he couldn’t debate came out with the shotgun effect, instead of point by point he flung a pile of BS with Ham having no time to cover it all.
            You can have Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and your religion, just don’t insult my intelligence by calling it science.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Fair enough — you can have your religion, just don’t teach it in our schools until you have a theory based on more than the Bible.

          • Oboehner

            When are you going to get your religion out of the schools?

          • Paul Hiett

            Science is not a religion.

          • Oboehner

            And your point?

          • Paul Hiett

            Science belongs in our public schools. Religion does not.

          • Oboehner

            Exactly, so get evolutionism out.

          • Paul Hiett

            Evolution is not a religion. It actually has facts to support it. It might not explain the ultimate origin of life, and I’m fine with that…but it certainly explains many of the questions about how life got to this point.

          • Oboehner

            Let’s see those facts, and don’t hand me some link with four miles of BS, you post the best you’ve got.

          • MisterPine

            You lost this game when you tried it with me, are your really going to try it with other people?

          • Oboehner

            You gave me un-provable assumption and speculation based on faith and you claim I lost? LOL.

          • MisterPine

            I gave you scientific proof and you laughed at it.

          • Oboehner

            It was laughable because it wasn’t proof, like I said post some or scurry along.

          • MisterPine

            It was proof but you couldn’t understand it, so you said it wasn’t.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz…

          • MisterPine

            There’s your problem right there, maybe stop sleeping through science class and you’d be able to understand it better.

          • Oboehner

            Good one, but I’m only sleeping through your religion class.

          • MisterPine

            Science. Not religion. Have you not learned yet?

          • Oboehner

            LOL, sure thing faith boy.

          • MisterPine

            Choke on your Bible, zealot.

          • Oboehner

            The losing battle cry!

          • MisterPine

            LOL, says the man who can’t figure out how a dictionary works.

          • Oboehner

            And again!

          • MisterPine

            “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

          • Oboehner

            Try and be more original in you little ad hominem, it makes your loss more graceful.

          • MisterPine

            It’s a good quote. It’s useful to pull out to use with people who don’t know they’re fighting a war that they lost years ago.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz….

          • MisterPine

            And in fact slept though it.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzz….

          • MisterPine

            Blissful, ignorant slumber. Enjoy.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did you just claim that Nye couldn’t debate?

            Even your fellow Christians accept that Nye destroyed Ham.

          • Oboehner

            Sure, that’s why he hid behind the piles of BS instead of point by point.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did you actually watch it? I don’t believe you have, as anyone with half a brain who did watch it knows exactly what happened. Nye destroyed Ham and hardly put forth much of an effort to do so.

          • Oboehner

            Yes I did, Ham let himself get steam rolled.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one will ever be able to argue that religion is more accurate than science. Ham was a complete fool to attempt it.

          • David Kelly

            Mr. Hiett, people have been deceived into thinking that “science” and “religion” are opposing sides. Science is the study of life around us. Evolution is a theory to explain how life got here. Creation is a theory to explain how life got here. Science and evolution are two different things, they aren’t the same. Because old beer commercials had football players in them and sports it doesn’t mean that drinking beer is going to make you a football player. They put sports into the beer commercials. Sitting in a garage doesn’t make you a car. Evolution in the science textbooks doesn’t make it science. Evolution is a THEORY. Not an observable fact. And definitely the theory of evolution takes a lot of faith to believe in. SO does believing in creation. They are both religions because they both require FAITH. The only difference is that the religion of evolution is tax-supported. Ken Ham is not a fool. He and Bill Nye are both smart individuals, smarter than you and I. You can be very smart but you can also be wrong at the same time. If you need some evidence for creation and evidence opposing evolution I would be happy to supply it.

          • Paul Hiett

            There is no evidence for Creation, though. None at all. It requires proof of God, which we know does not exist.

            If you think you actually have such evidence, I would love to see it.

          • David Kelly

            The evidence for creation is that the earth and universe are young. Not billions of years old. And there is lots of evidence that the earth is young. So creation is the only option of how we got here. Evolution has so many holes in it. Here is an example. I’ll also give you more examples that show that we have a young earth. http://www.icr.org/article/sun-shrinking/ go to that link. I hope you read it Mr. Hiett. I will give you another example.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sorry, but any “information” from ICR cannot be taken seriously.

            Nor can anyone who actually makes a claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

          • David Kelly

            Who made you the judge of what can be taken seriously or not? Those are facts they mentioned about the Sun. Anyone can study that and see for himself. They are unbiased observations about our solar system. If you think you are so smart you can say they cannot be taken seriously, than look for yourself and learn. Something else, you mentioned that we know God does not exist. I want to ask you something now: Do you know everything? Well you will say of course not. Well lets pretend you know half of everything. Is it possible that God exists in that other half that you don’t know? Think on that Mr.Hiett. In Proverbs 1:22, it says “How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? and the scoffers delight in their scoffing, and the fools hate knowledge.” Many people do not want to believe there is an almighty God who created everything including us, because that means He is in charge and He has the right to tell us what to do. So as an only other option they blindly believe in evolution. It is demoralizing how people don’t search for the truth themselves and study science. They don’t look for themselves and realize that so many things absolutely could not happen by chance. Down to the smallest cell, intelligent design is written all over. If I asked you if the heads on mount Rushmore could by any chance over millions of years have been created by chance by the wind and rain erosion and thermal expansion and earthquakes, would you say yes? You would probably say no there is no way they could have been created by chance. But you want everyone to believe those men carved in the mountain were created by chance. Over millions of years. And the human body is tremendously complex. Even if you disagree, if you believe in evolution you believe those men were created by chance. Mr. Hiett, scientists like to think they know most everything and most people just ignore the evidence against evolution and assume the scientists and people who wrote their science textbooks have it all figured out and have done their math. They don’t. If you really want to know the truth look for it yourself so there is no chance of the info you read from others being wrong. God does exist and I know He does because I talked to Him this morning. He loves you Mr. Heitt but you are deceived for believing evolution. I am going to pray for you.

          • Oboehner

            “Sorry, but any “information” from ICR cannot be taken seriously.”
            Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

          • lynn

            Wonder how many years it would take a single cell to evolve into a human eye, much less the whole human being. Then again, why wouldn’t a frog have at least a smidgen of the same DNA that a human has if it evolved from that same single cell?

          • lynn

            I think it was you that once said that according to the bible the earth was flat, and told the person not to even come back with the spherical quote from the bible. While it is true 6 or 7 hundred years ago folks thought the world was flat, my bible says it was circular thousands of years prior to that. Proof: Isa_40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
            In the last century our great scientist finally figured out that life is in the blood, when my bible plainly tells me that. Gen_9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Lev_17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
            Deu_12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Takes a long time for scientist to come up with the right answers. Perhaps if they have a few hundred more years they can come up with the truth of creation.

          • Treefoot

            How does the age of the earth prove that it was created by God?

          • David Kelly

            Ask your self Treefoot. The proof of a young earth disproves evolution. So what other choice is there for you?

          • Treefoot

            I was not commenting about my own belief. I asked you how the age of the earth proved that the earth was created by God. Your answer seems to be that the truth of creation is proven by default because of a supposed better scientific explanation for the age of the earth, which allegedly disproves a contrary scientific explanation of this it.

            How you have decided that there are two and only two explanations for existance of the earth, and that they are mutually exclusive? Are you sincerely trying to establishing a scientific case to support an argument for creationism?

          • David Kelly

            Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon

            The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

            If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

            For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.

          • Treefoot

            4.5 billion years the moon would have been roughly half the distance away from the earth that it is today…assuming the rate is constant and that the moon was present then. Your comment made me curiouser so I’ve done some reading, Now I’m a little agitated because this argument has been roundly destroyed for some considerable time. I don’t think I’m going to bother looking at your other points…you’re credibility is suffering.

          • David Kelly

            No problem you do not have to read any more of my comments. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12311119 this link says that the Moon was created 4 billion years ago so yes according to them it was present then. I would like to see this evidence that roundly destroyed this argument.

          • David Kelly

            As much as I would love to stay and discuss these matters, I am busy and I don’t have free time to talk about this. Something I would like to leave you all with is a question (evolutionists) cannot answer. How did blind chance create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? That is a good question.

          • David Kelly

            Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata

            When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

            There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

            This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.

            To find out more, see Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.

          • Treefoot

            Not all rock is sedimentary

          • David Kelly

            Well according to the geologists the rock in the Grand Canyon is, so talk to them.

          • Treefoot

            Quite right…the main point is about sedimentary rock. A geologist, Dr. Andrew Snelling asserts that strata cannot plastically deform, but this idea was basically rejected by observations of the contrary. Most geologist seem to accept different lines of evidence, the preponderance of which supports the case for an older age of the planet.

          • David Kelly

            I have been quoting this information from Evidence of a young earth. I can give you much more if you wish.

          • Oboehner

            “It requires proof of God, which we know does not exist.”

            “Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.” – Richard Dawkins
            Even one of your heroes knows better than to make that claim.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Evolution is a *scientific* theory, which means it has passed enough scientific rigor, has gone past the stage of *hypothesis* (which most creationists and fundamentalists confuse with “theory”), and has withstood countless arguments against it, including the baseless accounts of Ham and his ilk. Much like the theory of gravity, it is fact. Hence…

            Evolution. Is. True.

            However, how it all got started is anyone’s best guess. I personally doubt gods and magic, and believe that scientific discovery will give us the most probably answer. But who knows?

          • David Kelly

            Whoever you are you have obviously not watched many debates on evolution except Ken Ham’s debate. Dude you have been lied to if you think evolution does not have any problems and is a firm theory.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Yeeeaaaahhhhh, okaaaayyyyy. Please provide your sources disproving evolution… like, real ones, not bible quotes.

            And not the fake Darwin interpretations, like “survival of the fittest” and Hitler.

            Then we can talk. ; )

          • David Kelly

            How much internet do you have?

          • Disqusdmnj

            More than enough. : )

          • David Kelly

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE9H6U9bjLI I have watched quite a few but I’m not sure if I’ve seen this one. Here you go. Talk to you in 2 hours. Tell me what you think.

          • Disqusdmnj

            I think I need to watch no longer after seeing him at 2:00:xx, stating God is the creator of all things, therefore evolution is false. And yes, I just kept skipping around his inanity until I got to the point where he went to yet another Bible quote to “prove” God, but not actually *disprove* evolution.

            (Let me also add how thrilled I am that I never had someone as boring as Paulson as a professor. Sure, he’s actually correct… but man, how about evolving some personality!)

            So anyway, please provide the SCIENTIFIC sources that disprove evolution, that don’t require bringing up more Bible quotes, or the silly concept that universes must have a starting point, but deities don’t.

          • David Kelly

            Last time I watched his debates he gave lots of evidence against evolution. I think you are being distracted by what he is saying about God and the Bible. Minus that he gives some solid evidence. Because in the bible in it tells us in 1 Corinthians 2 14″But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Hearing Kent Hovind talk about God and heaven is probably something that sounds like baloney to you. Because you can’t scientifically prove God exists. The Bible teaches a six day creation and that God created the earth. Also people say well if the universe was created who created God? We have the idea that God exists in the same laws we do. Dr.Kent Hovind says in some of his other tapes that we are the ones stuck in time. God does not exist in time, we do. God is not getting old and he has always been there. You see this barrier of spiritual discernment makes it hard to talk to you in a way.

          • David Kelly

            But you seem slightly smarter than the average person. I would like to talk to you about this. Can I get you to read something if I can find it?

          • Disqusdmnj

            And I could give you more hours of actual scientific proof of evolution than you have hours left in your life. But see, even you couldn’t go a paragraph without a Bible quote, so yes, that does sort of disqualify your argument for me…. because while popular, it’s just a book of stories (just like the Torah I grew up with).

            And yes, I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, but you can’t prove he does. So why don’t we settle on this… evolution is true (it is), but we don’t yet know how it got its start. You believe a deity got all this going, I’ll wait for science to get a better understanding of it. It’s simply the “god of the gaps” concept… we know more and more about our world thanks to science, so there’s less need for a potential deity to be the cause of any of it. What we don’t yet know, you claim is an act of God, and I’ll be comfortable not yet knowing the answer. Agreed?

          • Oboehner

            Nye does it all the time, evolution is a religion.

      • Harry Oh!

        What’s your creation myth?

        • Paul Hiett

          BBT

          • Harry Oh!

            BBT is mentioned in Genesis 1 and modern science supports it. But what caused the BB is the question that you Darwin clones can’t answer.

          • Paul Hiett

            And you think that your choice of a religion, which believes a story written a few thousand years ago is somehow accurate?

            Also, there is no mention of the BBT in Genesis. None. Where did you come up with that idea?

          • Harry Oh!

            A lot more accurate than your unproven, unproveable fairy taley that everything came out of nothing, for no reason and no purpose to mean absolutely nothing. Read gen 1:1, I’m sure even you can figure it out.

          • Paul Hiett

            Vs the idea that some invisible, all power creature that somehow has always existed snapped his fingers and made everything, starting with the Earth.

            Yeah, that makes much more sense.

          • Harry Oh!

            So who’s the BB finger snapper in your religion?

          • The Last Trump

            Magic. Now THAT makes much MORE sense, doesn’t it?
            What a bunch of fools. They really need to sit and think a little bit about the fairy tale they so strongly believe in, and for no apparent reason whatsoever. Other than hating the notion of God of course.

          • D Sims

            Paul, you are simply quoting off the same script other non-creationists use in their arguments. The simple truth is, biblical accounts when studied on the basis of language and context completely merges when compared with nature and true science. I am not speaking about how young creationists interpret things but how the study of the old Hebrew language in comparison to modern physics end up painting a beautiful creation story.

            As far as age of any document they always vary. Besides that, long before writing and hieroglyphics there was a great tradition of oral history passed down over thousands of years. This is why you will find similar creation stories that differ depending on the culture and where they live.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      Please cite your sources for these scientists who are shaken up at how fine tuned our universe is. I believe you will be unable to produce an actual scientist who believes the universe started 6 – 10 thousand years ago, in accordance with Genesis.

      • Jerry_In_IL

        LOGICAL ERROR ALERT – CATEGORY MISTAKE: Age and fine tuning have nothing to do with each other. Now, the fact is that many scientists recognize the fine tuning of the universe and the problem it presents for naturalism, while accepting the notion that the universe is 14+ billion years old. If you want names check out evolutionnews.org for starters.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          Hilarious that you invoke logic. Also these articles are mostly written by employees of the Discovery Institute who advocate for intelligent design. You’re posting propoganda, not proof.

          • Oboehner

            Why don’t you hit us with some of your evolutionism religious propaganda then?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            Try going to a first grade science class for starters. Also, stay away from Ken Ham’s diorama of Jesus riding a dinosaur for your scientific theories.

          • Oboehner

            You first, then try and actually post some facts instead of asinine attempts at being witty, it fails miserably.

          • Jerry_In_IL

            Now you have committed the genetic fallacy, basing your objection on the origin of information. The relationship of the Discovery Institute and the writers is not relevant to the truth of what they write. You should concern yourself with checking out the truth of the information and not make biased assumptions. If you took the time to actually read the evidence for ID (much of which is peer reviewed) you might learn something. Or maybe you are one of those people who goes to Amazon and gives negative reviews on books you haven’t read because you don’t like the subject matter.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            I tried to choke down an article about how evolution isn’t real because medical researchers don’t use the term “evolve”. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/a_darwinian_bio093811.html . I found it pointless and full of fallacies for you to point out. Basically what I’m telling you is that this is propaganda.

          • Jerry_In_IL

            You sort of missed the point of that article. There was no attempt to disprove evolution (in fact, proponents of ID affirm micro-evolution). The point of that particular article was the irrelevance of evolution to medical research. The fact that you had to “choke down” the article is evidence that you aren’t objective. BTW, if there were logical fallacies in the article, would you mind pointing out one or two?

        • alnga

          or icr.org this site will put you in touch with scientist not philosophers.

          • Paul Hiett

            The Institute for Creation Research.

            Nope, no bias there…

          • Oboehner

            Bill Nye, nope no bias there…

      • Harry Oh!

        Genesis doesn’t say that.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.[2] Its primary adherents are those Christians and Jews[3] who, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis, believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days. — from Wikipedia, but it should be relatively accurate.

          • Harry Oh!

            Lots of us don’t subscribe to that theory, especially when modern science proves an old earth (but young humans) and a distinct beginning. It all starts to make sense the more we know.

      • alnga

        Actually you are quite lazy because those that have amended their views are in print. Look them up start with icr.org

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          All of you need to get it through your heads that the Institute for Creation Research is not a source. By their own words they are only interested in proving biblical creation. If ACTUAL SCIENCE had found any proof that the biblical creation story were real then that is the avenue they would have pursued.

          • Oboehner

            The we have nothing on evolutionism, because any evolutionists are only interested in proving their religion – no ACTUAL SCIENCE there either then.

      • RDH1988

        Actually there are thousands…do YOUR research!

        • Paul Hiett

          No, there aren’t. Not real scientists.

          • Oboehner

            Now we have that crap, “all scientists believe in evolutionism, so therefore anyone who doesn’t follow that religion is not a scientist” opinion, and a useless one at that.

          • MisterPine

            Evolution is not a religion.

          • Oboehner

            Because you say so? Hardly.

          • MisterPine

            I think you are dead from the neck up.

          • Oboehner

            I’m not the one claiming some religious belief is fact when I can’t even answer a simple foundational question.

          • MisterPine

            No, you’re just peeing your pants because no one’s joining the religion you have started about wanting to call evolution a religion, even though it’s taught in science class where creationism is not. I’ll bet that really burns you. Too bad the world is rooted in logic and reason, and not faith and fairy tales.

          • Oboehner

            Sad, your desperation is showing. “Too bad the world is rooted in logic and reason, and not faith and fairy tales.” Too bad evolutionism is rooted in faith and fairy tales.

          • MisterPine

            LOL yes, how terribly desperate I am that I only need to open a science book or website or a dictionary to refute your bizarre fundie claims.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz….

          • MisterPine

            Zzzzzz….

          • lynn

            Evolution can only be a faith as it cannot be proven. Faith is a religion. Therefore what are you left with? Evolution is a religion.

          • Tim Raynor

            Can’t be proven? Then tell us why you need a flu shot every year, genius?

          • lynn

            I don’t take flu shots. Matter of fact I haven’t seen a doctor in 30 years. I haven’t had a need. 69 years old and still working. So you need to come up with a new angle Genious.

          • Tim Raynor

            I have not been to a doc in years either, but it was not the point of my comment. If you fail to comprehend what I wrote, then you obviously need an education in science. Or at least an education in English comprehension genius. 😉

          • lynn

            My comprehension might very well be bad, but what you just said doesn’t even make sense. Did you not ask me why I needed a flu shot every year? I, in a most simple way told you that I don’t take flu shots. Is that hard for you to deal with? What does that have to do with my ability to comprehend? But if it will turn your crank, I will let you win. Comprehendy?

          • lynn

            I think I understand. You need a few more straws to complete your straw man . Can you comprehend that?

          • MisterPine

            Evolution’s been observed. It occurs.

          • lynn

            I can’t argue that. We all know that there are some diseases that have evolved. Some insects and germs have evolved and become immune to insecticides and antibiotics. I will give you that. But there is no evidence that all living things have evolved from a few living cells to what they are today.

    • John

      “In fact, all indicators point to a match with the order of events as listed in the book of Genesis.”
      If God made every sort of grass, seed bearing plants, and trees on day #3 but he didn’t make the sun until day #4, how did the grass, plants and trees survive? Besides light for photosythesis, without the sun the temperature on earth would be absolute zero (-273C or -460F). We need to have the sun first for anything to exist.

      • RDH1988

        Because Himself was the light present at that time…and it was only ONE day …good grief…if God can make it all, can He sustain it for one day?…you need to make your idea of God bigger…

        • John

          The light from the sun was not the problem. The heat we get from the sun is the problem. Nothing living would survive a second without the heat from the sun.

          • ronyboy40 .

            jesus said he is the light,, he also said , he is the way the truth and the LIFE..and he conquered death at the cross, was in hell for 3 days ,, then rose again..amen,, praise the god of the most high

          • John

            Amen. I agree with everything you stated but what does it have to do with the creation story being out of order? The sun would have to come before the grass, plants and trees.

          • ronyboy40 .
      • lynn

        Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
        Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
        Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
        Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
        Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

        Somehow I see light on the first day.

        • John

          It certainly does seem like the sun was providing light on day #1 as the light also produces day and night. If the source of light was the Spirit of God, wouldn’t that light cover the entire earth and there would be no day and night at that time? God is everywhere. The light source of the sun however would produce sun on only half of the earth.

          • Albert Bricker Jr

            No God was providing light on the First day.

      • http://paulandsabrinasevstuff.com/ Paul Holmes

        I think it was a poetic device to show them that it is not to be worshiped. Just created things, not even created first. That it was just a functional thing, created for our benefit was NOT standard at that time. People worshiped the sun, moon, and stars. The one thing they would have known then was that you have to have the sun for there to be a morning and evening.

      • hernan cadut

        “fined-tuned” that’s a good point. “fine-tuning is impossible to occur after a massive explosion (big bang) Big bang will only produce disorder, nothing else.

      • Rafael Rodriguez

        How dare you question God, who are you?

    • oregon_man

      Total nonsense you read from creationist propaganda.

  • TheBBP

    LOL, the ever-evolving (pun intended) theory of evolution. They just jump from theory to theory regardless of the facts at hand. You are to be ridiculed if you don’t believe in their brand of faith… and then ridiculed again if you don’t believe their new flavor of faith when they cannot sell their old faith anymore.

    It amazes me that they find it in themselves to mock a belief in a Creator when their own “science” requires an equal leap of faith.

    • Paul Hiett

      The difference is, they don’t give up researching and looking for the answers. Science is why humanity has progressed to the point we have. Religion is why we haven’t progressed as much as we could have.

      • TheBBP

        They are not interested in truth, they are only interested in the answer being “Not Creation”, so they manufacture answers. I never labeled all science as bad, I am talking about the incredible amount of faith that it takes to buy into big bang science.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          Talk about manufacturing answers to suit your needs. You completely ignore the fact that the planet is BILLIONS of years old to suit your needs!

        • Paul Hiett

          No one has “manufactured” an answer…that’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest.

          So it requires an incredible amount of faith to believe the Big Bang, but not the idea that a magical man in the sky snapped his fingers and created everything.

          The irony escapes you entirely?

          • TheBBP

            What are you going on about lol? Christianity is all about faith. Just like belief in big bang and the theory of evolution.

            I believe that we were a conscious creation by an all-powerful Creator. You believe that we are a cosmic accident. I’d say that both stances require a good amount of faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            At least with the BBT, we do have evidence to look at.

            Creation is 100% faith based with not a single shred of evidence.

          • lynn

            Yet it only takes a simple faith to believe in God. most spend a life time trying to dis-prove God while Christians simply believe what He said. Your ancestors may have been monkeys or apes, but mine go all the way back to Adam, and they end there.

            1Jn_3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

      • Oboehner

        Too bad evolutionism isn’t science.

  • http://textsincontext.wordpress.com Michael Snow

    Atheists will cheer this news. Many want to disprove that Big Bang as it implies a beginning and they desire an infinite universe rather than an infinite God. https://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/creation-young-earth-ham-nye-genesis-one/

    • Paul Hiett

      As an atheist, I simply find that the news presents more challenges, and I’m glad they don’t give up looking. The truth is, we might never know how the universe was formed, or how life began. The point is to never stop searching for answers.

    • https://twitter.com/mickskeptic Michael Stone-Richard

      Atheism has nothing to do with astronomy or physics — atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. As an atheist, I neither cheer nor jeer this news — it’s only science doing what it does best: policing itself the way no religion ever can.

  • Ray Watson

    what difference does it make ?

  • alnga

    The truth has been properly recorded for four thousand years and the true Science is out in left field still. Science shows daily that there had to be a creator. The laws of probabilities and chance show that there is not even a remote chance of all of this plus Humans could be random. They keep adding billions of years to the probable age to make their numbers work out and still fail.

    • Paul Hiett

      Your “argument” is nothing more than a rehash of the “god of the gaps” argument. You don’t know, so you fill it in with whatever religious choice your parents made for you.

    • Gary

      They can add as much time as they want, but it won’t help. Chance is nothing, and cannot make anything happen.

  • Mark Rose

    And I’m sure these scientists will be quoted for years, paid for speaking engagements and this retraction never posted to the mainstream media. What else is new concerning old-age cosmologies…

  • Reason2012

    It only shows how those who reject the truth of God have hijacked science to promote their own belief system off as science. Hence “Darwin day” and why not “big bang day”. The bottom line is the topic of origins (of the universe, or of life, or of all biological diversity of life) are beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table and reasons they believe in it.

  • RDH1988

    Even if there was a big bang…it was God’s doing…I’ll bet when He created there was a pretty big bang…He is pretty exciting after all!

    • lynn

      You have to remember that scientist says it is a fact that a tree that falls in the forest doesn’t make a sound if there is not an ear there to hear it. If they are right then there was no big bang.

  • Walter C Boutwell

    I find the most disturbing part of this is the “wanting” of the researchers to find their preferred outcome. It denies the basic objectivity of the process, lends suspicion to any future breath-less announcements and generally looks pretty amateurish.

    • Paul Hiett

      Wanting something to be true, yet having the scruples to admit when they don’t find what they expected, is the mark of any good scientist.

      Religion should learn from these types of people.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Praise the Lord! The Creator God knows all and that’s why His Word is true forever! We are looking into a designed, finished universe created by Him!

  • https://twitter.com/mickskeptic Michael Stone-Richard

    Because some scientists got something wrong does not automatically translate to what the Bible says being the truth. Notice that it was other scientists that pointed out the flaws in the research and that the researchers have retracted their bold statements — that’s how science works.

    Maybe it’s time Christians started pointing out all the flaws in the Bible.

    At least scientists all agree on their methodology, and when they do make a mistake, they own up to it. If they didn’t and are caught, their careers would be over.

  • Gary

    If they could prove there was a “big bang” how would that help any of their arguments? It would not answer any of the questions that need an answer.

  • robyn Hefferan

    Well it always takes courage to acknowledge mistakes, and more so in this hot arena. Hats off to them. We live in an era where it is more frequent to have wrongs and mistakes covered up with more falsities.

  • http://dadmansabode.com/ Robert Cleary

    http://www.gty.org/products/Audio-Series/255/The-Battle-for-the-Beginning ….. Everyone knows that evolutionists and creationists dispute how the universe began. And regardless of which side of the battle line you’re on, most people harbor strong feelings about the issue of origins.

    Yet there are a host of important questions at the core of the battle that relatively few in either camp have bothered to ask—much less answer:

    Why is the issue of origins so universally controversial?
    How can creationists support biblical claims that so obviously seem to contradict modern science?
    Whose side of the argument does scientific evidence support?
    What roles should science and the Bible play in a person’s beliefs about the physical universe?

    With the curiosity of a student and the precision of a veteran Bible teacher, John MacArthur takes you to the heart of the battle in his study The Battle for the Beginning. Based on an in-depth examination of Genesis chapter 1, The Battle for the Beginning takes you on an instructive, fascinating journey into the Bible’s own claims about creation, evolution, and the vital issues at stake.

  • Roger Peritone

    Uh….no. How would this in any way show that “genesis” is correct? If anything, they figure that the universe is older than they thought it was.

  • Disqusdmnj

    The beauty of science is it’s self-correcting. When it has proven to be wrong – and it will countless more times – it admits it, and continues on to search for what can be proven without fail. It’d be nice if other ideologies could change their thinking this way as well.

    For those who may be interested in learning more about the actual science: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/03/galactic-dust-sounds-death-knell-for-bicep2-gravitational-wave-claim

    • John_33

      The beauty of science is it’s self-correcting. When it has proven to be wrong – and it will countless more times – it admits it, and continues on to search for what can be proven without fail. It’d be nice if other ideologies could change their thinking this way as well.

      You have a skewed sense of science. The beauty of science is not that it’s self-correcting; the beauty of science is in the pursuit of truth and only truth. If we keep running from one false theory to the next, then there’s no guarantee that we will find anything true. We can’t trust that science will sort out fact from fiction. Many flawed scientific theories were not overturned because of some mythical ‘scientific’ process. They were overturned because brave men and women discovered the truth and chose to stand up against the dominant theories. Without their decision to do so, ignorance would have remained (this was the case for some scientific theories that lasted for over 1500 years).

      Even worse, incorrect science has caused great harm throughout history. What about the forced sterilization programs that occurred in the early 20th century throughout the Western world? What beauty can there possibly be when thousands were forcibly sterilized against their will simply because they were disabled? In what way can we begin to tell them that the beauty of science is that it’s self-correcting? Or how about the introduction of the lobotomy? Can we tell people that the beauty of science is that it’s self-correcting even though is can be wrong? Or how about bloodletting? It’s considered now to have been a factor in George Washington’s death. What do we say to people and family members of those who have suffered or died over false or incorrect science?

      We can tell them the truth. Real science works and is a wonderful process, but error needs to be combatted no matter how popular or entrenched it is. Lives are at stake. That’s why this matters so much. There’s nothing beautiful about that.

      • Disqusdmnj

        In much of what you said, I agree with you. But you are also proving my point. Science – if done properly – accepts when it is confronted with new evidence, and changes its direction accordingly. The team in question thought it got closer to explaining the Big Bang, but they had incorrect data, so they go back to the drawing board. Sure, lives are always at stake when it comes to medical science; we are always learning more about our own bodies and how we interact with and are affected by our environments. But this article is simply an attempt to explain how our universe began… and maybe just *this* time, but they got it wrong.

        Eventually though, they’ll get it right. ; )

        • John_33

          It’s similar, but it’s not the same thing. It’s incorrect to say that the beauty of science is that it self-corrects. Science itself is never wrong; only our understanding of science can be (an important distinction to make). My point was not that incorrect science has been used for evil (although it certainly has). My point is that flawed science used with even the best of intentions has resulted in the death or injury of thousands. Isn’t that the logical result of bad science? If knowledge benefits people and saves lives, then ignorance harms people and kills lives. That’s why it’s so important to get even the smallest of things right. We can’t grow lax and think that science will right itself out. History is rife with too many examples of error to sit back now. All error was caused by human judgement and all errors will need to be corrected the same way. There’s no scientific ‘system’ that oversees the process.

          • Disqusdmnj

            Ah… well explained!

  • Keith Jigleeottee

    Do you guys sniff glue before you write this tripe?

  • Truthhurts24

    And the wise will become fools just like The Bible said

    • lynn

      As the bible says, they are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

      • Truthhurts24

        Amen

    • Guest

      A hahaha, you actually believe that crap. The bible is crap.

      • Truthhurts24

        The joke will be on you my friend in the end of this life so if I were you it would be wise to give your life to Christ Jesus. People also laughed at the myth of the earth being round in the ancient times but they were shocked to find out it was not a myth but true.

  • Treefoot

    This may be characterized as a blunder, but the whole narrative exemplifies how science really works. Attempts to confirm results actually disputed them, and the original claim was retracted in the face of new evidence. That’s how it’s supposed to work, is it not? What other means of determining the truth are self correcting?

  • http://www.genreville.com/ Josh Jasper

    Science is a religion, ergo religions are science (A=B, therefore B=A) which means religions

    (a) Develop hypothesis to explain the physical world
    (b) Conduct experiments that can be replicated and verified using scientific equipment and mathematical modeling
    (c) By thier very nature revise and reject hypothesis that have been conclusively disproven and reach actual consensus across all religions.

    No, wait, religions don’t do that. Science does that.

    But religions are science and science is a religion, at least according to people here. If religions don’t do that, and (a) (b) and (c) above are the literal definition of science and not religion, well, it must be that religion can simply re-write logic at the drop of a hat and make anything mean what he wants it to mean as long as it’s religion in the drivers seat.

    • Karl Mamer

      Christians make the mistake of only cherry picking similarities between science and religion, yet ignoring the important differences. It’s like if you only looked at the similarities between a cat and dog, you’d be forced to concluded a cat is a dog. After all, they both have fur, tails, teeth designed to eat meat, have litters, nurse their young…

  • jdumon

    And what if we consider that the Aliens who sowed the life on Earth would be angels under the guidance of a God ?

  • sammy13

    “Let there be light” must have caused a tremendously huge ‘big bang’!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Those who reject God’s Word waste the lifetime. Man must acknowledge God and live.

  • Karl Mamer

    A great example of how science self corrects with peer review. What’s the problem, exactly?

  • Joe Soap

    “A team of astronomers who jubilantly announced last year that they had found proof of the Big Bang have now retracted their statements, admitting that their evidence was faulty.”

    God botherers would never do this. It appears that their “evidence” is never faulty. Why don’t you try a new pack of lies. This one is getting tired.