‘Get ’Em Young’: Evolutionists Praise New Book Teaching Children About Their ‘Grandmother Fish’

Grandmother FishSEATTLE – An evolution-promoting author has released an illustrated children’s book, titled “Grandmother Fish,” that uses whimsical text and drawings to convince preschoolers that they are the products of evolution and the descendants of animals.

“Grandmother Fish: a child’s first book of Evolution” is a 40-page children’s book written by Jonathan Tweet. The book begins by introducing its readers to a fish from whom all humans supposedly descended.

“This is our Grandmother Fish,” the book’s opening line says. “She lived a long, long, long, long, long time ago.”

“She could wiggle and swim fast,” the next page says. “Can you wiggle?”

Tweet then introduces other important figures in the evolutionary tree—a reptile, a mammal, an ape, and then a primitive human. Other creatures, including sharks, dinosaurs, horses, whales, and elephants, are described as “cousins.” The book closes with a description of evolutionary concepts for parents to explain to their children.

Tweet, who is a Seattle-based game designer and evolution promoter, hopes “Grandmother Fish” will cause young children to accept evolution.

“The book engages a young child’s imagination with sounds and motions that imitate animals, especially our direct ancestors,” he wrote on his website. “The book lets children see for themselves that we are related in form and function to the nonhuman animals that came before us. It’s our story of where we came from, told so simply that a preschooler can follow it.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Since the book’s recent release, various evolutionists have enthusiastically endorsed it.

“Aren’t kids of this age too little to be taught evolution?” asked NPR’s Barbara King. “My answer is no—not too young.”

“We all know by now that more than 40 percent of Americans say that God created human beings in our present form in the last 10,000 years,” King continued. “…That dismal situation cries out for big efforts in science education and … there’s hard evidence to show that the storybook route can be effective in kids’ mastery of evolutionary concepts.”

P.Z. Myers, an ardent atheist and outspoken evolutionist, praised Tweet’s book as “a great idea” that will make kids believe evolution from an early age.

“Get ’em young,” he wrote on his blog.

However, Dr. Georgia Purdom, a geneticist with Answers in Genesis, described “Grandmother Fish” as “deceptive” and “sad.” Tweet’s book, Purdom wrote in an online review, promotes several flawed arguments.

“The book compares animal behavior to human behavior,” she stated. “…This seduces children into thinking because they can do the same types of things they must be related to the animals.”

“Well, certainly children can wiggle (every parent can attest to this!), but that doesn’t mean humans are related to fish,” she explained. “It’s no secret that humans and animals have some similar behaviors, but as we have reported many, many times before this isn’t because of shared ancestry. Instead, God designed animals to be intelligent, but their intelligence pales in comparison to that of humans who are made in the image of God.”

“Grandmother Fish” claims that evolution unfolded over hundreds of millions of years. But Purdom says, scientifically, that is impossible.

“As a professional geneticist, I can attest to the fact that time is not the key but rather what is needed is a genetic mechanism that adds new and novel information so that organisms can evolve from fish to humans,” she stated. “The problem is that with all the thousands of papers published on mutations, no such mechanism has ever been observed.”

“All the time in the world is useless if there is no genetic mechanism to add what is needed for molecules-to-man evolution,” she said.

Photo: Facebook


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
  • afchief

    So the Devil was smart with Evolution. He told the big lie: “In the beginning, God didn’t create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!”

    This doctrine of delusion has become the general theme of modern so-called science, and is therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the “great principle” of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths. And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much less the foundation or the basis of other truths.

    There is no proof for evolution! It has to be believed, therefore it’s a faith, therefore it’s a religion! Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in God. Therefore it is a LIE!!!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What would you need to see to consider evolution a fact?

      • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

        He’s in a state of willful ignorance.

      • afchief

        Explain to me how life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process — POOF — life created itself!

        This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that “All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity.

        I will repeat; evolution is a LIE!!!!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          So, you’re not going to answer me, then?

          • afchief

            I just did!! There is NO fact for evolution. It is a lie. And you liberals have bought it, hook, line and sinker!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, you didn’t. I asked you what it would take for you to believe that evolution is real, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me. The worldwide consensus of the entire scientific establishment and the thousands upon thousands of books and papers that have been written about it apparently are not enough, so, what is?

          • afchief

            I sure did! Einstein proved that anything material to exist has to have length, breadth, height, depth and one more, probably the most important one “TIME” it needs time to exist. So the evolution/creation debate has to go back in time to the actual beginning of time or nothing material could scientifically exist. Time can’t result from an explosion as there would be nothing in existence to explode!

            I will repeat; evolution is a LIE!

            In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so since you consistently refuse to answer, I’ll just read between the lines.

            Nothing. Nothing will convince you that evolution is true, because you aren’t open to being convinced. If you are so firmly, obsessively convinced of your own rightness that you’ll ignore the mountains of evidence available to you, and torture any other science you feel like in order to maintain your belief, then clearly nothing will convince you because you’re not listening.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            So you’re not going to answer him, then?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Not until he answers me, no. I asked first.

          • afchief

            I would need to see how something was made from nothing.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, but nothing about the Theory of Evolution says that “something was made from nothing.”

          • afchief

            LOL! OK, enlighten me on how “something” came into being.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are we talking about the Theory of Evolution or not? If so, “the creation of all existence” has nothing to do with it.

            If we’re not talking about the ToE, then let’s get back on topic.

          • afchief

            I am talking about the Theory of Evolution. It is the basis for the belief in evolution.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so now we’re pinned down.

            The ToE states that, in every generation, each individual will randomly develop certain traits. We’ll call the individual A.

            If one of A’s traits offers a benefit to A over other individuals of A’s species (B, C, and D), then A will outcompete B, C and D for food. B, C, and D will die before repriducing. A will reproduce, and all of its offspring with the trait will outcompete their peers as well. A’s descendants will thrive, and B, C, and D’s will lose out and die.

            What is controversial about this?

          • afchief

            You are getting off subject! What you posted is NOT what I’m talking about.

            Tell me how life was created from non-life?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What? The ToE is not abiogenesis!

          • afchief

            Yes it is!!!! You atheists do not believe in a creator. I will ask you again!!!

            Tell me how life was created from non-life?

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            You’re a poopy head.

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        All you need to see to consider evolution a fact is this book. Once you see it, you can consider it. You can consider it a fact. You’ll like it. It’s at your level. It’s also fishy, which you will appreciate. Actually, you don’t need to consider anything, because you’ve made up your mind about the facts. However, the facts have also made up their mind about you, but you’re not paying attention. And now, a question: if you were a brainless troll, would you ask an irrelevant question?

    • SFBruce

      Since belief in God, or any diety, is a matter of faith rather than empirical data, by your logic, every single faith tradition, Christiany included, is a LIE!!! According to National Geographic magazine, hardly a socialist rag, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

      • afchief

        Jesus said in John 14:6 (NASB) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

        and in Acts 4:12

        Acts 4:12 (NASB) And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

        If we can agree that we are all sinners and sin is what separates us from God, Jesus is the only God that came to earth and died for everyone’s sins if would accept his sacrifice for them.

        If science is supposed to be a quest for knowledge, why do not scientists even CONSIDER the possibility of intelligent design? The reason why is the same reason you bring up your question of God: It’s because Darwinism Evolution is a RELIGION that competes with faith in God the Creator! If you cannot see that, it’s because you have been brainwashed by the media as most of the world has been. Just because 97% of American scientists believe a lie doesn’t make it truth. The majority of Americans are deceived by the System.

        Jesus said the way is narrow and straight that leads to heave and few find it. The way is broad and crooked that leads to hell and most take it.

        Which road are you on?

        • Jade

          Jesus is also quoted as saying “And I assure you that some of you standing here right now will not die before you see me, the Son of Man, coming in my Kingdom”. How did that work out for them?

          • afchief

            Mark 9:1 (NASB) And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

            This is talking about Jesus’s resurrection after his death.

            Luke 17:21 (NASB) 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

            Jesus is the Kingdom of God. And when we accept Him as our Lord and Savior His Spirit comes to live within us. The Kingdom of God is within us!

          • Jade

            Actually I was quoting Matthew 16:28. Verse 27 states “For I , the Son of Man, will come with his angles and will judge all people according to their deeds”.. 28 “And I assure you that some of you standing here right now will not die before you see me …” This is just one of many scriptures that clearly show the writers of the NT believed that the 2nd coming going to occur was very, very soon. And the past 2000 years proved them wrong.

          • afchief

            For one, do not try to understand the Word of God. The natural man (you) cannot understand it. You have to have the Spirit of God within you.

            1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

            And two, Jesus is talking one of two possible things here. He is either talking about his transfiguration in the next verses Matt 17:1-3 or He is talking about His Holy Spirit coming to earth to live within us Christians after His ascension into heaven.

            We Christians know Jesus is coming back to get His bride. And His return is very soon.

          • Jade

            You remind me of a guy who told me that God speaks to him. God told him that all of the denominations are wrong but only he is being told the truth by the Spirit of God. You people must have some form of mental illness if you really believe this or you are con artists using “smoke and mirrors” like the Wizard from Oz. If you do not believe the early writers were absolutely certain that the “end of the world”; the “2nd coming of Christ” was going to happen today, if not tomorrow, then you are delusional.

          • afchief

            2 Peter 3:4-8 (NASB) and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

          • Jade

            I would have predicted your latest response. You went and used the scripture that was the anomaly. The book called 2 Peter was written long after Peter’s death, by someone who was disturbed that some people were denying that the end was coming soon (by now it was obvious that the belief was WRONG) so the author needed to do damage control and he did so by claiming to be none other that Simon Peter, Jesus’ right-hand man. There is so much “smoke and mirrors” in life with religion being responsible for the greatest amount of deceit in order to maintain power and control.

          • afchief

            Hebrews 4:12 (NASB) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

          • Jade

            So you are telling me that the word of God says “happy shall they be who takes your (Babylonian) little ones, and dash them against the rock”. Knocking the brains out of the Babylonian babies in retaliation for what their father-soldiers did sounds like a vicious thing for your God to do.

    • John N

      ‘So the Devil was smart with Evolution. He told the big lie: “In the beginning, God didn’t create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!”

      Afchief, as usual you show here that you don’t even understand the basics of evolution. And proud of it!

      I don’t seem to find your quote anywhere in your holy book. You’re not lying about this, do you? Not only proud of your ignorance, but also lying to debunk scientific theories? Wonder what your deity will think about that?

      • afchief

        Creation by God is far easier to believe than Evolution because of the principle of There is no design without a Designer. Evolution has no designer. If you found a wristwatch in the middle of a field would you say it happened to be there because it evolved from the ground? Out DNA is programming, FAR more complex than a watch or even all the programming that goes into the space shuttles of past days! There is no programming without a Programmer.

        I’ll say it again, evolution is a LIE!!!

  • Josey

    When asked, “Aren’t kids of this age too little to be taught evolution?” asked NPR’s Barbara King. “My answer is no—not too young.” and P.Z. Myers, an ardent atheist and outspoken evolutionist, praised Tweet’s book as “a great idea” that will make kids believe evolution from an early age.
    “Get ’em young,” he wrote on his blog.

    In other words you mean brainwash them, satan is twisting God’s word again where in God’s word it says in Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it, one reason satan uses these people to get these kids while they are so young. No matter what they teach at school what will stick with the child is what they are taught at home for they will believe their parents or caregivers over the school every time and that teaching can go either for their good or for their bad. One of the reasons I strongly believe that homosexuals should not raise children or transgenders for they will pass that on to the child in either abuse or by confusing and brainwashing their little minds with their own issues with sexuality. Jesus gives a stern warning to those who hurt little innocent children in Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
    The only problem with satan’s twisting of God’s word to use for his own pleasure is satan knows he cannot stop the work or plans of God, satan knows his time is short, he just wants to take down as many people with him as he can to hurt God for he hates God and His Holiness, satan was kicked out of heaven because he wants to be god so he flatters these idiots who believe in this garbage and gets then to think they know it all when in reality they haven’t a clue.
    I wasn’t raised in church but when they taught evolution in school to me and my friends, we just simply knew it was nuts, we laughed at their theories. I didn’t understand God as Creator but I knew I didn’t come from a tadpole, fish or whatever they want to call it.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Since you don’t support teaching evolution to young children because it’s “brainwashing,” do you also not support teaching religion to children for the same reason? Or, anything, really?

  • Mark Moore

    Why would religionists single out evolution? All branches of science refute the Biblical account of creationism. Chemistry, physics, geology, radiology and all the rest debunk the Bible creation story in various ways.

    It is interesting to note that Christians regularly run to atheistic science when sick, injured or needing to make money but then praise Jesus for the results they get with godless science. If Christianity disappeared tomorrow without a trace the world would continue just about the way it did yesterday but if atheistic science disappeared tomorrow billions would die from starvation and disease in the first year.

    God has never showed up in any scientific experiment and is necessary in no mathematical equation.

    • Pererin

      Your deceptive and false ‘atheistic science’ was developed over thousands of your by theists such as Pascal, Boyle, Brunfels, Faraday, Babbage, Whewell, Mendel, Kelvin, Townes, Ertl, Planck, Stark, Hertz and hundreds others and those are only the Christians.

      How arrogant to claim science for yourself. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, it has no religion. Christians run to the knowledge learned over thousands of years by people of all world views. It’s child like to claim that science belongs to atheism. Laughable even. Atheism has also not shown up in any scientific experiment and is also not necessary in any mathematical equation. It’s like me asking you what colour is the number three. Colour and number have nothing to do with each other so to ask such a question is silly. Similarly world view and science have no relation and should not be expected to appear together. When world view and science combine, negative things tend to happen. False assumptions leading to false theories (e.g. molecules to man evolution, the big bang). The problem is that pure unbias is impossible because we all have a world view and will always interpret information (science) through that lens.

      But if you are looking for some proof for God then you need to look in the very place you speak. Science, or more fundamentally, information.
      In an atheistic world, why should any natural laws exist? What is there order in the universe. Why is there natural code e.g. DNA? In a Godless undesigned, chaotic, senseless world view such as atheism to suggest that order should reign is impossible. Information is key, information is the signature of a designer. To suggest otherwise is illogical, unless you throw your atheistic faith into the equation, but then you are no better than the theist, which of course you are not. Atheism is just another faith based world view to throw on the stock pile. Just another ‘religion’ full of it’s own priests and faithful followers.

      Check your world view, I’m not sure you understand it.

      • John N

        >’Your deceptive and false ‘atheistic science’ was developed over thousands of years by theists such as Pascal, Boyle, Brunfels, Faraday, Babbage, Whewell, Mendel, ..’

        And they all did it without ever including any deity or any holy books in their theories.

        >’In an atheistic world, why should any natural laws exist?’
        What do you mean with ‘natural law’? Do you mean scientific ‘laws’ of physics, biology, etc? In that case, they have been explicitely defined by humans to account for empirical observations of some behaviour. What did you think?

        >’Why is there order in the universe?’
        Again, what do you mean with ‘order’ in the universe? Do you mean the behaviour of milky ways, stars, planets and moons? All explained by gravity.

        >’Why is there natural code e.g. DNA?’
        DNA is a chemical molecule. It evolved through mutation and natural selection. Next question?

        >’In a Godless undesigned, chaotic, senseless world view such as atheism, to suggest that order should reign is impossible’
        And of course you have all the evidence for that at hand.

        >’Why stop there, why should logic exist without a mind, intelligence?’

        Again, why not?

        • Pererin

          >’And they all did it without ever including any deity or any holy books in their theories.

          Well at least your not saying that they aren’t real scientists. The point is that science was developed mostly by theists not atheists. Theists who believed in a creator not everything out of nothing. Atheists love to paint Christians as science hating people which is totally untrue. Today and for thousands of years Christians, other theists and atheists have developed what we now have in science. Is that so hard to agree to?

          >’What do you mean with ‘natural law’? Do you mean scientific ‘laws’ of physics, biology, etc? In that case, they have been explicitely defined by humans to account for empirical observations of some behaviour. What did you think?

          I am referring to the information behind these laws. They don’t just happen. There are rules that they follow. Gravity doesn’t just happen and didn’t just spontaneously happen or appear. All these laws and forces follow rules. In a chaotic orderless existence, why should gravity exist, why shouldn’t gravity just work chaotically without rhyme or reason? Because it has been programmed to work a certain way. The same goes for all the law of science. In a mindless world nothing would make sense or follow any pattern of function. To believe that all scientific laws just exist because they exist is like saying a bird flies because it flies. We know that a bird has an innate preprogrammed function for flying. So, every law, every force, every code, every pattern exists because it was caused. It is not enough to say they exist because we see them working.

          You cannot ignore the intelligence in our world. DNA isn’t just something that mutated and poof here we are. The code means something, this meaning has function, intelligence. This cannot be explained without a mind.
          You happily ignore this because it doesn’t fit your world view. You just say ‘why not?’. Because that is what we observe using science developed of thousands of years, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it would mean that you have a creator and that you are not the authority of over existence. Where there is design, order, pattern, function there is a mind. It is that simple.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

        The universe is fine tuned yes, but evolution is a fine tuning process.

        No doubt all part of God’s plan.

        • afchief

          Wrong! Evolution is a lie!!!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            Why?

          • The Last Trump

            Cause we don’t believe in magic.
            However, a Designer behind clear patterns of complexity of design sure is more palatable isn’t it!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            But that’s what I’m saying!

            What is evolution if not a “clear pattern of complexity “?!

          • ProudAmerican

            I wonder if Darwin anticipated that Christianity would see the Theory of Evolution as a threat to its existence?
            Who would have thought religions would end up pumping out even more preposterous propaganda in a last gasp to survive the 21st century. Next up: Science is dead wrong. Cigarettes are perfectly safe and healthy. DDT is a miracle pesticide and asbestos is a cheap and safe fire retardant that should be in every home. Use lead paint on your kids bedroom walls. Jesus won’t let anything bad happen, as long as you have faith. .

          • The Last Trump

            And nothing created everything.
            By accident.
            For no reason.
            Ahh yes, faith! 🙂

          • afchief

            That’s why!

            Genesis 1:1-19 (NASB) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            All well and good. None of the above rules out evolution.

          • afchief

            Then explain to me how life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process — POOF — life created itself!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            The Lord works in mysterious ways.

          • afchief

            I’m still waiting for an atheist, liberal, or whoever to show me evidence how life started from non-life.

            Waiting………………………………………..

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            Science simply does not have all the answers.

          • afchief

            And therefore evolution is a lie!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            Why?

            Im more likely to believe someone who admits they don’t have all the answers yet than someone who has an answer for everything.

          • afchief

            Without Christ living within you, you do not have all the answers. But with Christ living within you, He leads you into all truth. And there is NO truth in evolution.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            Then I will look for Christs answer to explain why evolution is valid.

          • afchief

            Oh brother!!!

          • SomeRandomPlayer

            What you’re talking about is the subject of abiogenisis, evolution is concerned with how life changes over time, not how life began.

          • afchief

            Evolution is a boldface LIE!!! In `believing` in evolution, we are asked to believe that all of the different forms of life on earth began from a `primeval soup`. No one knows where this `soup` was, or what happened to it. No one can say what happened to suddenly bring forth life from the `soup`. What evidence is there to prove or disprove the theory of evolution? Is evolution a workable explanation for the origin of life on the planet Earth? The purpose of this paper is to present the evidence showing the many misleading `facts` often presented as `proof` that evolution is an undeniable `fact`.

            One of the greatest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there are too many forms of life to have happened by chance, and the building blocks of life are too complex to have just somehow `happened`. Could a cell by chance come into being that “has the DNA instructions to fill one thousand 600-page books?”

            1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and even billions of years could not have produced them.

            2. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic materials) has never been observed.

            3. Mendel’s laws of genetics explain virtually all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation.

            4. The many similarities between different species do not necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common Designer.

            5. The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver, et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

            6. Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.

            7. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.

            8. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; many are fatal.

            9. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.

            10. Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. In addition, no `new` life form has been produced by mutation. No fruit fly `evolved` into a mosquito or a bee.

            11. There is no evidence that mutations could ever produce any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

            12. If the earth, early in its alleged `evolution`, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone, and without ozone all life would be quickly destroyed by the sun’s ultraviolet radiation.

            13. Two aspects ignored by studies of the origin of life are:

            a) The beauty of the different forms of life.

            b) The symmetry of virtually all forms of life.

            Evolutionary scientists ignore these aspects, primarily because these two things suggest a Creator. Virtually all recorded mutations produce malformed, `non-evolutionary` changes in the subject under study.

            14. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed conditions of the early earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the direction opposite from that required. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or the sun’s radiation, would destroy the protein products millions of times faster than they could be formed.

            15. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred — even if the universe were completely filled with proteins, as you will see.

            16. The cells of living creatures are enormously complex. Every part must be present in order for the cell to survive. All the parts have different `jobs`. It is not illogical to state that if you remove any one part, the cell cannot survive. This obviously implies that the parts (ie, the cell membrane, the nucleus, the ribosomes, etc.) had to have come into being at the same time.

            17. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein which is common to 47 forms of animal and plant life. The results of these studies seriously place the theory of evolution into jeopardy.

            18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:

            (a) Start with a meaningful phrase.

            (b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert

            some additional letters.

            (c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.

            (d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

            (e) If it is not, return to step (b).

            To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.

            19. Based on present day observations, DNA can only be replicated or reproduced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other.

            20. Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two forms that are chemically equivalent; about half can be described as “right-handed” and half “left-handed” (a structural description — one is the mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules found in all forms of life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only the left-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.

            21. The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

            22. There are many instances where quite different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, pollen-bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers, and drones. There are many, many others. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal), the other member could not have survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time.

            23. Earthly life forms reproduce after their own kind. Different animals do not inter-breed. This suggests that each of these life forms were distinctly created. Cats and dogs do not interbreed to produce `cat- dogs`. Therefore it is highly unlikely that different life forms were formed by species interbreeding.

          • ProudAmerican

            …and he hauls out the tired old “God of the gaps” ploy. Next Chapter: “you need a watchmaker to make a watch” Coming soon: “prove there is no God” . Like zombies the old arguments come back from the dead.

          • afchief

            Waiting…………………………………………..

        • SomeRandomPlayer

          And you’d be in the same camp as the Deists on that front. Unfortunately it’s not something too many people ascribe to these days, but in its peak it was a wonderful example of a group of people that saw science and religion as working in tandem. Today, people in it are mostly just attacked by people in both the camps of science and religion unfortunately.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            It is unfortunate. Everyone is quibbling, and not on merit. More like: “I don’t like how you describe something because that’s not how people around here talk.”

            Even though we’re talking about the same thing, basically.

            It’s just tribalism, nothing more.

        • The Last Trump

          Ah yes, the old evolution, aka ‘natural selection’ (!?), fine tunes things with great intelligence, careful planning, insightful forethought and spot on strategizing.
          Amazing capabilities this inanimate, mysterious unseen presence of yours that is clearly genius. How faithful of you to so blindly believe.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            I skeptically suspect that what I suggest is possible.

            I don’t pretend to know with certainty, so I do not consider this faith.

          • The Last Trump

            Pretty hard to believe such rubbish with so many educated people around today. Looks more like wishful thinking than to oppose the clear design argument. But to each their own.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            I’m not opposing the clear design argument. I’m reconciling it.

          • JGC

            “Ah yes, the old evolution, aka ‘natural selection’ (!?), fine tunes things with great intelligence, careful planning, insightful forethought and spot on strategizing.”
            No, it does not: natural selection exhibits neither intelligence, foresight or to achieve preferred goals. But hey, you built that straw man–have fun knocking it down.

          • The Last Trump

            Can’t knock down what isn’t there, can we?
            “No it does not”.
            Exactly.
            Guess somebody else deserves the credit.
            I wonder Who that could be….

          • JGC

            “Can’t knock down what isn’t there, can we?”
            That’s why you had to build the straw man in the first place, trump.–so it would be there for you to knock down rather than addressing how natural selection is actually observed to function.

          • The Last Trump

            Natural selection is not observed.
            “It” does not exist.
            Just a fancy term for “magic”.
            But to each their own. You stick with magic. I’ll stick with the Designer behind the unmistakable, irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design.
            Don’t look quite so foolish that way.
            Just sayin’.

          • JGC

            Natural selection, resulting in evolutionary change, has been directly observed in living populations many times (the classic example would be industrial melanization in peppered moths). How did you think antibiotic resistant bacteria arise, if not as the result of natural selection causing the frequency of alleles conferring resistance to increase over generations in bacterial populations?

          • JGC

            Natural selection has been directly observed in living populations, in real time, under uncontrolled conditions in the wild (surely you’re aware of the observation of industrial melanism in peppered moths in England, back in the 70’s?)

      • ProudAmerican

        For one thing, until very recently, a scientist who revealed that he did not believe in God would suffer serious consequences. Proclaiming one’s atheism a couple hundred years ago would earn you the standing of heretic or blasphemer. Not a smart career move and far smarter to play pretend and clutch a Bible in prayer…in public. Heck, I’d be the loudest singer in the choir if that meant social acceptance and no undesirable consequences in my life. In the 20th century it would be a whole lot better and easier to be known as a Communist than known as an atheist.
        Just the self-preservation instinct at work. Like being a Jew in Germany in 1939.

        For another thing, that DNA code complexity argument has been ripped to pieces and indisputably,the vast majority of the best educated scientists, engineers, doctors and mathematicians do not believe in a god. More speak up proudly and say so today than ever before. But, it is still a good idea to either play pretend or keep the truth to yourself. Christianity is more political than religious now. What if the Christian majority bring back, heretic forks, thumbscrews and witch burnings in one last try to turn the world into a Christian or Muslim theocracy? Iran and Saudi Arabia are already doing it.

        • Pererin

          Ah here we go, Christianity is evil? More people have been brutally murdered by atheism in the last 100 years through the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pot. Who knows how many people have been wiped out through atheistic abortion and eugenics too. Very intelligent scientists are also claiming that Darwinian evolution is completely false, but I suppose scientists holding a different world view to yours aren’t ‘real’ scientists? Don’t try and assume that the examples of great Christian scientists I listed were merely cowards towing the political line, they were Christian, many of them were even deeply involved in the church. Just like the scientists who are all too often insulted today as not ‘real’ scientists, losing their jobs or funding, they are standing strong in their faith and their observations unlike a great deal of scientists who are agnostic but are forced into atheistic world views or risk losing a livelyhood themselves.

    • The Last Trump

      (Sigh.) Another uninformed, Biblically confused lefty showing up on Christian websites to tell everybody just how wrong they all are. Well at least he didn’t demand we leave HIM alone while he’s preaching to US like the LGBT crowd is so very fond of doing.

      For starters, NO branches of science refute the Biblical account of Creation bub. In fact, they support it. 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. Up until now, the order of events in the Genesis account of creation has made no sense whatsoever. Creation begins with light, yet God does not go on to create the Sun until the fourth “day”!? Well how about that.

      Wasn’t very long ago the brightest minds of the twentieth century, scientists like Albert Einstein and his contemporaries, rejected the notion that the universe had an actual beginning. Instead, they all chose to believe that it just always existed. Regardless of evidence. (Man and his desperate and feeble attempts to reject the existence of God. Some things never change, eh Mark?) And it wasn’t until Hubble came along and proved with scientific measurement the irrefutable fact that our Universe was, indeed, created.

      Moses and a bunch of sheep and goat herders, RIGHT.
      Einstein and the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century, WRONG.
      I’m sure they were just good guessers, eh Mark?
      And that was just them looking BACK! The prophecies they recorded concerning the future playing out according to God’s plan is completely mind blowing! You know, a generation undergoing an explosion in information, high technology, satellite technology, nuclear weapons, internet and tv, during a time in history where the world has become financially, morally and spiritually bankrupt, when debauchery and depravity reigns, sexual anarchy flourishes, and Israel is reborn after a 2000 year wait, but is surrounded by nations committed to her destruction which leads up to the climatic battle of Armageddon where she is rescued by her Messiah in her time of need during this particularly dark time. Any of this sound familiar?

      Let’s do another, shall we?
      Creation itself testifies of our Creator. Just the discoveries in a strand of DNA ended all debate a long time ago: “DNA is an information code. The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.” (Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, 1989.)

      Hmmm, an intricate and highly advanced, ridiculously complex code of information is responsible for everything we see and are. Gee, who do you suppose put it there?
      Not doing to good here Mark, with all that “all branches of science refute the Biblical account blah, blah, blah” nonsense, are we?

      It’s also interesting to note that when medical science (btw there is no such thing as atheistic science. Just actual science as established by our Creator. Unless you were referring to the religion of Darwinism and evolution in which case atheistic “science” would certainly apply) fails Christians, like with a case of terminal cancer or inoperable tumours, case after case exists where faith in God and prayer produced cures where science alone could not.

      And as for, if Christianity disappeared tomorrow the world would continue the way it has, you might want to think again. Consider the staggering repercussions of just the mere three and a half year ministry of Christ that revolutionized Western society. It is a matter of historical record that it was Christian people in Christian nations who abolished slavery, established laws protecting individual rights, elevated the status of women, protected the rights of children, established unprecedented worldwide humanitarian organizations like The Red Cross and The Salvation Army, and inspired some of the greatest works of art, architecture, music, and literature the world has ever seen.
      Your atheistic world is becoming a very dark place with the light of Christianity dimming, as the Bible foretold it would.

      The Bible admonishes us to “seek the Lord, while He may be found!” The Bible banning campaign sweeping the world by an immoral and corrupt society right now should be a red flag to all people that something very wrong is underway. It’s unsettling to consider that many in the Nazi party leadership were intellectuals. It’s absolutely frightening what intelligent people in a godless society will do to each other in the absence of morality.
      Atheistic governments have killed more of their own people that ALL wars combined.
      The fact that so many people are working frantically to keep Bibles out of our hands is disturbing. The clock is ticking my friend and your opportunity is quickly and quietly slipping away. Is this really the kind of world you had hoped to leave to your children?

      Christianity has satisfied the greatest educated minds for 2000 years and produced generations of exceptional men and women of virtue and understanding. Given the choice to join the ranks of our esteemed forefathers or to throw in your lot with the impaired judgment of this bizarre, bankrupt, illiterate and immoral generation, which do you think is wiser? Would it stand to reason to expect that this generation, clearly misguided about so many other things, somehow got the question of God right?
      I guess we’ll soon find out.
      Won’t we?

      • JGC

        “For starters, NO branches of science refute the Biblical account of Creation bub.”
        Which of the two biblical accounts–the one in Genesis 1 or the one in Genesis 2?

        “It’s actually shaken some of them up to discover just how “fine-tuned” our universe is.”

        Our universe isn’t fine tuned, however: physical constants can vary over several orders of magnitude and still result in stellar lifetimes sufficient to allow some form of life to arise (see Victor Stenger’s “Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics”, for example)

        “In fact, all indicators point to a match with the order of events as listed in the book of Genesis”

        Which order, the one in Gen 1, where Adam and Eve were first created together from the dust of the earth with animals created thereafter, or the one in Gen 2 where Adam was created from the dust of the earth first, animals next and then after animals Eve was created from Adam’s rib?

        “Scientists today are confirming that our universe indeed had a beginning, a sudden explosion of light followed by rapid expansion”
        Aren’t those same scientists also confirming biological diversity arose as a consequence of evolutionary change? Funny how you’ll embrace scientific consensus when it suits you and reject it when it does not…

        • The Last Trump

          “Aren’t those same scientists also confirming biological diversity arose as a consequence of evolutionary change?”
          No. They are not.
          Those who follow where the evidence clearly leads accept Intelligent Design. Sorry bub. 🙁

          • JGC

            I’m quite familiar with the body of evidence speaking to the origin of biologically diversity, and I’m aware of none best explained by positing the intervention of some putative intelligent designer.
            What evidence exactly do you believe leads to a conclusion that the biologically diverse species populations we observe today and in the fossil record could only arise as a product of intelligent design? Be specific.

          • The Last Trump

            Already did. See above. Pay close attention to the part on DNA.
            Please explain how nothing created everything. And with complexity, clear design and purpose. Be specific.
            Thanks.

          • JGC

            You’re speaking as if complexity were a characteristic of designed systems–why? Complexity is a hallmark of systems that arise by incremental trial and error, not by design (after all, no competent engineer attempts the creation of the most complex solution to achieve a goal–it’s simplicity that’s a hallmark of designed systems.
            And I’ll remind you again that no theory of evolution states or predicts ‘nothing created everything’.

          • ProudAmerican

            Not the old Intelligent Design thing again. Here we go with why men have nipples, 99.9% of the universe is hostile and deadly for human life and what “intelligent” creator would put the sewage system next to the entertainment center? Talk of Intelligent Design always ends with the soundly refuted complexity argument and that if the universe were really intelligently created then whatever did create it did a pretty awful job if he created the earth for us to inhabit. Bad design. Bad bad design.

      • ProudAmerican

        Every single point you make has been thoroughly debunked. Anyway, it isn’t the barbarism or “convert or die” aspects of the history of Christianity that are most abhorrent. It is the indoctrination of innocent children and the promotion of myths as true and real that does the real immoral damage. The human race is starting to grow up a little bit and more people are walking away from religion.You can’t just state things that can be proven false with a two minute Google search. It makes you sound even more foolish and desperate.

    • ProudAmerican

      When Christians are around there is a whiff of desperation in the air. As more people on earth have access to quality information, education and scientific fact the number of self-identified religious people will dwindle. Fewer “believers”. Less income for the church. It isn’t hard to understand their fervor and defensiveness. and their motivation. Christians see their future the way cigarette makers saw their future when people wised up and quit smoking.

  • Rebecca

    Thankfully my kids have just completed Homeschooling and ranked higher on testing than the average Public School student. I told them about evolution, but taught them why it is wrong.

    • Jade

      So did you tell your children that rather than humans evolving over million of years from simpler forms of life, you told them that a full grown man was instantly formed from the dust? OMG!

      • Rebecca

        Not exactly, but what I told them was the truth and not some made up fantasy like evolution.

        • Jade

          Are you a Christian scientist who is not an extremist? I didn’t think so.

          • Rebecca

            No I’m not a Christian scientist. You’re a liberal evolutionist who probably supports abortions and thinks Hillary should be the next president.

          • Jade

            I am a moderate Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose but would be against late term abortions, and I would support Hillary first, Trump second. I am also a scientist.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I am a moderate Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose”

            A right to choose WHAT, Jade? To choose what kind of chocolate she eats, what kind of car she drives, what schools she send her kids to, to choose homeschooling? Or the “right” to choose to have her child killed?

          • Rebecca

            The right to kill a baby. But of course to them, it’s not a baby until a certain point, but if we did animal abortions, they would cry that it was murdering a poor helpless animal.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            OMG – did you see that New Wave Feminists spoof on kitty abortions?!?

            I cannot find it right off, but it was hilarious.

          • Rebecca

            No, haven’t heard of it. I usually ignore anything by feminists 🙂 If you find it, let me know. I’m curious what silliness they’ve come up with now.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, the NWF are actually VERY pro-life and are a throwback to the early 20th century feminists, who were also pro-life but wanted women to be able to vote. NWF is very conservative on most things, and they have produced some devastating spoofs of the planned parenthood scandal, including one where one of them eats a crunchy salad while talking about how “medical research” is necessary, etc.

            They are pushing truly strong women, not women whose power is defined by receiving free contraception and abortions. Not advocating them from a Christian worldview – just saying that they have destroyed PP’s talking points.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            If you find it let me know too. please.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            OK, here is the salad eating one based on the first video that came out, I think. Some interesting shots at atheism in here too, even though I do not think NWF is Christian per se. (Don’t know.) Very politically incorrect. Just scroll down about a third of the way on this blog and you will see it (take the space out):

            https://saynsumthn .wordpress.com/2015/07/17/satirical-vid-compares-planned-parenthoods-grisly-experiments-on-aborted-babies-to-mengele/

            I cannot for the life of me find the kitty abortion video. My guess is that PETA made them take it down because, you know, kitty abortions bad, human abortions good.

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            Thank you. Peta would do that.I’ll look the other one up that you posted.

          • Cady555

            I agree with you except on Trump. At first Trump seemed like just an entertainer willing to say anything to get the reaction he wanted. (Like when he said he was a Christian but when asked couldn’t name a Bible verse.) However, some of his recent statements are flat out scary, for example praising followers who beat up a protester, threatening to shut down houses of worship he doesn’t like, and telling dehumanizing lies.

            I hope we can all agree on the importance of honesty and civil rights.

          • ProudAmerican

            There are more openly atheist non-believers than ever before and one huge reason is that religion, especially Christianity and Islam, have become intertwined with political ideology. Militant Christian conservatives are so harsh and extreme, at times just plain unreasonable and nasty, that they turn people off to BOTH conservative thinking and Christianity. And let’s not forget that Militant fundamentalist Muslims have turned Islam into the religion of hate and violence. Perhaps if they take each other out those that remain can live happy peaceful lives without all the ugliness and irrationality in our face all the time. God, Guns, Gays and Abortion…people are getting really tired of the same old song. Burkas and bombings are growing old too. Time to take out the trash and restore civility and peace.

    • EscapetheDarkness

      @ Rebecca

      Rebecca said: “Thankfully my kids have just completed Homeschooling and ranked higher on testing than the average Public School student. I told them about evolution, but taught them why it is wrong.”

      Well done. You are right to be proud of raising your children wisely.

      May YHVH (God) and Messiah Yehoshua (or Christ Jesus) bless your children and use them to aggravate militant atheistic evolutionists for a good purpose.

      • Cady555

        Evolution is true. If you present the evidence fairly and accurately your kids will know they can trust you.

        • EscapetheDarkness

          @ Cady555

          Cady555 said: “Evolution is true. If you present the evidence fairly and accurately your kids will know they can trust you.”

          Having read this reply and browsed your comment history on your profile, it appears to me like you are irrevocably convinced of the Theory of Evolution’s veracity, as is in the package deal of its secular mainstream manifestation, and you are just advertising it–proselytizing for it–on this comment thread.

          If this is true, then our conversation is meaningless and dead before it even began.

          • Cady555

            Yes, I am an atheist.

            But that has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution. I accept that the facts support the conclusion that disease is caused by microbes and the earth orbits the sun. Most Christians also accept those facts.

            Likewise, the evidence supports the conclusion that species evolved, primarily through natural selection. This truly is not religious or non religious.

            I care because America needs a solid scientific basis to complete globally. I have no desire to lead people away from religion if it brings comfort. Many Christians accept evolution. I care about students learning the science needed in the 21st century.

          • EscapetheDarkness

            @ Cady555

            Cady555 said:

            “Yes, I am an atheist.

            But that has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.”

            Strawman. You’re dishonestly trying to reframe what I said as a poisoning the well ad hominem attack.

            My point is what I said immediately above, in the post which your quoted reply here is replying to:

            EscapetheDarkness said: “Having read this reply and browsed your comment history on your profile, it appears to me like you are irrevocably convinced of the Theory of Evolution’s veracity, as is in the package deal of its secular mainstream manifestation, and you are just advertising it–proselytizing for it–on this comment thread.

            If this is true, then our conversation here is meaningless and dead before it even began.”

            [Emphasis mine.]

            Moreover, you’re inability to properly and honestly grasp this simple point and what it entails further proves that this conversation is meaningless and dead before it began.

            Beyond this, as predicted, your reply read like an advertisement for the Theory of Evolution and contained nothing but raw pro-Theory of Evolution propaganda.

          • ProudAmerican

            Except that religions often don’t bring comfort and do more harm than good. The suspension of reason and critical thinking and embrace of myth, magic,and the supernatural cripple human progress and hurt society. It is the greatest con game in human history. A scam. Money, power and control is what religion is all about. With the promise of eternal life….Yeah, Right. We were all born agnostics and should stay that way.

          • Cady555

            ProudAmerican My comment was on evolution, not religion. The truth of evolution is so clear that people can accept it despite religious belief. However, this site doesn’t tend to appreciate editorial comments about Christianity so I avoid those types of comments. This article is about science. (It is conceivable that you and I share similar opinions on certain other matters.)

      • ProudAmerican

        That doesn’t rise to child abuse but clearly harmful to an innocent child that deserves to know what is real and true in life and what are lies and propaganda. Poor kid.

        • EscapetheDarkness

          @ ProudAmerican

          ProudAmerican said: “That doesn’t rise to child abuse but clearly harmful to an innocent child that deserves to know what is real and true in life and what are lies and propaganda. Poor kid.”

          Not telling your kids about the problems with the Theory of Evolution, as is in the package deal of its secular mainstream manifestation, and helping your kids sort out its grains of truth from its unproven and/or logically fallacious aspects in favor of indoctrinating them with pat “Evolution is fact!”™ rhetoric and making them into a foot-solider for the Theory of Evolution is the definition of harmfully brainwashing a child.

          Though I cannot speak for how Rebecca raised her kids in a definitive manner, this describes the perspective from which I am approaching this issue here. And I don’t see how anyone can disagree with this, unless they believe in not questioning the Theory of Evolution and approaching this issue from the “Evolution is fact!”™ perspective, like Cady555 does.

    • afchief

      Same here! Both of my daughters were home schooled and my son is in a Christian school. All three are “head and shoulders” above their peers academically! We do not even teach evolution, because it is a lie!!!

      • Elie Challita

        Your kids are in for a very rude awakening the second they try to get an actual college degree. Oh well, the world always needs more burger flippers

        • afchief

          My 29 year old daughter had straight A’s in college. She said it was too easy!!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Liberty College?

          • afchief

            University of West Florida

            One Hundred Reasons to Abandon Public Education Now

            By Daren Jonescu

            In a recent article, I noted in passing that “there are a hundred compelling reasons for removing your children and grandchildren from the public schools, regardless of any practical or financial inconveniences this may cause you.” My choice of the round figure one hundred was purely a rhetorical flourish — there are actually far more than a hundred reasons to abolish public education, one child at a time if necessary.

            By way of proving this point, I offer the following list for your consideration and dissemination:

            (1) John Dewey. “The father of modern education” — including modern Soviet education. Critic of Western rationalism, socialist, enemy of ethical individualism.

            (2) Bill Ayers. Weatherman communist, Deweyite — and influential voice in early childhood education.

            (3) “Benevolent” would-be oligarchs explicitly conceived of modern compulsory schooling as a means of forcibly stunting intellectual growth in order to produce a submissive worker class. (See below)

            (4) Standardized curricula and testing. Coerced uniformity of goals and methods — the “death panel” of education.

            (5) Reduces family home to glorified bunkhouse for state-raised children. (See below)

            (6) Undermines family’s historical role as nature’s buffer between individual and state.

            (7) Sex education. Mechanistic reduction of sex spells the death of Eros — life’s central mystery — and hence of sublimated passions, high art, and the pursuit of wisdom.

            (8) Psychiatric branding and drugging of non-compliant children.

            (9) “Gun-free zones.” Public school: “Hundreds of weak, undefended targets here.”

            (10) Benjamin Franklin. Little formal schooling; a printer’s apprentice at twelve.

            (11) Jane Austen. Little formal schooling; read books and wrote stories at home.

            (12) Alexander Pope. Little formal schooling; major poet and literary critic at twenty-three.

            (13) John Keats. Medical apprentice (and orphaned) at fourteen, professional surgeon’s assistant at twenty, licensed apothecary at twenty-one, greatest English poet of his era at twenty-three (dead at twenty-five).

            (14) Under compulsory schooling, only two entries in Keats’ biography (item 13) would have been possible — “orphaned” and “dead at twenty-five.” Think about that.

            (15) School environment designed to make life easier for teachers, not better for children.

            (16) Public school teacher certification requires “successful” indoctrination in government-approved pedagogy. (See items 1 and 2)

            (17) Public school teachers belong to powerful unions with radical leftist leadership and agendas.

            (18) Rare talented, earnest teachers are completely hamstrung by government/union social and academic goals.

            (19) “Barack Hussein Obama, mm, mm, mm.”

            (20) Obama Youth singing “Yes We Can.”

            (21) Bullying. Anti-rational mass children’s education fosters coercion, mob intimidation.

            (22) Anti-bullying programs. Government creates Lord of the Flies; proposes to correct it by creating Nineteen Eighty-Four.

            (23) Government classroom encourages mindless obedience and uniformity (“Because I say so!”) — training children in subservience to irrational, generic authority.

            (24) Emphasis on group activities and forced sharing discourages individual initiative and respect for others’ property and achievement. “You didn’t build that.”

            (25) Socialization: a progressive catchword which means learning how to mold oneself to the shape of any presiding majority, i.e., conformity.

            (26) Fear: the constant emotional undercurrent for “different,” “quiet,” or “unpopular” children thrust into the midst of hundreds of their “peers” and told to “get along.”

            (27) Power lust: one of the two common means of reducing the fear of being trapped among an irrational collective. (See items 23-26.)

            (28) Bootlicking, currying favor: the other common means of reducing fear.

            (29) Homeschooling.

            (30) Thomas Jefferson. Studying multiple languages and the natural world at nine years old under a Presbyterian minister.

            (31) David Hume. Entered University of Edinburgh at twelve. Completed the most important philosophic treatise of the Scottish Enlightenment at twenty-six.

            (32) “It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.” — Albert Einstein

            (33) “In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards.” — Mark Twain

            (34) “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.” — Benjamin Disraeli

            (35) “Academies that are founded at public expense are instituted not so much to cultivate men’s natural abilities as to restrain them.” — Baruch Spinoza

            (36) “Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they’re not tempted to think about any other role.” — William T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1889 (See item 3)

            (37) “Peer pressure.” The moral intimidation of a child whose character is not yet firmly established, by an ever-present group with the power to condemn with ostracism.

            (38) 12,000 hours (counting only mandatory class time) of wasted opportunities for family guidance and conversation, practical skills development, remunerative employment, apprenticeships, reading, exploration of nature, and musical training.

            (39) Unrelenting boredom. Stifles natural curiosity — “the devil’s playground.”

            (40) “The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone would be interdependent.” — Dewey

            (41) Nationalized standards, e.g. America’s new Common Core. Imposing universal, increasingly idiosyncratic standards is intended to render alternative education practically impossible.

            (42) History curriculum designed by post-Marxist revisionists.

            (43) The entitlement mentality.

            (44) Natural attachment to the “provider.” Abstract state replaces concrete parents as the object of future obligation and duty.

            (45) “Gender role” and “alternative lifestyle” lessons. (See item 7)

            (46) Unceasing Marxist critique of Western civilization: sexism, systemic oppression, capitalism is racist, the rich get richer, etc.

            (47) Public education requires lowest common denominator approach. Stifles natural intelligence.

            (48) Discouraging female modesty.

            (49) Discouraging male admiration for female modesty. (See item 7)

            (50) Ayn Rand’s essay on education, “The Comprachicos.” (I first read it while hiding out in my high school library, probably cutting class. It is the one Rand essay I’ve recalled frequently as an adult.)

            (51) The downward ratchet of expectations and achievement. (See item 47) Most teachers are products of the public system at earlier stages. The results:

            (52) English teachers who never cared for poetry beyond Bob Dylan.

            (53) History teachers who teach Oliver Stone or Howard Zinn, but have never read Tacitus or Gibbon.

            (54) Music teachers whose idea of broadening their students’ horizons is the “Mission Impossible” theme or “Imagine.”

            (55) Teachers too ignorant and incompetent to discern or meet the interests or character of their students. My 10th grade English class, which by chance was comprised of only boys, was forced to read the clammy pop-psychological novel Ordinary People. One day, when we were being particularly ornery about it, our teacher finally stormed out on us, after screaming furiously, “This is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century!” Even then, I could only wonder whether she knew any others.

            (56) “All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education.” — Sir Walter Scott

            (57) Man-made global warming indoctrination. Anyone who works with government-educated children in any developed nation on Earth encounters this intractable faith.

            (58) Typical age of entrance at Scottish universities during the 18th century (i.e., the Scottish Enlightenment): fourteen. Hume, Francis Hutcheson, and Adam Smith all attended at fourteen or younger. (Scotland’s beloved national poet, Robert Burns, never attended university, and was mostly home-educated.)

            (59) The U.S. federal Department of Education’s budget for primary and secondary education alone was over $40 billion in 2012 — more than the entire national budget of Singapore. Results? See the other ninety-nine items on this list. Tax expenditure on education rises continuously; civilization nosedives continuously.

            (60) Thomas Edison. Judged addle-minded by his teacher; withdrawn from school and educated by his mother; began a nomadic life of entrepreneurial endeavors and scientific experiments at twelve. Today, he would be on Ritalin at six, urged to make friends by his mother, and likely bored out of his skull and a failing student throughout his teens.

            (61) “Thank goodness I was never sent to school; it would have rubbed off some of the originality.” — Beatrix Potter

            (62) How can coercion to surrender your child to a state-controlled school regimen until young adulthood be squared with a belief in individual liberty?

            (63) “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” — Vladimir Lenin

            (64) John Taylor Gatto’s Underground History of American Education.

            (65) Imagine twelve years of being forcibly prevented from doing anything of any practical importance.

            (65) Artificially prolongs childhood, stunting character development. (See item 3)

            (67) Thinking is by definition a private enterprise. Great thinking is often likened to being alone on a mountaintop. Public education seeks to prevent children from ever really being alone, or climbing.

            (68) “In our dreams…people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands.” — Occasional Letter Number One, General Education Board, 1906. (See item 3)

            (69) “From my cold, dead hands.” As I have said before, if you stand proudly against state confiscation of your firearms, how can you not feel at least as strongly about state confiscation of your children?

            (70) Public schools are deliberately calibrated to limit spiritual achievement, by waiting out (i.e., wasting) the natural period of boundless energy and enthusiasm that drove men to self-development in the pre-public school era.

            (71) Feminism.

            (72) Political correctness.

            (73) “Fairness.”

            (74) “Diversity.”

            (75) “Creativity.”

            (76) “Individuality.”

            (77) “Truth is relative.”

            (78) Banning Christmas.

            (79) The moral ratchet: Yesterday’s vice, today’s “experiment,” tomorrow’s “basic right.”

            (80) Drugs. America has its first proud drug-user president — there is no turning back within the public system.

            (81) Textbook publishing oligopoly. Crony capitalism makes government curriculum decisions a racket, in addition to being a joke.

            (82) “High quality, public education is a human right.” — NEA website. “The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory.” — UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959. (A compulsory “right”?) Doesn’t this make private or home schooling a rights violation?

            (83) A monopolistic pyramid disperses corruption at the top throughout the affected community. And monopoly breeds corruption.

            (84) Parents are now increasingly relegated to the roles of funding machines and support workers for state child-rearing.

            (85) The push for public pre-schools. The trajectory: universal, compulsory government raising of children from the beginning of language use to the completion of character formation and thought process habituation.

            (86) “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.” — Karl Marx

            (87) Answer to “learning social skills” argument: family, church, neighbors, hobby or study groups.

            (88) Answer to “learning about real life” argument: public school is the antithesis of real life.

            (89) If “real life” looks increasingly like public school, that’s because universal public education has formed a society in its image: infantile, amoral, collectivist, driven by fear, power lust, and pandering.

            (90) Education requires a desire for knowledge; desire requires a sense of need; concrete circumstances give rise to need. Compulsory schooling withdraws a child from such concrete circumstances; everything is abstract and impractical. No need; no desire; no education.

            (91) “The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” — H.L. Mencken

            (92) Genuine education breeds self-reliance; public school breeds dependency.

            (93) “Every educated person is a future enemy.” — Martin Bormann, Hitler’s personal secretary

            (94) Compulsory government schooling is the exception, historically speaking. It has not always existed. It need not exist.

            (95) Public education did not make modern prosperity possible — exactly the opposite, in fact. As Tocqueville warned, modern prosperity weakened men’s resistance to the siren song of “soft despotism.”

            (96) Private schools, religious and secular, exist.

            (97) “I can undo the school’s damage at home.” If the government mandated that your child be force-fed rotting “state food” for each meal, would you say, “No problem — I can feed him healthy food on weekends”? Then how do you justify allowing the state to force-feed its spiritual rot to your child’s mind?

            (98) “I can undo the school’s damage at home.” All of it? Are you completely certain? Children indoctrinated under totalitarian regimes go home after class, too. Their parents probably tell themselves the same thing — but they, unlike you, have no choice.

            (99) A better car or your child? A bigger home or your child? Early retirement or your child? Freedom to do as you please or the child you freely chose to bring into the world?

            (100) Every child who attends a public school will be less than he might have been, and the deficit — in reasoning, knowledge, character, sensibility, motivation — can never be fully overcome. (And yes, I include myself among the victims.) This monumental waste of valuable time and invaluable emotional energy is irreversible. Can you live with that?

          • Elie Challita

            Waiter, could I get some vinaigrette to go with this word salad?

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not????

          • Elie Challita

            Nah, I’m still winding my way down your list. As far as I can tell, you could’ve probably reduced it to the following:
            1- Some bad people I disagree with once had something to do with education. Help, I’m scared.
            2- Corporations are dumbing down citizens. I somewhat agree with that one, given that the same corporate interests using the conservative movement as useful idiots are also using grants to push a libertarian ideology in certain colleges.
            3- Public education is underfunded and lacking in resource. Great, I assume you’re for greater public funding for education?
            4- Schools fostering a sense of teamwork and communal responsibility. Oh, the horror of people working together…
            5- Schoolgirls wear short skirts, and that’s bad for… reasons.

            Did I miss anything?

          • afchief

            It sure does!!! The leftists have already destroyed our universities. They are no longer places of learning.

            “The universities are destroying themselves by allowing the ideology of multiculturalism over the values of patriotism.”

            They are not just allowing, but all too often promoting and even trying to enforce their ideology of ‘multiculturalism’, along with it’s handmaiden ‘political correctness’, over the values of patriotism. But even that is not the main problem, and one can not really force something like patriotism anyway, as the main problem is they are trying to enforce their ideology of ‘multiculturalism’, along with it’s handmaiden ‘political correctness’, over rationality itself and are promoting the worship of utter stupidity.. They are at war with intelligent life on earth and if they are successful will usher in as dark an age as the world has ever known..

            Under Common Core the activation of prior knowledge is deliberately discouraged”. Of Course it is!! Prior knowledge means a child has formulated opinions based upon his/her own experiences, and/or input from his/her parents based upon the family’s ethics, morals, etc. It is pretty difficult to “indoctrinate” someone who has pre-established opinions.

            The “Utopiaites” have tried for years and years to bring everyone else up to “equality” with the US…they have finally decided that it can’t be done….so they must drag everyone down to a lower level of humanity. Common Core is the latest nail in the coffin of exceptionalism. It won’t work, of course, because too many parents are either boycotting the testing, supplementing their children’s education, or pulling them out of public education and homeschooling them as we have!!!

          • Rebecca

            Exactly!!

          • Elie Challita

            1- I’m not quite sure what your first statement refers to.
            2- Where the heck did that diatribe on multiculturalism come from?
            3- Why is patriotism a requirement for education? I would assume it to be an inherent bias, wouldn’t it?

          • afchief

            Because our schools do not teach it anymore. They have been taken over by liberal/socialists who teach multiculturalism garbage! The education system, or should I say leftist indoctrination centers (Pre-K-college) are re-writing our history and teaching hate for this country and everything it stands for. This country has so much religion in it’s history that it’s indisputable that the founders were God fearing people. The indoctrination of your kids depends on the erasure of God in our society. Communism insists on atheism as their objective because NO ONE or NOTHING is more important, compassionate, or loving than the State. There can be no God. That is what are public schools are teaching.

          • Elie Challita

            What hatred, exactly? I’m pretty sure that math or physics are apolitical, so what do you consider to be examples of anti-US indoctrination?
            I’m asking for specific examples of false claims aimed at the US, not generically vague claims like “taking God out of school”

          • afchief

            Common Core ties to Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia

            “Where did Common Core come from?” is a question I often hear from parents as I travel the country speaking about the Islamic infiltration of America.

            Because in 2014-15 America, public school students via Common Core are:

            • Participating in public school-sponsored trips to mosques via taxpayer expense, girls must wear head scarves (Colorado parents complain)

            • Debating whether or not the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain,” (an eighth-grade assignment defended by the Rialto Unified School District, Los Angeles)

            • Pledging allegiance in Arabic (New York)

            • Observing two “Muslim holy days,” (New York City)

            • Being taught Islamic vocabulary lessons (North Carolina)

            • Being taught Islamic culture (Tennessee)

            • Being taught world history from Islamic perspective (Florida) that includes learning about the five pillars of Islam (Maryland father, a Marine Corps veteran, complains and is banned from school grounds)

            • Told to proselytize by creating a pamphlet about Islam to “introduce Islam to 3rd graders” that introduces Allah to children as the same God of the Christians and Jews (Michigan)

            • Reciting in class the Shahada, “There is No God but Allah,” and the Muslim call to prayer (Massachusetts)

            Parents in every state are outraged, protesting and asking, “Why is Islam being taught in public schools?” and “How did this happen?” “Where is the ACLU?” “Where are the people ‘protesting against’ religion being taught in public schools?”

            Common Core origins

            The short answer is that President Obama’s push for “hope and change” translates into completely transforming America — for the worse. Common Core is but one of many parts of an intricate plan to infiltrate every area of American society with Islam. Which is why, Common Core’s origin and funding came from Qatar, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

            Globally, Common Core originated from the “One World Education” concept, a global goal orchestrated by the Connect All Schools program. Its origin is funded by the Qatar Foundation International (QFI). The director of QFI’s Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics is Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan al-Bann

            According to the WND website, in 2011, QFI “partnered with the Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education to facilitate matchmaking between classrooms in the U.S. and international schools through … the ‘Connect All Schools’ project.” QFI states on its website that the initiative was founded in response to Mr. Obama’s infamous 2009 Cairo speech, during which the Muslim Brotherhood was seated in the front row.

            Mr. Obama’s mentor, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, received $49.2 million from Vartan Gregorian, a board member of the Qatar Foundation, who also is involved with Mr. Obama’s White House Fellowships Commission. Gregorian is an integral part of Connect All Schools, through which Qatar invested $5 million to teach Arabic in American public schools.

            Domestically, in America, Common Core was “created by” the National Governor’s Association (NGA), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Achieve Inc., ACT and the College Board. The Common Core State Standards are copyrighted by the NGA and CCSSO, a private company, which means they cannot be changed.

            Many groups helped create these standards (chief among them, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations) but Pearson Education, an NGA donor and CCSSO’s listed business and industry partner, is integral to Common Core.

            Pearson Education designs “education products and services to institutions, governments and direct to individual learners.” Listed on the London and New York Stock Exchange, of its numerous investors, the Libyan Investment Authority is its largest financial contributor, holding 26 million shares.

            According to the Financial Times, the Libyan Investment Authority was founded by Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam; more than five Gaddafi family members own shares. The Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR, a recently designated terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood invested in Pearson Education through the Libyan Investment Authority.

            Despite this connection, according to the Guardian, Pearson Education claims as a public company operating in a free market it has no control over its shareholders’ terrorist-related activities.

            Common Core was implemented in states that accepted federal funds from the 2009 “Race to the Top” initiative, which encouraged states to receive federal money to adopt new standards that would improve their public school children’s test performance results.

            In order for a state to participate, the state board of education and the state’s educational professional standards board would have voted to adopt Common Core standards. Each participating state has posted the Common Core Standards on its state department of education website.

            Two years prior to the Obama administration’s Race to the Top initiative, in 2007, the FBI uncovered documents revealing the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its subsidiary organizations like CAIR, planned to indoctrinate American K-12 students by teaching Islam.

            The seized documents were part of the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history. The FBI uncovered the Muslim Brotherhood’s manifesto “on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” (Exhibit 42945 and Exhibit 42946).

            After states applied for “Race to the Top” federal funds in 2009, Pearson Education created Common Core curriculum and standards. Pearson Education is also the sole evaluator of teachers in some states. In order for New York State to continue receiving “Race to the Top” federal funds, it had to implement “reforms.” Pearson Education now solely administers the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA).

            New York State no longer evaluates its teachers — a private company does — whose primary investors fund terrorism and propagate Islam.

            Additionally, no state or federal oversight exists for university programs (under Title VI of the Higher Education Act) that train K-12 teachers to develop lesson plans and seminars on “Middle East Studies.” These programs and teacher training materials were developed by Pearson Education and largely funded by Saudi Arabia.

            Parents must and can act

            In order to end Common Core and eliminate the Islamic indoctrination being taught in public schools, parents must demand:

            • Their state school board members be investigated and/or fired and replaced.

            • Their state legislature and governor reject “Race to the top” federal funds and implement legislation or reverse its state education department’s implementation of Common Core in their state, and at a minimum, in the interim.

            • Their child not participate in state testing.

            Parents can also take their children out of public schools altogether.

            Parental rights are guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents possess the “fundamental right” to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.” The court has declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State: those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35). The Supreme Court criticized the Nebraska state legislature for attempting to interfere “with the power of parents to control the education of their own” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402). And ruled a parent’s right to raise his/her children means a parent is protected from unreasonable state interferences, one of the unwritten “liberties” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 399).”

            Parents must say no more: The $632 billion the federal government spends each year on public school “education” is being wasted on violating the First Amendment, by the federal government instituting a religion through the teaching of Islam in public schools.

          • Elie Challita

            Im constantly impressed by your ability to copy and paste massive and absolutely irrelevant amounts of text.

            Answer me precisely: Show me a passage in a Common Core compliant text book that is creating anti-US hatred in its students.

          • Rebecca

            Common Core is just as foolish as the thought of evolution. Why do you defend these stupid ideas?

          • Elie Challita

            I’m not defending Common Core, as I honestly have no opinion on it. I’m simply asking afchief to provide me with an example from a textbook of what he considers to be anti-American rhetoric

          • afchief

            The foundational philosophy of Common Core is to create students ready for social action so they can force a social-justice agenda. Common Core is not about students who actually have a grasp of the intricate facts of a true set of what E.D. Hirsch would call “core knowledge.” Common Core is about, as David Feith would say “an obsession with race, class, gender, and sexuality as the forces of history and political identity.” Nationalizing education via Common Core is about promoting an agenda of Anti-capitalism, sustainability, white guilt, global citizenship, self-esteem, effective math, and culture sensitive spelling and language. This is done in the name of consciousness raising, moral relativity, fairness, diversity, and multiculturalism aka “creating anti-US hatred in its students”

          • Elie Challita

            You’re still prevaricating. Show me the content in the text books or curriculum.

          • afchief

            Typical liberal. Does NOT want to hear the truth. But will continue in lies and deception. You are proof!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Doubtful, considering I immigrated to the US as an adult, and was educated in a Catholic private school in the middle east.
            You’ve regurgitated quite a bit of speculation about common core. All I’m asking you to do is to find a specific example in the common core curriculum of anti-US rhetoric. That should be simple enough to do?

          • afchief

            Come man I just gave you tons of information. Are you really that blind? Go research it yourself. It is out there. I was a youth pastor for 20 years and I have seen first hand what public schools are doing to these kids. We are no longer preparing youth for life and how to succeed in life!!! How many public schools are pro-business? How many public high schools have mandatory courses in entrepreneurship? Pre-school through 12th grade is roughly 15 years. 15 years is plenty of time for “general education.” So, how about mandatory minors in business for all undergrads? The first two years can be spent “finding themselves,” but they do not have to spend 2 more years on “general education courses.”

            Business math can be taught along with “regular math.” Accounting can be taught in public schools. All colleges can offer courses in fundamental analysis. Buffettology is a good place to begin to understand long-term thinking and investing. Entrepreneurial learning communities like franchise communities can be understood, researched, and studied by anyone. Capitalism can be taught. Business can be understood. Wealth can be understood. Wealth creation and wealth management can be learned in school.

            All the personality and character traits needed to be successful can be taught. Public schools can be redesigned and redesigned and redesigned until they produce long-term thinking healthy pro-American self-reliant wealth-creators. Public schools ARE TEACHING JUST THE OPPOSITE!!! They are pumping out socialists as fast as they can. They have become anti-christian. They have become anti-american. They have become indoctrination centers.

            Teaching socialism as superior to capitalism is anti-american and anti-constitutional. It is child abuse!!!

            “To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” -Teddy Roosevelt.

          • Elie Challita

            I actually agree with you on the need to teach basic economics and accounting to kids, but let’s keep track of reality here: Entrepreneurship does not mean unrestrained capitalism. As a matter of fact, the lack of a social safety net actively inhibits entrepreneurship, and I doubt you’d enjoy kids learning that.

          • afchief

            Social safety net? You mean stealing from other’s labor? Our schools do not teach business ethics anymore which is why you have “unrestrained capitalism”. That’s why this quote by Teddy Roosevelt is so true!

            “To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” -Teddy Roosevelt.

          • Elie Challita

            I take it you’re against public services as a matter of principle?

          • afchief

            You mean I’m against socialism aka stealing others hard earned income.

          • Elie Challita

            No, I’m asking you a very specific question: Are you against public services funded by taxation or contribution?

          • afchief

            I’m against welfare and food stamps. I’m against the lazy leeching off the productive.

          • Elie Challita

            What about veterans who are on food stamps and drawing unemployment benefits?

          • afchief

            The US government should take of veterans. I’m a 23 year military vet and still work for a living.

            I have no problem with the government helping people who are physically and mentally incapable of working. But they are the extreme minority. The welfare system is overloaded with leeches. And the leeches keep pouring in.

          • Elie Challita

            Chief. I understand where you’re coming from, but I do have to remind you that the majority of people drawing food stamps and many other benefits are either working single parents (mothers, in most cases) or are only drawing from the system intermittently. Not to mention that there is a growing number of military families (i.e., families with a spouse currently in the military) who are drawing these types of benefits as well.

            I understand that you don’t want “leeches” drawing off of society. I don’t want that either, but at the moment it’s simply not the case: The majority of those you call leeches are probably working harder than you and I combined, but they haven’t been successful yet. I don’t think a moral society should penalize people and their children for not clawing their way out of poverty, as opposed to helping them do so.

          • afchief

            Nope! I travel the country now as a project manager for a company that makes poultry processing machines. I see the leeches everyday. I hear the complaints about them everyday. When you have an evil government like we do now that encourages people to get on the “dole” whether legal or illegal, it will never stop until the money stops. Our current government is killing businesses with it’s policies, excessive taxation and regulations forcing more people on food stamps and welfare. It’s all part of their plan. This is what our worthless pResident wants…..socialism micromanaging the details in everyone’s lives by means of taking from those who have and distributing it in a very unproductive way to those who don’t have so much. Socialism breeds corruption, laziness, oppression, etc. We are seeing first hand.
            Capitalism is man taking care of himself in a competitive but predominately cooperative market system. Capitalism breeds independence, interdependence, personal responsibility, freedom, etc.

          • Elie Challita

            PS: How the hell do you have time to work as a project manager? I’ve seen you posting on pretty much every news board in existence!

          • afchief

            I have a lot of spare time in hotels.

          • ProudAmerican

            Taxation is not theft. It is merely a means to support the community and the common good. We are not a society of self-sustaining independent individuals. We are a society of neighbors, friends, families, coworkers, and people who live together, eat together, work together, play together, sing together, dance together and support, protect and care for one another. The alternative would be a cruel, ugly, lonely, selfish and miserable existence. In that “rugged individual” competitive world we all end up living meaningless lives in pursuit of material wealth and all end up dying alone and forgotten. I’ll take socialism and live a happy life of sharing and companionship. You can have your conservative capitalism and let your life be ruled by greed, selfishness, and a quest to “win” and dominate your fellow man.

          • afchief

            Then get out of my country and let us live by our Constitution. You can take socialism and shove it where the sun don’t shine!!!! The government isn’t Santa Claus. It doesn’t have wealth of its own and doesn’t create it. It takes money from the private sector as well as future generations (in the form of debt), gives itself a very generous cut, and doles out a portion to those on the dole. What we’re doing now, on an increasing scale, is clearly unsustainable, and I think everyone realizes that, even if they don’t want to admit it openly.

            Helping your fellow man in need by reaching into your own pocket is praiseworthy and noble (the Christian way).

            Helping your fellow man in need by reaching into someone else’s pocket is worthy of condemnation (government stealing)

            For the government to steal other people’s wealth for your own benefit puts more faith in government over the individual, your family and your community. This clearly the wrong Christian path.

            Socialism is EVIL!!!!

          • ProudAmerican

            Better yet. Why don’t you create a nation where the Official State Religion IS christianity, catholicism or whatever and YOU move there and live in your dogmatic libertarian paradise. We Americans will leave you alone and suffer along with our freedoms, Constitutional rights, and love and care for each other as a social community. Selfishness, greed, exploitation and subjugation are true EVIL, not sharing and social justice.

          • afchief

            Capitalism is the driving force of a better life, it spurs all aspects of your life upon improvements, efficiency and needs. No socialist nation where all businesses are part of the state can compare. Demming taught this to the Japanese and they rebuilt and became a power house. All socialism/communism does is barely provide a good, a service or a paycheck and definitely not a way of life that any sane person wants to live under.

            The Constitution is a Capitalist Document. Those who oppose that are enemies of the Constitution. Can Americans be unAmerican, you bet! The oath of office demands that the one taking the oath defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC!

            Socialism is an enemy of this nation!!! Take your evil godless garbage and leave!!!

          • ProudAmerican

            Funny how we can all be intelligent and educated humans and have such widely different values and priorities in life. I am very happy to have my tax dollars “stolen” from my paycheck to pay my fair share for streets and highways that get me safely to work every day without paying a “toll”. I am very happy to pay for state of the art emergency and paramedic services I hope I will never need. I love the idea that my tax dollars pay for the police to catch and lock up criminals so I don’t have to do it myself. Paying my fair share to preserve and maintain Yosemite or the Grand Canyon for my kids to enjoy is wonderful. I am PROUD and happy that part of my “socialist” taxes help pay for Section 8 housing assistance for an 80 year old widow living on Social Security after working hard for 40 years of her life. It makes me feel great that I can pay taxes that were forcibly robbed from me to help pay for modern pre-natal care for a young destitute mother.
            It makes me feel safe to have my tax money pay for an efficient and reliable fire department that I hope I will never need. It warms my heart to know that all the hard earned money I make is stolen to pay for food stamps so an innocent child won’t go hungry. Yes, I am also happy the socialist theft of taxation pays for a modern military that defends my country.
            I am overjoyed that a little of my tax bill goes to provide free medical care to military veterans who were willing to sacrifice their life for MY freedom. I’m thankful and proud that part of the money I make is socialistically robbed from my daily pay to fund medical research and improve the lives of millions. I am especially happy to pay my fair share of taxes for the FAA air traffic controllers who help keep me from experiencing an aircraft disaster and dying. It isn’t that you are right or I am wrong. We just see the world differently. I value fairness and generosity and sharing my prosperity with those less fortunate and you want to keep every dime in your own pocket and bitterly complain that evil socialism (taxation) is stealing what is rightfully yours. Of course, you have no problem using public services and exploiting the infrastructure built and supported by OTHER taxpayers.
            That’s because you are special and a smarter higher order of the human species. Right? It is evil socialist godless garbage to love your neighbor, lend a helping hand and help support a healthy community committed to social justice and the value of ALL people. We really do think very differently.

          • ProudAmerican

            Odd you seem to be conflating so many disparate ideologies and concepts. Living the teachings of Christianity is very socialist and quite liberal. Jesus was assuredly no capitalist. He didn’t open a shop and sell all those loaves and fishes at a profit. Public schools, public parks, public streets and highways, public universities, public libraries, public airports, public ports and harbors, public fire and public safety and public institutions are all a socialist construct and are very much a part of the American social fabric nationwide. At one time America hit the sweet spot in a mix of capitalism and socialism…and became the richest most successful nation in world history. Too far in either direction = FAIL.

          • afchief

            Stop trying to understand the word of God because you have NO clue what your talking about. NONE! 1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) But a natural man (you) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

            Jesus, was never talking about taking (stealing) from others and giving it to people who will not work. Christianity says “what’s mine is yours” Socialism and Communism says “What’s yours is mine” as you can see, it is the complete opposite and satan works in opposites, turning the world upside down and the brainwashed think the Christians are turning the world upside down when the attempt is right side up.

            Capitalism is man taking care of himself in a competitive but predominately cooperative market system. Capitalism breeds independence, interdependence, personal responsibility, freedom, etc.

            Socialism is the government micromanaging the details in everyone’s lives by means of taking from those who have and distributing it in a very unproductive way to those who don’t have so much. Socialism breeds corruption, laziness, oppression, etc.

            You can’t “spread” wealth. By “spreading” wealth you only destroy it. That has been proven again and again.

            Although the leftists deny it, wealth is nothing without the people that create it. There is a reason that some people are rich and others are not.

            After the “spreaded” wealth has been consumed it will be the same people that are rich and the same that cry for having nothing

          • ProudAmerican

            I sorta wish that what you say Common Core promotes was really true. Well, without the white guilt, of course. The world is multicultural. Haven’t you gone looking around lately? Boring educational benchmarks and guidelines will “create anti-US hatred in students”? …And just how is that going to work? Promoting inevitable concepts such as sustainability, diversity and fairness is a good thing.

          • afchief

            You need to change your name. You are NOT a proud American. You are an anti-American with your evil socialists views. Clearly anti-Constitutional!

            Common Core is garbage!!! It is evil!!! Central all-controlling planning is it’s goal. Domination and control of children. Brainwash them. Condition them. Control them. Dominate them. Program them. This is why intellectual individual “entrepreneurship” is so very important. In the business world, entrepreneurship is freedom and creativity. This is what we need in education. We need individualism and creativity in education. We need decentralization. We need parental control. We need private solutions. We need virtual independent learning. We need option after option after option. We need parents to design curricula. We need parents to demand that information is relevant and nonpolitical. We also need capitalism taught. We need accounting, business math, fundamental analysis, entrepreneurship, and long-term small business ownership taught before kids become adults. Adulthood is far too late to teach capitalism. We need to take away control from government. There needs to be a separation of education and state. Educators can no longer be trusted. Common Core is garbage!!!!

          • ProudAmerican

            In light of the fact that the Middle East is a hotbed of activity that directs world events, teaching kids more about this part of the world is a very good idea. That said, Common Core is no pipeline of Islamic propaganda.
            The industrial age of public education is almost over. We’ve outgrown the “school buildings and classrooms.” approach and teaching with paper books. Individualized education where children have access to all there is including religions like Islam and parts of the world like the Middle East. is already here. With the technology of today you cannot really censor information and education. In the future it will be impossible to control what kind, how much or how credible education and information will be for children. As far as learning goes, more is better.

          • afchief

            Do liberals ever have a clue? Do they ever stop lying? NO!!!

            When The Wicked Rule A Nation

            By Geri Ungurean

            ________________________________________

            None of us would have guessed that America would be a modern Sodom and Gomorrah in these final days of history. We knew that Obama was a Marxist/Socialist, and that was disturbing enough. We knew that he had close ties with Planned Parenthood, and that his voting record in the Senate was termed “left” of Ted Kennedy. That spoke volumes.

            Now, in his final term, Obama is wreaking havoc with our country and specifically with our children. I read recently, that he threatened to cut school lunch funding if schools did not comply with his transgender program. Now I see what this transgender program is all about, and it is revolting and despicable.

            America does not appear in End Times prophecy, and it is now very clear to us why this is so. I believe that America will be utterly destroyed or conquered by a foe. If Yellowstone blows, then half of our country will be devastated. If the presence of ISIS is as great as is being reported, we will begin to see mass murders and beheadings. Jade Helm 15, which is a “tactical exercise” for the military in seven states, just might be a drill on instating Martial Law.

            Can we expect anything different from the Lord? Our country has turned its back on Him. It grieves me to the point of tears. I have published the article on the transgender program from Fox News in its entirety, so that you will understand just how egregious this agenda really is. It doesn’t even seem real. It seems more like a plot from a very off the wall novel. It IS real folks. We need to get on our knees before God.

            FROM FOX NEWS:

            “One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.

            Fairfax County Public Schools released a report recommending changes to their family life curriculum for grades 7 through 12. The changes, which critics call radical gender ideology, will be formally introduced next week.

            “The larger picture is this is really an attack on nature itself – the created order,” said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.

            “Human beings are created male and female. But the current transgender ideology goes way beyond that. They’re telling us you can be both genders, you can be no gender; you can be a gender that you make up for yourself. And we’re supposed to affirm all of it.”

            The plan calls for teaching seventh graders about transgenderism and tenth graders about the concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum — but it sure smells like unadulterated sex indoctrination.

            Get a load of what the kids are going to be learning in middle school:

            “Students will be provided definitions for sexual orientation terms heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality; and the gender identity term transgender,” the district’s recommendations state. “Emphasis will be placed on recognizing that everyone is experiencing changes and the role of respectful, inclusive language in promoting an environment free of bias and discrimination.”

            Eighth graders will be taught that individual identity “occurs over a lifetime and includes the component of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

            “Individual identity will also be described as having four parts – biological gender, gender identity (includes transgender), gender role, and sexual orientation (includes heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual).”

            The district will also introduce young teenagers to the “concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum.” By tenth grade, they will be taught that one’s sexuality “develops throughout a lifetime.”

            “Emphasis will be placed on an understanding that there is a broader, boundless, and fluid spectrum of sexuality that is developed throughout a lifetime,” the document states. “Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

            As you might imagine – parents are freaking out.

            “Parents need to protect their kids from this assault,” said Andrea Lafferty, president of Traditional Values Coalition. “Who could imagine that we are in this place today – but we are.”

            Last week, the school board voted to include gender identity in the district’s nondiscrimination policy – a decision that was strongly opposed by parents.

            Lafferty, who led the opposition to the nondiscrimination policy, warned that the district is moving towards the deconstruction of gender.

            “At the end of this is the deconstruction of gender – absolutely,” she told me. “The majority of people pushing (this) are not saying that – but that clearly is the motivation.”

            School Board spokesman John Torre told the Washington Times the proposed curriculum changes have nothing to do with last week’s vote to allow boys who identity as girls to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice.

            He would have us believe it was purely coincidental.

            To make matters worse, Lafferty contends parents will not be able to opt their children out of the classes because the lessons will be a part of the mandatory health curriculum.

            However, Torre told me that parents will indeed be able to opt out of those classes “including the sexual orientation and gender identity lessons.”

            I must confess that I’m a bit old school on sex education. I believe that God created male and female. My reading of the Bible does not indicate there were dozens of other options.

            “They are not being forthright with the information,” Lafferty said. “They are not telling people the truth. They are bullying parents. They are intimidating and they are threatening.”

            However, I’m always open to learning new things – so I asked the school district to provide me with the textbooks and scientific data they will be using to instruct the children that there are dozens and dozens of possible genders.

            Here’s the reply I received from Torre:

            “Lessons have not been developed for the proposed lesson objectives,” he stated. “Because of the need to develop lessons, the proposed objectives would not be implemented until fall 2016.”

            In other words – they don’t have a clue.

            And the Family Research Council’s Sprigg said there’s a pretty good reason why they can’t produce a textbook about fluidity.

            “It’s an ideological concept,” he told me. “It’s not a scientific one.”

            He warned that Fairfax County’s planned curriculum could be harmful to students.

            “It’s only going to create more confusion in the minds of young people who don’t need any further confusion about sexual identity,” he said.

            The board will introduce the changes on May 21. Lafferty said she hopes parents will turn out in force to voice their objections.” [1]

            Brethren, please understand that these things are happening for a specific reason. The government wants to have solid cases against Christians, when we begin to speak out against these vile and unbiblical teachings. We will then be accused of “hate speech”, and many of us will most likely go to jail.

            Those of us who know the Lord and have discernment, knew that Obama was a very dangerous man. We tried to warn those around us, and we were called racists.

            “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan.” (Proverbs 29:2)

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            This is such perverse wickedness…

            We’ve gotta hit our knees in repentance and intercession to the Lord.

          • afchief

            So true!

          • ProudAmerican

            Compared to European, Japanese and many Asian public schools American public schools are mediocre at best. Very few Northern Europeans and even fewer Japanese believe in God(s) of any sort and certainly do not teach anything like belief in the supernatural or the reality of ancient myths. Keep gods in church and out of schools.

          • afchief

            NOPE! Put God back in schools.

            “To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” -Teddy Roosevelt.

          • ProudAmerican

            Or, leave God in churches, temples and mosques where “it” belongs and keep superstition, mythical magic and supernatural dogma out of the schools. A place for everything and everything in its place.

          • afchief

            Nope bring back God in everything!!!! The problem in society in general was compounded when we, collectively, began rejecting the reality of a Supreme Deity, His moral absolutes (e.g., murder is always wrong, even when the victim is an inconvenient fetus) and their expressions (e.g., prayer in public school) which underpin our Constitution.

            Removing God from culture does not remove religion from culture, it just replaces one religion with a different one…..secular humanism which is evil!

          • ProudAmerican

            Thanks for sharing. I’ll say a prayer to Zeus and Apollo to save your eternal soul. My God is better than your God. *sigh*

          • ProudAmerican

            Just about everything from life saving pharmaceuticals, advanced electronics, satellite communication, smartphones, search engine algorithms, and agricultural herbicides to mapping the human genome were born in American universities. People sure seem to learn a lot in all those destroyed places of learning. Ask an Exxon geologist if a college education made any difference in his life. Yeah, liberal universities have contributed nothing worthwhile in society.

          • afchief

            Today they are nothing more than cesspools of evil socialism!!!

            “To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” -Teddy Roosevelt.

          • The Last Trump

            I think you lost him at “Hello”.
            Common occurrence with these types.
            Big on argue. Short on honest debate and fact consideration.

          • Rebecca

            Your kids will be delivering pizzas or working at Target stocking shelves.

          • BarkingDawg

            University of West Florida

            A so-so tier II school.

          • afchief

            A very good school.

          • ProudAmerican

            All that, and American public education produced some of the greatest scientists, musicians, authors, academics, doctors, scholars and businessmen in all of world history.

          • afchief

            WERE! Today they are nothing but cesspools of godless socialism!

          • ProudAmerican

            If “cesspools of godless socialism” are providing amputees with cutting edge prosthetics, curing and treating diseases that were at one time incurable and untreatable, making life changing advances in technology and helping feed a hungry world with new innovations in agricultural science…then let our research universities keep up the good work and contribute to the inexorable march forward in human knowledge. If godless socialism gave us the Hubble telescope, advanced robotics, high-tech computer technology and life saving modern medicine, let’s fuel even greater progress with less god and more socialism. You will be amazed by the scientific and technological advances we will see in just the next 20 years thanks to those cesspools of higher learning.

          • afchief

            Nope!

            “To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” -Teddy Roosevelt.

          • ProudAmerican

            Odd that you keep quoting one of the most notable progressives of the early 20th century. He was the “liberal” candidate in the presidential election. Just say in’.

          • afchief

            The truth never changes!

        • Rebecca

          Mine have college degrees and are in productive, well doing jobs. What about your children?

          • Elie Challita

            None yet, although I’m pretty damned sure I won’t teach them we all descended from two people who were created from dust.

          • Rebecca

            I’m pretty damned sure you’ll fill their brains with the stupid fantasy evolution story.

          • Elie Challita

            Fill their brains? Hell no, bud. I’ll just tell them about our current understanding of science at the time. I would no more convince them of the sanctity of evolution than I would preach the virtues of gravity.
            The only people who view evolution as some sort of religion are the religious fundies who fear the competition…

          • Rebecca

            evolution is fantasy.

          • Elie Challita

            Sure it is, sugar. And what’s your opinion on gravity? Or nuclear fusion, for that matter?

          • Rebecca

            Those are real. Evolution isn’t, sugar.

          • Elie Challita

            To parrot one of your peoples’ favorite arguments: How do you know? Were you there?

            I assume you’re disregard natural selection and adaptation then?

          • Rebecca

            You weren’t there when evolution apparently happened either. Your point?

          • Elie Challita

            I take it you’re not familiar with Ken Ham? My apologies, I thought you’d recognize the reference.

          • Rebecca

            I’ve heard his name, but not familiar.

          • Elie Challita

            He’s a pretty outspoken creationists, runs a website called Answers in Genesis, and is currently building a huge Noah’s Ark museum in Kentucky.
            His entire argument against evolution, or basically anything that predates human written history, consists of repeatedly saying “How do you know? Were you there?”

            Which is, of course, a gross misrepresentation of science because he basically rejects the validity of the scientific method for any conclusion he doesn’t agree with, but affirms it for any other subject he might need.

          • JGC

            Actually, I was there and you were as well, as evolution is happening around us as we speak (how else did you think antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria like MRSA arose?)

          • JGC

            Rebecca, if you believe evolution isn’t real perhaps you could offer a definition of evolution as you understand it? My guess is you’re confusing it with something it is not.

          • Reason2012

            Except we can observe objects falling to the ground. By sharp contrast ask evolutionists to show the human race ever seeing populations of fish evolving over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. No such thing has ever happened for any animals in the entire existence of the human race.

          • Elie Challita

            I guess you believe that fossils are simply puzzle board games left behind by Adam’s kids?

          • Reason2012

            Making up beliefs about fossils that does not happen does not make fossils evidence of that belief

          • Elie Challita

            How do you explain fossils that progressively get more complex or exhibit features we see replicated in later fossils?

          • Reason2012

            Many assumptions in that statement
            1 dates of fossils. Red blood cells and soft tissue continues to be found in fossils “dated” 60+ million years old, proving those fossils are only thousands of years old.

            2 just because two things look alike this does not ran”this evolved into that”

            3 science is not about reasons to believe something. Science starts with something the human race sees happen, then we come up with theories about how it might have happened. Right or wrong that’s science. Evolutionism starts with ignoring what does happen and pretend their beliefs happen when they don’t then they give reasons to believe in it. They then call these reasons “evidence”, which is circular reasoning

            Bottom line is: the topic of the origin of biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone an bring to the table.

          • Elie Challita

            1- Radiometric dating works because radioactive elements decay at a stable and measurable rate. Unless you can somehow prove that this rate varies randomly (a conclusion which is entirely unsupported), then you have to admit that we can indeed measure the current quantity of radioactive isotropes in any body and conclude exactly how long it took for the original quantity to decay to current levels.
            Soft tissues and blood cells have so far been shown to be the result of extraneous contamination.

            2- Actually it does. If you find a succession of fossils that share a great deal of similar features, with a progression of features between these two, they’re almost guaranteed to be related. It doesn’t mean that those two individuals are related, but it does mean that the later species probably came from the earlier one. Otherwise, where did it come from?
            I don’t understand that argument, honestly: You all already admit that we can clearly see dog breeds evolving when we select for certain features. Why the arbitrary cutoff point?

            3- Thank you for making my point for me. Nobody woke up one day and thought “Hm, today I’ll convince everyone that we all came from monkeys”. Naturalists studied the animals around them and found that you could actually measure a progression of phenotypes through generation. From there it was a short hop to figuring out the corresponding progression of genotypes, and they took that idea to its logical conclusion: All living beings must have come from a previously living ancestor, and those ancestors changed throughout the ages.

          • Reason2012

            Dating methods are based upon assumptions, including no catastophies The fact is red blood cells and soft tissues can only last thousands of years which PROVES those fossils are only thousands of years old

            2 See (1). No such thing as successive fossils when their dates are outright false. Using your logic, it would be “proof” cats evolved into dogs if you simply find cat bones in a lower layer.

            3 it’s not “studying” to make up mythological beliefs the human race has never seen – that’s just storytelling.

          • JGC

            “Dating methods are based upon assumptions, including no catastophies The fact is red blood cells and soft tissues can only last thousands of years which PROVES those fossils are only thousands of years old”

            CItations needed: your proof that red blood cells and soft tissues can only last thousands of years when encapsulated by fossilized bone would be what, exactly?

            “it’s not “studying” to make up mythological beliefs the human race has never seen – that’s just storytelling.’
            May I take it you dismiss the two creation myths found in Genesis 1 and 2 as just ‘storytelling, then?

          • Reason2012

            So to be clear, you’re claiming science has never stated red blood cells and soft tissue can only last thousands of years? You’ve honestly never read about this before they started showing up on fossils “dated” 60+ MILLION years old?

            If I was calling Genesis 1 and 2 science, you’d have a point.
            I’m not.
            Why is it you only seem to know what science is when it comes to beliefs you reject? You might be catching on.

          • JGC

            I’m stating that you’re asserting that softer tissues can only last preserved in animal remains fro thousands of years–and doing so in the face of new evidence demonstrating that they can in fact last much, much longer. In fact, your entire argument against the discovery of preserved soft tissues in fossil remains seems to be “They have to be wrong-that just can’t happen’.
            As for Gen 1 and 2, what difference does it make if you’re calling them science or something other than science? Are you saying that because you don’t consider scripture to be science Gen 1 and 2 are something other than just storytelling–i.e., made up mythological beliefs?

          • Elie Challita

            Again, blood cells and soft tissues have usually been ruled out as contamination. Especially since a good deal of them turned out to be human tissue.

            Dating methods are based upon reasonable assumptions. If your entire argument against radiometric dating boils down to “Prove there wasn’t a nuclear blast 3 million years ago that skewed the decay rate”, then you might want to reconsider your position

          • Reason2012

            Please cite the proof that “a good deal” of them, let alone ANY of them, were human tissue.

            Please cite the proof that “a good deal” of them, let alone ANY of them, were contamination.

            Assumptions of no contamination, no change in rate, how much of an isotope was present to begin with and more are not reasonable assumptions. Red blood cells and soft tissue proves they were completely faulty assumptions.

          • Elie Challita

            Sigh…
            There was only a single credible finding of soft tissue in fossils, in a paper published back in 2005. And you’ll note that the “soft tissue” was pretty much trace amounts trapped within fossilized material. The same research that concluded that also showed that the T-Rex they found this material in had very similar bone structure (as in, the interior structure of the bones and the vessels inside of them) to that of chickens and ostriches. I take it you’ll thus accept that t-rexes are related to chickens?

          • JGC

            Please identify specifically the assumptions you believe that radioisotope dating is based upon, reason–it’s hard to address your argument without that information.

          • Reason2012

            answersingenesis
            dot
            org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

            Not to mention the FACT that whenever we CAN know the dates of things, these “dating methods” are an outright farce – so we’re supposed to ‘trust’ them on things we can’t verify? Hardly.

          • JGC

            I posted a response to this five days ago, with links addressing each of the ‘assumptions’ addressed in the AIG article, but today I open my mail to find that post and another response to a post of yours flagged as “PENDING”. Hopefully they’ll appear soon, but if not I’ll try to break them down and repost their contents.

          • ProudAmerican

            Biological and geological dating methods have been around for a century, relentlessly peer reviewed, tested for accuracy, validated, tested again and over the decades of research are more sophisticated and accurate than ever before. The science is sound and verifiable. The methods are confirmed to be reliable in the production of accurate data. There is no genuine dispute or controversy over reliability, accuracy or validity. SOURCE: Wikipedia

          • Reason2012

            You can’t “test for accuracy” dates of fossils we don’t know the dates of. Please tell me how you can show they are accurate. It seems you just make things up as you go along.

            What’s sound and verifiable: red blood cells and soft tissue will only last thousands of years, and they are being found on fossils “dated” 60+ MILLION Years old with greater frequency, which proves those fossils are NOT even a million years old but instead only thousands of years old, proving those dating methods are a farce.

            What do fish to men evolutionists do? Throw out more observable, repeatable, scientific fact and just say “Oh – looks like red blood cells and soft tissue can last 60+ million years after all!”

            Fish to men evolutionists are as anti-science as you can get – all to promote their fish to men mythology as science when it’s actually anti-science.

          • ProudAmerican

            Hmmmm…thousands of eminent scholars and highly respected and acclaimed scientists working in multiple disciplines on one side of the validity of radiometric dating “debate” and you with your superior intellect and impeccable knowledge on the other. Not even a fair fight. I guess you must be the lone voice of fact and reason in a world of uneducated deluded apostates.

          • JGC

            How about the fact that we’ve directly observed evolution to occur, in real-time, both in controlled laboratory settings and uncontrolled in the wild? Note that these observations include extinction and speciation events, which by definition represent macroevolution.

          • Reason2012

            You just got done saying it takes too long to happen, now you claim we’ve directly observed it? Which is it? You can’t go around making whatever claim suits your current attempt at promoting evolutionism.

            Here’s what *is* science on the topic: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

            (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

            (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

            (c) Where that belief *never happens* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

            Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

          • JGC

            No Reason, I did not state that. If you’ll read my post more carefully I said that we would not expect to directly observe a fish evolve into something other than a fish, not that we would not expect to directly observe evolution. It is, in fact, rather commonly observed (how do you think antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria like MRSA arise?)

            “that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish…etc.”

            Reason, the human race has existed for the blink of an eye on any time scale relevant to the type of evolutionary changes you’re referring to. The first living organism we have fossil evidence for (stromatolytes) appeared three and a half billion years ago. Modern man appeared about 200,000 years ago, with the earliest proto-humans appearing between 5 and 7 million years ago. Evolutionary models actually predict we should never observe a fish evolving into something other than a fish, or a bird evolving into something other than a bird, over the period of time we’ve been around to look for it.

          • Reason2012

            I never said “a” single fish evolve into something that’s not “a” fish. I’ve always said many times “populations” and “over generations” – so now you’re just making up false strawmen. Why is that?

            // Reason, the human race has existed for the blink of an eye on any time scale relevant to the type of evolutionary changes you’re referring to. //

            There you go again saying what you claim you’re not saying. In so many words the human race has not been around enough to see what it is we’re talking about (“we’ve only existed for the blink of an eye”): the fish to men type of evolutionism. So you’re pointing out that what they claim is science can only be believed in and takes too long -so in effect you are only offering reasons to believe in it. And in effect you’re claiming we should take the reasons to believe it happens anyway, when it doesn’t, as ‘evidence’ and call it science anyway.

            You proved my point: fish to men evolutionism is just a belief with only reasons to believe in it as the human race has never seen any such thing over the entire existence of the human race.

          • JGC

            You’ll note I didn’t claim you said “”a” single fish evolve into something that’s not “a” fish”, but I apologize for the misplaced article. Your claim was, however, “By sharp contrast ask evolutionists to show the human race ever seeing populations of fish evolving over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. No such thing has ever happened for any animals in the entire existence of the human race”, and I’ have been trying to explain what evolutionary models predict we should not observe this occurring. Certainly we find physical evidence this has occurred in the past, but we wouldn’t expect to observe it ourselves.
            Perhaps you could clear something up for me–are you arguing that we can only derive explanations for, or draw conclusions regarding, events that occurred in the past if a member of the human race were actually there to directly observe it when it occurred?

          • ProudAmerican

            Not only are there mountains of indisputable evidence confirming the Theory of Evolution, the best educated, best qualified,most highly successful people of the world understand the basic science of how evolution works. Biologists and geneticists build their careers on an academic scientific foundation of the evolution of the species. On the other hand, you might tell me you believe dinosaurs sailed away on Noah’s Ark, The universe is 6000 years old, and it was God that intelligently designed man to have nipples. Dispute and question the validity of string theory in physics and leave evolution alone. It’s over your head.

          • Reason2012

            No, there’s NO evidence for it. Making up beliefs about fossils that does not happen, then pretending this makes fossils ‘evidence’ of the beliefs you just made up about them is anti-science circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            (repeat)

            It would be similar to someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”

            Evolutionist “That’s a vestigial structure – and here are reasons I believe it is!”
            “What’s that?”
            Evolutionist “When for example your great…great grandparents are fish, any things left over that we no longer use are vestigial structures from when we were fish”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolution is true”
            “How do you know evolution is true when the human race has never seen any such thing?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a vestigial structure – and here are reasons I believe it is!”
            (go back to top and repeat)

            Why is it you can only attack belief in God to defend fish to men evolutionism, which is supposed to be science? Only shows yet again how anti-science evolutionists truly are.

          • JGC

            Reason, given the low frequency of genetic changes in populations over time, the fact that the majority of genetic changes are neutral or harmful and the amount of time we’ve been around to observe evolutionary changes in living populations, no evolutionary theory predicts we should ever have seen a population of fish evolve into something other than a fish. If we actually did, it would indicate our understanding of evolution required serious revision.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. So in other words you’re implying science is about presenting beliefs that the human race has never seen, then in so many words claiming that your beliefs take too long, that’s why the human race will never see it, hence call the reasons we believe in it evidence and call it science anyway. That’s not science, that’s anti-science storytelling.

            The bottom line is the topic of the origins of all biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table.

          • JGC

            “So in other words you’re implying science is about
            presenting beliefs that the human race has never seen”

            Those aren’t other words for what I’m saying—I haven’t in fact, addressed what science is about at all. Similarly, I’m not addressing beliefs, but predictive conclusions derived from the existing body of evidence regarding the natural mechanisms by which biologically diverse species populations arise.

            “then in so many words claiming that your beliefs take too long, that’s why the human race will never see it”

            Again: this is not what I’m saying at all: I’m not saying my ‘beliefs’ (whatever you think they are) take too long for the direct
            observation of a fish becoming something other than a fish. I’m explaining why evolutionary models do not predict we should ever directly observe a population of fish evolve into something other than fish.

            “hence call the reasons we believe in it evidence and call it science anyway.”

            One more thing I’m not saying at all: science does not confuse ‘the reasons we believe in scientific models” with the evidence from which those models are derived.

            “The bottom line is the topic of the origins of all biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science as beliefs”

            It’s not beyond the scope of science at all—there’s a very, very large body of evidence regarding the natural mechanisms by which
            biologically diverse species populations have arisen, from which tentative, comprehensive, predictive and falsifiable explanatory models may be derived.

            “and reasons to believe in it”

            Scientific models do derive confidence from embracing
            reasons to believe in them: they derive confidence from their demonstrated ability to explain al observations within their scope in a comprehensive and predictive manner.

            “are all anyone can bring to the table”

            Science brings large bodies of evidence from multiple fields
            of inquiry to the table. With respect to evolutionary models, of the top of my head we’re talking about the fossil record and fossil transitional series, comparative anatomy, cladistics, genetic and peptide homologies, conserved retroviral insertions, transposons and pseudogenes, the biogeographic distribution pf species and fossil remains, etc. –plus the small fact that we’ve directly observed evolution occurring, in real time, in uncontrolled conditions in the wild. These observations include speciation and extinction events, which by definition represent macroevolution.

          • Reason2012

            // Those aren’t other words for what I’m saying—I haven’t in fact, addressed what science is about at all. //

            Sure it is – you try to claim that your beliefs take too long for the human race to see it, hence we should supposedly accept it as science anyway. So in effect you are most certainly implying that’s what science is. So you realize that’s not science but storytelling?

            // Similarly, I’m not addressing beliefs, but predictive conclusions derived from the existing body of evidence regarding the natural mechanisms by which biologically diverse species populations arise. //

            Making up beliefs that never happen ABOUT fossils does not make fossils “evidence” of this belief – that’s just anti-science circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            (repeat)

            It would be similar to someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            // I’m explaining why evolutionary models do not predict we should ever directly observe a population of fish evolve into something other than fish. //

            Your “explanation” is: it takes too long that’s why the human race will never see it.

            // One more thing I’m not saying at all: science does not confuse ‘the reasons we believe in scientific models” with the evidence from which those models are derived. //

            You’re right, science doesn’t. But fish to men evolutionism is about making up beliefs about fossils or dna that never happens, then pretend that makes fossils or dna evidence of it. But as shown, that’s just circular reasoning.

            The only thing the evidence of fossil shows is that something lived and died – the made up mythological belief that ‘this evolved into that’, which science shows does not happen, is anti-science mythological storytelling.

            // It’s not beyond the scope of science at all—there’s a very, very large body of evidence regarding the natural mechanisms by which biologically diverse species populations have arisen, from which tentative, comprehensive, predictive and falsifiable explanatory models may be derived. //

            False. There’s NO evidence that “shows” populations of fish that never had lungs ‘evolving’ lungs to breath air and legs to walk on land – that’s just making up stories.

            // Scientific models do derive confidence from embracing reasons to believe in them: they derive confidence from their demonstrated ability to explain al observations within their scope in a comprehensive and predictive manner.

            // Science brings large bodies of evidence from multiple fields of inquiry to the table. //

            False. There’s NO evidence of the fish to men belief of evolutionism. That’s a made up story that science shows does not happen.

            // With respect to evolutionary models, of the top of my head we’re talking about the fossil record and fossil transitional series, //

            Circular reasoning starting with the assumption it’s true when science shows us it’s not

            // comparative anatomy, //

            Making up beliefs about what similarity in anatomy means, which science shows us it doesn’t mean this at all.

            // cladistics, //

            Classifying fossils as “this evolved into that (because I said so and I assume fish to men type of evolutionism is possible)” doesn’t then support the belief made up about them. More circular reasoning.

            // genetic and peptide homologies //

            Making up beliefs ABOUT DNA that does not happen does not then make DNA ‘evidence’ or ‘support’ of this made up belief.

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”

            // conserved retroviral insertions //

            Making up beliefs about viruses that science shows is not true does not make those viruses evidence of this belief. More circular reasoning.

            // transposons and pseudogenes, //

            see above – more beliefs about DNA.

            // the biogeographic distribution pf species and fossil remains //

            “We found this here – therefore that’s evidence this evoloved from that” – more storytelling and circular reasoning.

            // , etc. –plus the small fact that we’ve directly observed evolution occurring, in real time, in uncontrolled conditions in the wild. //

            This after you just got done trying to point out why we can’t observe it – now you claim we can observe it.

            Here’s what *is* science on the topic: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

            (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact
            (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact
            (c) Where that belief *never happens* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

            // These observations include speciation and extinction events, which by definition represent macroevolution. //

            We observe species going extinct today, and it’s not becuase they “evolved over generations” into something completely new – it’s simply because they died out.

            Fish to men evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

          • ProudAmerican

            How do you manage to get your facts and information from sources that no one else with basic credibility can find, can access or have ever even heard of? Read your own words. Nothing you say is true. Is this what they teach at Liberty University? God help us.

          • JGC

            This is another post for which my reply of 5 days ago is flagged as pending–I’ll break the links and I’ll break the links again:

            “Sure it is – you try to claim that your beliefs take too long for the human race to see it, hence we should supposedly accept it as science anyway.”

            I’m curious—why do you keep using the word ‘beliefs’ to refer instead to predictions?

            “So in effect you are most certainly implying that’s what science is.”

            No, I’m not. I get that you’d prefer that I were, however. If you wanted me to describe what science ‘is’ I’d identify it as a robust and systematic method for generating a meaningful understanding of the physical world and the universe, which employs a naturalistic methodology allowing the derivation of tentative, comprehensive, predictive and falsifiable explanatory models for the various natural phenomenon we observe to occur within it.

            “Making up beliefs that never happen ABOUT fossils does not make fossils “evidence” of this belief – that’s just anti-science circular reasoning.”

            I’ve offered no ‘beliefs about fossils’—I’m addressing the origin of biologically diverse living populations. The fossil record and fossil transitional series are simply one piece of evidence from which our understanding of their origins derives.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because [it meets the scientific definition of a transitional fossil: any fossil that provides information regarding a transition between an ancestral form and that of its derived descendants, especially transitions from one group of species to another group of species.] Fixed that for you.

            “Your “explanation” is: it takes too long that’s why the human race will never [observe such a transition in realtime, but only observe evidence evidence documenting such transtions in the past occurring over very long time scales].” Fixed that for you as well.

            “But fish to men evolutionism is about making up beliefs about fossils or dna that never happens, then pretend that makes fossils or dna evidence of it.”

            You’ve got the process backwards: no one is making up ‘beliefs’ about fossils—we’re instead deriving meaningful explanatory models (i.e., theories) from existing fossil evidence.

            “The only thing the evidence of fossil shows is that something lived and died”
            Much more than that, actually: not just that something lived and died but that a population of those ‘somethings’ lived and died, what physical form the members of that population exhibited, what environmental niches that population exploited, how that population was biogeographically distributed, at what point in time the population was extant, how it was similar or dissimilar to other populations existing before, at the same time, and after that population lived, etc.

            “There’s NO evidence that “shows” populations of fish that never had lungs ‘evolving’ lungs to breath air and legs to walk on land “

            You mean, other than the fact they are still extant? wwwDOTenDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Mudskipper

            “There’s NO evidence of the fish to men belief of evolutionism.”

            Other than the fossil record and transitional fossil series, you mean. And genetic and peptide homologies. And of course conserved retroviral insertions, transposons and pseudogenes. Comparative anatomy and cladistics. Fundamental unity of life. Convergence of independent phylogenies……Well, you get the point, I trust. Aside from a very, very, VERY large body of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry there’s no evidence at all.

            “Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because [of uniquely conserved features, such as retroviral insertions, pseudogenes and transposon in shared alleles exhibited by both populations]” Fixed that for you. Let me provide
            an example:

            L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) is the final enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway for vitamin C in most plants and many animals, allowing them to produce vitamin C from glucose or galactose. There are some animals, however, that can no longer synthesize their own vitamin C and are dependent on dietary sources to provide it (which is why humans can
            develop scurvy).

            The GULO-P gene found in humans, chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques is no longer functional, rendering it pseudogene. What’s notable is that in all these the functional gene is no longer functional due to a 164 nucleotide sequence of exon X exhibiting an identical single nucleotide deletion mutation.

            So not only do we observe humans, apes and old world monkeys to all possess a GULO-P pseudogene rather than a functional GULO-P gene, in all of these the pseudogene is broken in exactly the same place, in exactly the same way as a consequence of a random mutational event.

            Evolutionary models explain this observation as being the result of these primates all arising by descent from a common ancestral population, in which the GULO-P gene had already undergone the single nucleotide deletion such that all descendants inherited the non-functional GULO pseudogene instead of a functional copy.

            How does whatever model you prefer to evolution explain this instead, reason?

            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            But it does happen—we’ve directly observed it occurring in living populations. How did you think antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria arise, if not as the result of evolution?

            “We observe species going extinct today, and it’s not becuase they “evolved over generations” into something completely new- it’s simply because they died out.”
            Definition of macroevolution: any evolutionary change ocurring at or above the taxonomic level of the species (e.g., speciation and extinction events)”(Biotech Life Sciences Dictionary). If we’ve observed extinction events, we’ve observed macroevolution by definition.

            Of course, we’ve also observed speciation events—for example: Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila”, Nature 23:289-292.
            Mosquin, T., 1967. “Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)”, Evolution 21:713-719.

          • ProudAmerican

            Science doesn’t care if you believe in it or not. Whether you do or don’t believe in the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity you won’t go flying off into the stratosphere and you will never trace your family tree back to Adam and Eve or the talking snake, for that matter.

          • Reason2012

            That’s because science is about things that actually happen – no belief required. Objects fall to the ground; diseases spread; matter affects matter: no belief required. Then they come up with theories about how it might actually be happening. Fish to men evolutionists start by ignoring that it does NOT happen, pretend it does anyway, then skip to the “how” part anyway and call reasons they believe in it “evidence”.

            Talking snakes? You do realize in the fish to men belief system, fish, reptiles, frogs and more eventually learned to read, write, speak, publish books, design and program computers and more – just “give it enough time”. Fish to men evolutionists believe far worse than that which you condemn – do you not notice?

            But by attacking belief in God when they’re supposed to be defending their fish to men evolutionism, fish to men evolutionists unwittingly prove yet again what the real motivation of fish to men evolutionism is: an attack on belief in God on top of an attack on science.

            I can show you an object falling to the ground. Feel free to ask fish to men evolutionists to show populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Show that for any animal in the entire existence of the human race and you’d finally have something besides science fiction. Huge difference between actual science and fish to men evolutionism.

          • JGC

            “Objects fall to the ground; diseases spread; matter affects matter: no belief required.”
            Evolution occurs, including speciation and extinction events which by definition represent macroevolution. No belief required.

          • JGC

            As populations of fish and those other animals we’d no longer consider to be fish arose from common ancestral populations long before hominids, including homo sapiens, arose on the planet evolution doesn’t predict we should ever have seen this and our failure to have done so does nothing to undermine confidence in evolutionary models.
            Nice strawman you erected, though. Have fun bashing away at it.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Fantasy evolution stories leave the brain remarkably unfilled, with gaping intellectual voids that are hard to comprehend. These voids attract idleness, faulty logic and personal harm, but are never filled. You need evolution like a hole in your head.

          • Rebecca

            Those who believe evolution are delusional.

          • ProudAmerican

            You do know, of course, that you just said that a majority of the world’s population, nearly every physician and scientist and a vast majority of highly successful business leaders and executives are all out of their minds and suffering crippling psychosis.

          • wandakate

            And the Bible tells us that all the world follows the beast…Hell will be full b/c as you say, the majority of the world’s population are all out of their minds. I will believe that.

          • ProudAmerican

            Uh…so you and yours believe in talking snakes, raising the dead, angels, ghosts, spirits, demons, the fiery pit of Hell and a 1st century Jew who walks on water,and telepathy with an invisible imaginary being, calling it “prayer” and YOU are the sane rational folks and the other 6 billion of us are the one’s who are deluded, insane and all out-of-our-minds because we don’t? Got it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, I would rather be descended from two people made from dust than to believe that life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud. In both cases, we came from dust or mud, but at least in the former case, God had His hand in it. 🙂

            Besides, I would rather say that humans are my unique ancestors than to say that my relatives are rats and my cousins are cockroaches. Which worldview really is the most depressing here, Elie, and which one has hope? Do you let your relatives (rats) and cousins (cockroaches) into your house to enjoy your Thanksgiving meal?!? (Happy Thanksgiving early, BTW. Hope yours is great!)

            On evolutionary naturalism, we are merely evolved beasts and can behave as such. On Christian theism, we have a Higher Standard to aim for. God bless you, Elie!

          • Elie Challita

            Now now WGC, are you arguing from sentiment now? I’m disappointed

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not at all, Elie. I’m merely saying that it takes more faith to believe in the magical mud-to-minds without an personal Cause than with one. It’s rather like the faith required to believe that the universe mega-miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.

            As for your relative rats and cousin cockroaches, why don’t you invite them for dinner? That seems inconsistent on evolutionary naturalism. And the morality issue is quite relevant if we are nothing more than evolved beasts, because impersonal mud-to-morals is even more of a blind faith exercise than mud-to-minds.

          • Elie Challita

            Ah, but you forget that us godless heathens also live by survival of the fittest, and thus seek to impose our dominance on such puny relatives as rats by keeping them away from the lasagna

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – love it, Elie!

            On the other hand, it sounds like you are an elitist when it comes to your less abled relatives and cousins. Can I take it that you are for the extermination of the less evolved? 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            Not at all, why would you think that?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No pest control at the Challita’s?!?

          • Elie Challita

            Why would you think I’m in favor of exterminating the less evolved?
            By that definition, is everyone on the planet a eugenicist?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Why would you think I’m in favor of exterminating the less evolved?”

            You don’t have pest control for your rat relatives and cockroach cousins?!? 🙂

            “By that definition, is everyone on the planet a eugenicist?”

            No, just atheists, but not ALL atheists. 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            You seem to think that rats and cockroaches are less evolved than you are. Why is that?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You seem to think that rats are your relatives and cockroaches are your cousins, yet you do not say why you desire to kill them when they attend your Thanksgiving dinner. Why is that?!?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey Elie, I am just having a little fun with you. Anyway, in all seriousness, if I do not get a chance to talk with you again, may you and yours have a very Happy Thanksgiving!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Have a good one too!

          • wandakate

            It’s a lot more difficult to believe in nothing than it is to believe in somebody. But, when you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything. We must have something to believe in, to ease the pain, to give us peace and security. Only GOD is able to do these things.

          • JGC

            “Well, I would rather be descended from two people made from dust than to believe that life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.”
            1) That you’d prefer to believe in any one of the world’s various creation myths does not argue that myth is true.
            2) No evolutionary theory address the origin of the first living organisms, only changes in the genetic composition of already living populations over generations (you’re inappropriately conflating biogenesis and biological evolution).

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not at all – it looks like Elie’s original comment has been deleted. The point is that it takes a lot more faith to believe that the principal of causality was violated, on atheism, in the creation of the first life form than that it was not. Unless you are now asserting that science is a myth?

          • wandakate

            Elie needs prayer…He needs to learn the TRUTH, he needs to find the Savior and soon. He’s a lost soul no doubt.

          • wandakate

            That’s too bad…you will affect their entire future and their eternity, of course that’s only my humble opinion.
            I assume you’ll teach them about apes, and how they are just nothing more than the offspring of the ape, or maybe you’ll teach them about 2 mommies and 2 daddies, or some other off the wall thing.
            When you know the truth, the truth will set you free. GOD in all of His majesty and wisdom was able to create man from the dust of the earth (amazing isn’t it)?, being as you aren’t able to do that, are you? But then the magic came in, when He breathed the breath of life into Adam and Adam became a living SOUL…Totally awesome if I do say so myself.
            Never heard of any ape that could do that.

          • Elie Challita

            Yeah, I will teach them about apes, about how we’re all descended from the same tiny proto-human population, about how all humans are equal because of that and why nobody should have lesser rights than anybody else.
            I’ll also teach them to evaluate anything they hear critically (including what I tell them). Can you honestly claim you’ll teach your kids to evaluate your religion with the same rational and dispassionate eye as everything else, so that they can make a rational choice whether to believe or not?

          • lizk

            God created the heavens, earth, and sea and everything in it. God made man in His image and there are scientist that confirm it. We were made to walk upright. We did not descend from apes or creators. We are the only ones who can read and write.

          • Elie Challita

            Then God must have been pretty small, hunched over, and furry when He first made us.
            PS: We only started reading and writing some 4000 years ago, and some populations still don’t do that today.

          • lizk

            Back then they used all of their brains then 10% and they lived a lot longer than 120 yrs they lived to 900 yrs and up. For not being able to read now, education, gov’t, and some religious group don’t care because if you read the Bible you would know if they are misleading you. It’s not God that is causing all the calamity. God is love and He sent His son who died for us the we would have life. Read Job.

          • lizk

            Man used to live to 900 yrs old the oldest being 969 yrs old they used their brains more then we do. There used to be giants. God said there is nothing new on earth. He also said that people will not believe towards the end o time. He even described the way it will be just before Jesus comes back.

          • JGC

            And your evidence that man lived for 9 centuries, etc., would be what exactly? be specific–and note I’ve asked for evidence, not a listing of scriptural verses.

          • lizk

            For me it would be hard with out scripture as I trust what God says. It’s amazing that you would take man’s word above God’ word. Why don’t you go to CMI they are Christian scientist. Man used to eat from the tree of life till they sinned, then they were banned from eating from the tree. But the bible states that man lived 900 yrs and the oldest was Mathuselah 969 yrs of age Gen 5:27 after the flood meat was added to the food and God gave man 120 yrs. Noah was 950 yrs old and then he died. The rest rest of man kind were dieing earlier. Now we live between 60 to 100 give or take but what kind of life do some people have?

          • JGC

            You’re speaking as if the bible were known to possess some inherent authority, or to offer an accurate depiction of god’s existence, nature, will and relationship to his putative creation.
            Whatever for?

          • lizk

            Gods word is alive as it can change people who really want to know God. Jesus (the word of God, the Word became flesh) walked among men to show what God is like, He healed anyone who asked Him to as long as they believed and had faith. God’s word has the ability to change man, if they allowed Him to change them.

          • lizk

            The Bible is accurate historically and archeology confirms it. Prophecy is being fulfilled even now.

          • JGC

            The best that can be said for archeological evidence supporting biblical accuracy is that it’s authors got most details of geographic location and local culture correct—which is hardly surprising, since they were writing about contemporary cultures and extant or recently
            extant towns, cities and borders. There’s certainly no archeologic evidence supporting the bible’s depictions of supernatural events –no archeology supporting god communicating to Abraham in the form of a burning bush, or of the sun standing still in the skies so the Israelites could complete a military victory, or Jesus either raising a person from the dead or rising himself after crucifixion.

            And there is also geologic and archeologic evidence falsifying biblical accounts, including some of the more central memes, such as the occurrence of a catastrophic global flood or a general exodus from Egypt resulting in forty years wandering in the deserts.

          • lizk

            God said there are plenty of evidences that He has shown but they do not believe or they don’t want others to know. I chose to believe what God says. Man is complex they scientists are trying to tell us we came from apes, or monkeys, or slime. God said He made man. We are created in His image. If you want to believe that you descended from one of these, no one can force you otherwise. God never does. Jesus stands at the door and knocks, it’s up to you to open your heart to him.

          • JGC

            We don’t know god said anything of the sort, however. That he did, or for that matter that god exists or has attempted to communicate with his supposed creation, simply represents an additional article of subjective religious faith and is not evidence the bible possess an inherent authority.

            Note that no theory of evolution suggests that humans descend from monkeys or slime, although since humans represent apes themselves
            (in terms of taxonomy) it wouldn’t be inaccurate to suggest we come from them (our parents).

          • lizk

            God spoke to Adam and Eve fact to face, He talked to Moses because his face shown and he had to cover his face. The reason He doesn’t do it now is because sin separates us from God. We are all sinners and if we saw his face non of us would live. We are told to repent and turn away from our sins. The 10 commandments point out sin and only by Gods power can we overcome. We are told to be overcomers of the world just like Jesus was.

          • JGC

            But again there is no evidence that god exists or spoke to anyone face to face: these are again articles of religious faith possessed of no more inherent confidence or authority than similar or opposed articles of faith from any of the world’s other religious traditions, living or dead, that human
            societies have authored.

          • lizk

            God has given so much proof, you can even find that God says they have proof but they don’t want anyone else to know or they are not seeing it either way they will be held accoutable. I chose to believe God’s words. It’s only when I got a bible to read, I found answers because I asked questions and I found it in the bible because I wanted to know. I believe in God and would rather I live my life for God than not believing and find out there is a God. Which side are you on God’s side or the world. In the bible it says if you love the world you are an enemy of God.

          • JGC

            If god has in fact “given so much proof” in support of his existence or the authority of scripture why is it that no one can actually point to any, instead offering only professions of personal faith (“I chose to believe god’s words”) as support for either?
            (And for the record I consider myself squarely on god’s side, actively working to achieve tikkum olam.)

          • lizk

            one, look at how we are put together it did not take billions of years, we did not come from apes or anything else, scientist are now agreeing with a world wide flood many argue against it. Look at nature how creators are unique in their own ways. If we evolved then why is their still apes, monkeys or what ever we evolved from. If people want to believe that that’s their opinion. God doesn’t want lulke warm people. Either your on His side or the worlds side, that’s what freedom is.

          • JGC

            “one, look at how we are put together it did not take billions of years”

            What observations regarding how we’re ‘put together’ argue against an evolutionary origin for the world’s biologically diverse species
            populations if general and the species homo sapiens sapiens in specific? What observations indicate that the process of evolution which lead to homo sapiens appearing did not operate over a period of time measured in billions of years?

            “we did not come from apes or anything else”

            Evolution doesn’t state or predict we come from apes (in fact, taxonomically speaking humans are apes) but instead that both human and non-human primates descend from a common ancestral population. And there’s clear evidence that we do indeed come from an ‘anything else’, in the fossil record, genetic and peptide homologies, conserved retroviral insertions, transposons, pseudogenes, etc.

            ”scientist are now agreeing with a world wide flood many argue against it”

            A few people who also are scientists argue in support of various creation myths, but as they do so a expressions of religious faith rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or evaluation the fact that they’re also scientists is as germane as would be the fact they were upholsterers or FedEx employees. There is no scientific evidence in support of such a flood, and in fact abundant evidence demonstrating a catastrophic global flood can not have occurred at any time in the geologically recent past (i.e., at any time within the last 20
            million years as a minimum). Consider, for example The Green River and Lake Suigetsu varve formations.

            “Look at nature how creators are unique in their own ways.
            If we evolved then why is their still apes, monkeys or what ever we evolved from.”

            If I tried to argue “If dogs were bred from wolves why are there still wolves?” wouldn’t you laugh me out of the room? Evolution doesn’t predict we descended from apes or monkeys, and even if did nothing in evolutionary models requires a species population to become extinct should a new species population arise by descent from it.

            “If people want to believe that that’s their opinion.”

            I don’t believe in evolution, any more than I believe in erosion or plate tectonics. I don’t have to, since there are large bodies of evidence in support of all theses natural phenomena.

          • Elie Challita

            Just saying, most of what you just described reads like a particularly bad and boring acid trip.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          That’s below you, Elie. Two of mine are very successful engineers, and the other one learned 3 languages in high school and has a Master’s degree from seminary and works to help put dysfunctional families back together. All home-schooled.

          • Elie Challita

            Oh I was specifically replying to the chief up there, WGC, based on my prior discussions with him.
            Whatever your other faults may be, you’re not an idiot.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            For a rebuttal of your last sentence, I now present my wife. 🙂 Good seeing you again, Elie!

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Good job homeschooling!

        • afchief

          Putting you kid in a public school today IMO is child abuse.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            In some parts of some states, government schools are still fine. Usually more rural areas of red states are quite excellent, but there is a wide variation.

            Not everyone is able to homeschool. I try to help single moms and other families do it, and I still homeschool some kids in difficult situations. But, for those families who can even remotely do it, homeschooling is the best option, IMHO. It is a lot of work – or at least as for me! 🙂

          • afchief

            It’s just not the curriculum, it is the peer pressure. As a youth pastor for 20 years I have seen strong Christians teenagers give into peer pressure and cry for days because of it. We are throwing our kids into a snack pit hoping they will not get bit. In my 20 years as a youth pastor, roughly 3 to 5% of Christians teenagers did not give in to peer pressure. But all said the temptation to do so was very great.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            100% true! Thank you for adding that good point – the peer pressure means that much behavior will seek the lowest common denominator (pun intended).

          • wandakate

            I would think that’s b/c satan is right in the middle of the “peer pressure”…He’s just saying, “Come on, you know that is going to be okay, you know it will ‘feel good’, you know that you want that, or you want to do that, and if it feels good, then it’s fine”.
            And the demons just keep whispering in their ear and they fall short and fall by the wayside.
            I am glad you have seen this first hand and are making others aware of it.

          • Josey

            so right and God bless you for helping those single moms!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Single Moms are tough birds and VERY protective of their children! I am helping a single dad (who has PTSD) homeschool his daughter, so single dads are awesome too – just saying!

          • ppp777

            Are you now .

          • wandakate

            I am a retired school teacher from Pre-K to 2nd grade. I would love to tutor today but right now am not physically able to do that, but if I can control my Blood Pressure I would like to volunteer that or do it for a nominal fee (1/2 or less) of what they charge otherwise.

          • Rebecca

            That’s a great way of putting it. It is a form of child abuse. The neglect in what kids are “learning” these days is evident when a person interacts with them. A downgrade sadly.

          • wandakate

            They can’t look you in the eye. Today’s kids are basically unfriendly, and seem to be staring into space. They are on another planet it seems, programmed, deceived, brainwashed and lost for the most part. NOT all of them of course, just the majority (especially in public schools). If you mentioned JESUS they might say, “who’s that)?

          • Josey

            I know some parents especially single parents whose husband has abandoned the family and they are working so hard to provide for their child or children and my heart goes out to them for they don’t want their child in a public school but some do not have the finances to put them in private school or are able to homeschool them because they are single parents who have to work, which imo homeschooling would be the best thing a parent can do for their child but the government requires the child to attend school of some kind so some parents just don’t have a choice and I’ve heard that there are vouchers to help but must not be in my area or must not help enough for I have heard the cries of some parents who want the best for their child but can’t find the resources to get the help so I refuse to judge them as abusing their child, that is not the case with the single parents I know. But if a parent must send their child to a public school because of lack of finances or resources, staying in open talk with the child about what goes on in their school and raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, reading the Bible to them, teaching them faith, I know God will bless and honor that. My grand daughter is a good example of God’s faithfulness, her parents who are not together on much of anything and have been bad examples to her most of her life and they do not teach her much about God but they allow me to in which I am grateful for that nor do they pray as an example to her but God has allowed me to and God has honored my perseverance in teaching her and God has given her a receptive heart, she has more faith than a lot of church goers and she knows how to pray and isn’t shy about it either as some are as I’ve seen some christians shy away from praying in public, she also is a light to her friends and I praise God for her pure heart, I am not saying she is perfect none of us are, she is 14 and has had so many troubles in her life from the day she was born but I couldn’t be more proud of her and of how God has kept her for Himself so there is always hope for kids that attend public school and I pray God encourages those parents who might not have a choice right now but to send their kids to one, keep your faith in God, be the example before your kids and they will follow your sincere faith and God will do mighty things in and for your kids and for your grandchildren if they have parents who won’t teach them. God loves them more than anyone, don’t be discouraged but speak the truth of God’s word to your children when the school pushes their antichrist spirit, teach them in the love and gentleness of Christ and trust in Jesus to lead them too. Numbers 6:25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

          • afchief

            I agree! I’m not judging parents who do not have the means to home school or put their kids in Christian school. It’s the parents who have the means to home school but are unwilling to sacrifice because they are pursuing the American dream and competing with the Jones.

            Most Christian parents drop their kids off at the youth gatherings hoping the youth pastor will teach them Christianity and Christian morals. Very little teaching at home. I have seen it time after time.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, when 2 parents are working 60 hour weeks and living in a mansion both with brand new $40K SUVs and complaining that they just “cannot” homeschool – those are the ones I am after when I say “lose the bling.”

          • Josey

            Yes, those are parents who do not care one iota of their child’s eternal soul, they raise spoiled material kids, they put their needs above that of their children and then the generation repeats itself unless God intervenes.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Been there, done that, early on – praise God that He rescued me!

          • wandakate

            That is EXACTLY what happens…

          • wandakate

            Well in that case, it doesn’t sound like they are interested in the things of GOD, but more so into the things of this world…
            They are “worldly” parents, and need to show off and keep up with the Jones. If they didn’t have those expensive SUV’s and those mansions they have they wouldn’t have to work a whopping 60 hours a week. When on earth do they even spend time with their children, or go to the park, or do anything together like family time? That is sad, very sad.

          • MamaBear

            As a Sunday School teacher, I noticed how many Christian kids did not have daily prayers (except a quick blessing over the food) or any other teaching at home. Then parents wonder why their kids turn their backs on Christianity when they are grown.
            I had no choice but public schools. My salary was necessary when the kids were young, our house small (one bath and a closet sized kitchen), and our cars used. Only Christian school available was Catholic. By the time we were financially able for me to stay home, they were teens and we had college to save for. But I taught my children about God at home as well as taking them to church. (My husband was not going to church at the time.) All three kids are Christians as adults.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Beautiful testimony!

          • afchief

            Your the exception. Studies have shown that around 80 to 90% of 18 to 22+ young adults leave the church once they leave the house.

          • MamaBear

            I know about those studies. I think the reason why it is so high is what I saw as a Sunday School teacher. Parents depending on others – the church, the youth group, a Christian school – to provide spiritual training. God gave that job to parents.
            Whether we home school, Christian school, public school, time spent by parents in the Bible with our children, praying with and for our children will bear fruit. We have too many Christian parents who attend church, even have private devotions, who neglect to daily spend time teaching their children to love Jesus like they do. And it needs to start in the nursery rocking chair on mommy or daddy’s lap.

          • MamaBear

            Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, Afchief.

          • afchief

            You too! May you have a great and blessed day!

          • wandakate

            YES, once they’re out on their own or in college, they leave. BUT, the bible does tell us to raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
            It will all hopefully come back to them as they mature and age and they will (like me) remember their religious roots (mine were from my dear grandmother).

          • wandakate

            Beautiful and I wish I would have done the same, but my husband wasn’t a believer (only in GOD) but even the demons believe in GOD and they tremble. He wouldn’t read the Bible or pray and wasn’t interested in going to church “with all those hypocrites”…and “backstabbers”.
            So, they (my 2) didn’t get raised as they should. Church now and then but not all the time (not enough as my oldest daughter told me once). So, I messed up big time and it’s now my number one regret of all my life, that they were NOT raised in a Christian environment. BUT, it’s too late now, and I can’t do it over unfortunately. I just pray that GOD has forgiven me. That is my only hope.

          • MamaBear

            My husband had been hurt in a church situation, so it was basically up to me as he stayed out of church and was totally uninvolved in spiritual leadership at home. I knew childhood was short, so although I did not seek to lead my husband, I did see it as my responsibility to teach and pray for and lead the children spiritually if he would not. It has taken my getting cancer for him to wake up and return to God.
            No, we can’t go back, we can’t undo, but we can pray now. God has already forgiven if you have asked, so pray He works in the hearts of your children now, that He will give you opportunities to make a difference in their lives in the present.
            Timothy was raised with an unbelieving father, but a believing mother and grandmother. He is proof God can work mighty things where only one parent is a believer.

          • wandakate

            My husband was also hurt by a situation in a small church down in Fl. when we lived there at the time. He was NOT ever fond of church gatherings, and he didn’t pray or read the bible or anything. There was NO leadership in our home on religious matters.
            Yes, I have asked the LORD to forgive me for this tragic mistake in judgment, not realizing it was probably one of my biggest mistakes and it’s my greatest regret by far.
            As for your cancer, am sorry to hear about that. The last I heard my oldest daughter had breast cancer in both and had undergone chemo and radiation both and lost all her hair.
            My husband is no longer here. He passed on back in May of 2011. Both of my girls were “daddy’s girls”, and they missed him terrible and my little granddaughter had a hard time also (she was only almost 7 at the time).
            I haven’t seen any of them in about 4 yrs. now. They’re way down in south Ga. and I’m up in N.C. Our relationship isn’t good unfortunately. I don’t know if they are saved now, or even if the oldest one is still living. I texted her on Thanksgiving day and got no reply, and I don’t have a ph. number for the other daughter, so I am at a lost to contact them.
            I do pray if they are alive that somebody will come along and help lead them to JESUS. He will call them out, but they must respond and not ignore that knock on their hearts door.
            Take care and it’s good to know the husband has come around. Mine never did.

          • MamaBear

            Use a people search on your computer to try and find your daughters’ addresses and write them. Call, rather than text, the one whose phone number you know. Don’t give up on trying to reestablish a relationship with them. It may take a lot of effort on your part and time.
            It is especially important to keep trying with your older daughter, as some 20% to 30% of us with breast cancer eventually go on to become metastatic (stage 4), which is without a cure (but there are life-extending treatments like what I have been on for almost three years). I don’t want to scare you, just stress the importance of not delaying to make that connection.
            Most of all, continue praying.

          • wandakate

            Thanks for the concern and the tip as well, but calling doesn’t work for me as I’m hearing impaired and don’t do phones. I am praying every night. It’s been as I said about 4 yrs. now with no more contact, so by now who knows.
            I love them, but sometimes sad to say, we must guard our hearts. I have high blood pressure, and excitement does a job on me. If anything happened to her by now, I’m not sure I would be able to handle that news. My B/P and stress level would hit the roof. I just got off of a 2 week heart monitor and am on 2 new B/P medicines. It ran in the family. So, it’s best to leave well enough alone. I’m not selfish by any means and I do love them both, however IF by some chance she is already gone, then there would be nothing that I could do about it then. Hope that makes sense.

          • lizk

            there is holistic cures for cancer and not everybody is a quack you have to do your research and check out the ones that have proven records. Not many doctors know about nutrition. It’s about feeding your body with whole foods. Even if some one had stage 4, some have reversed it by eating whole foods which God made. Only he can heal and we have to keep praying.

          • wandakate

            Hey, I don’t have cancer. It’s high blood pressure that concerns me. I now take 4 pills a day for that very thing ands still running too high. I eat what I can, but remember today’s foods have lost most of their nutritional value, b/c of GMO’s as well as the toxic chemical trails from the planes that fly over us with all that white smoke trailing behind them called “chemical trails, or chem trails.”
            So, even if we buy cabbage, broccoli, tomatoes etc. which I do eat all the time, I’m not sure if that is a solution.
            The GOOD goods that GOD made aren’t the same today unfortunately.

          • lizk

            The Gerson Therapy, and Dr John McDougal they reverse High blood press and many other things, Dr Lorraine Day cured her cancer, and her moms high blood presser. I know that our soil and foods are not as good as they were a long time age to many scientist think they can do better than God. They are making canables of animals.

          • JGC

            Please provide clinical evidence demonstrating that any of the holistic interventions you believe capable of curing cancer result in better outcomes than standard of care evidence based medical interventions like, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

            You mention the Gerson protocol in a post below–are you aware that that is the protocol one of the Gerson’s most avid proponents, Jessica Ainscough aka “The Wellness Warrior” embraced to ‘cure’ her epitheloid sarcoma?

            Are you aware that it did nothing to prevent her death from that cancer in January of this year?

          • wandakate

            Seems like some parents always want to follow the WORLD and that American dream as you said, and are always putting off what’s important and leaving it to somebody else…
            Thank you for doing what you are able to do.

          • http://www.insectman.us insectman

            Amen! Please see my reply to Rebecca if it passes the screener.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Great testimony, Josey, of what God can do when there is no other way. We grandparents can play an important role in the lives of our grandchildren. You are doing a wonderful job. May God continue to bless you both. This is a real encouragement to others.

          • wandakate

            GOOD for YOU grandma. I’m a grandma (actually a MeMaw), and mine are all away from me down in Ga. and S. Carolina.
            I’m up here in N. Carolina and I don’t see them as our family hasn’t seen eye to eye in about 4 yrs. I pray for them though, and wish that things were different.
            I’m sure there are many parents married and divorced and single that wish their kids were getting a better education or a Christian one at that, but they can’t afford that privilege.
            Keep up the good work there, nothing you do for the LORD will EVER be wasted. Never tire in doing good.

          • http://www.insectman.us insectman

            Avoid government vouchers! It is up to churches to help the truly needy. It is a great way to spend missions money. Also, please see my reply to Rebecca if it passes the screener.

          • http://www.insectman.us insectman

            Yes! Please see my reply to Rebecca if it passes the screener.

      • Josey

        That’s great! My grand daughter is aware of the teaching of evolution and she knows it is a lie for God has taught her that and my grandson also so I pray God will give them the words and wisdom to teach other kids that have bought into the lie so they might come to know that God created all things and for His glory created He them. Thankfully, God is His wisdom has made us many parts of Christ’s body all with different jobs to do for Him as Christ is the Head.

      • wandakate

        AMEN…PTL…KUDOS to you both…Nice to see parents with a head on their shoulders, just makes me so happy.
        GOD is happy too, and he will reward you for taking care of them and doing such a fine job. Of course there is NO evolution, it’s one of satan’s biggest lies…

        • afchief

          Yes, evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell!!!

      • http://www.insectman.us insectman

        Wonderful! Please see my reply to Rebecca if it passes the screener.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Good job, Rebecca! And thank you for homeschooling your kids – not an easy ministry, but a most rewarding one.

      • Rebecca

        Thank you!!

    • Cady555

      There is a problem with this approach. The truth is that evolution is true and the evidence is overwhelming. It is common for people to realize as adults that their parents and teachers lied about evolution. When this happens they often also reject parental teaching on religion.

      The truth is better in the long run.

    • tyler

      I feel very sorry for your poor kids..

    • Joe Soap

      So all you homeschoolers out there intend to educate your children to college and then university level? Help them get a degree, ph’d, BA etc?

      They have to go out into the real world at some point. We can wait.

    • AlexandriaTheGreat

      What a shame you have restricted the career choices of your children to non scientific fields. Scientific fields will be the most lucrative and prestigious jobs of the future. The rest will be service industry, cleaning hotel rooms, picking fruit or flipping burgers.

    • wandakate

      GOOD for you, and the TRUTH will set them free, HIS word is TRUTH. I think there are more Christian parents that would NEVER let their kids know about this book. I am a retired pre-school through 2nd grade teacher and NONE of them would EVER have seen this book. NEVER!
      JK Rowling also wrote the series of Harry Potter books, and they told kids about wizards, magic, voodoo, and even how to lie…We MUST watch what our children see and listen to and watch and put into those little minds of theirs. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and GOD created the heavens and the earth, we don’t come from ape, or worms or monkeys or anything else. Everything has to have a CREATOR…Nothing evolved from 000000, nothingness, zip, zero. Everything has a creator.
      A beautiful oil painting has an artist.
      A house has a blueprint and then a builder.
      A delicious cake had a baker to put it together and bake it.
      A world like this had to have a beginning, a creator, a maker, thus GOD!!!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

    People can teach kids to believe in God and evolution. No conflict there, at all.

    Evolution, seems to me, is part of His mysterious plan.

    • afchief

      And I pity you for swallowing the big lie. Common sense reasoning tells me that there is NO design without a designer. Ask any builder, designer, engineer or architect that.

      Things don’t just go POOOF and life begins.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

        I didn’t say otherwise.

        I am saying that there is a design, there is a designer, and evolution is part of it.

        Why not?

        • afchief

          Because evolution contradicts a creator. Evolution is a lie! You cannot have both.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

            Why not?

            I can create a computer program that evolves.

            Maybe that’s what God did with the universe. Why not?

          • afchief

            That’s why!

            Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

            To believe in evolution without the force of intelligent design from a designER is to believe a fantasy, a fairy tale, or a religion. There is no common sense reasoning or scientific evidence to prove otherwise. This web page and its website, didn’t look like it does now 5 years ago, it evolved into it’s present appearance, but that evolution didn’t happen by itself, The webpage designer caused it! This comment section didn’t exist years ago. The webpage designer caused it. When websites break and go off line due to problems, they stay broken till they are fixed. They don’t fix themselves. Because I was created in the image of God, and because God is the Creator, He has given me the power to create a website or whatever.

            Evolution is a lie!!!

          • BarkingDawg

            Don’t expect a logical response.

          • EscapetheDarkness

            @ afchief

            afchief said: “Because evolution contradicts a creator. Evolution is a lie! You cannot have both.”

            I think that what you are getting at here is that Methodological Naturalism and the other “scientific” concepts which are related to it inherently contradict Creationism of any form, and, thus, these concepts are inherently dichotomous in nature.

            If so, then I think that you have a solid point here.

      • John N

        Well afchief, you just debunked creationism.

        You’re sure making progress.

    • Rebecca

      What denomination do you belong to?

      • BarkingDawg

        The rational one, it would seem.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “She could wiggle and swim fast,” the next page says. “Can you wiggle?”

    But, can she swim fast?!? Michael Phelps going all out can break about 5 mph for a minute or so, then spend the next half an hour recovering from it, whereas a dolphin can do 10 times that speed over a much longer time period without breaking a sweat (:-)). To hear a UCLA Biological Sciences professor actually say that humans ARE fish, just check out:

    http://www .evolutionvsgod .com/

    • Nidalap

      Well, there WAS that Fish Called Wanda movie! 🙂

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Yes, and atheists do like to appeal to movies, Star Trek, and wikipedia too!

        You see how quickly a story like this fills up with atheists? You know why, Nidalap? Because that is all they have. Once they lose their faith in macro-evolution, the house of cards falls away. I am going to have to break out the Atheist Creed on this story. 🙂

        • Josey

          What is really crazy is how many people go see a movie and receive the stuff as truth. I even had a conversation about Noah’s Ark with a Christian who saw the older version of the movie Noah, and he being confused used some of the lines in the movie claiming they came right out of the Bible which was just lines they added in to make the movie more exciting, it wasn’t bad what they said but it wasn’t from God’s word, it just shows how easy it is to believe and get deceived if one doesn’t know the word of God, the same with myths that get passed down through generations, things that are spoken of as truth like it came directly through the Holy Spirit when it’s not in the bible at all.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen, Josey – beautifully put. Hollywood usually gets it wrong, but not always.

            And I do wish to add that while everything that is in the Bible is true, not everything that is true is in the Bible. My birthdate is true, but is nowhere found in the Bible. Nevertheless, all truth is God’s Truth!

          • Josey

            Great point!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That one got me when I was a new Christian after being an atheist so long. I knew that the Bible was inerrant and had all of the necessary information and wisdom in it to live the full Christian life, but I was having trouble realizing that there were also objective truths outside of the Bible, like calculus and stuff.

            So, I actually struggled to resolve that for a while. I know it sounds dumb, but I really did. Then when I realized that “all truth is God’s Truth,” it shed some new light on why so many great scientists who kicked off the Scientific Revolution were such strong Christians: they were just following God’s Truth where it led them – and we are all the better for it. They were desiring to know more about God’s incredible Creation, His omnipotence, His omniscience, His design, His artistry, etc. That is why they included such beautiful prayers in their scientific papers – they were demonstrating why all Glory goes to God.

      • Josey

        lol

  • BarkingDawg

    Kids love dinosaurs. They learn all about evolution, learning about dinosaurs.

    • Pererin

      There’s an excellent museum in Kentucky where you can learn all about dinosaurs. They are building a Noah’s ark theme park too which will probably also speak about dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are great aren’t they. Dinosaurs obviously developed through natural selection to a point, that’s science, we observe it today in animals. But science doesn’t display dinosaur to chicken developement. Sure a lot of scientists support this idea because they want to find a way uphold their naturalist world view, but to say it is scientific is incorrect. There is no observable, working evidence of it. It is assumption, after assumption, after assumption through interpreting the evidence using their strong fundamentalist beliefs in their naturalistic world view. Hopefully observable evidence will be found one day to finally knock the final nail in the coffin for the molecules to man theory of evolution. Probably would make a difference though. Their faith is extremely strong.

      • BarkingDawg

        LOL

        Ken Ham’s theme park is a scam for sucker investors.

        • Pererin

          LOL indeed, didn’t see that coming!
          Some state sponsored misinformation right there.

          • BarkingDawg

            Just wait.

          • Pererin

            I can’t, it’s going to be great.
            I just wish we were building one here in the UK.

          • BarkingDawg

            In a few years, the one in Kentucky will be up for sale, in a bankruptcy auction, that is.

          • Pererin

            It’s been going for a good eight years now with no signs of trouble. It has grown every year culminating in the development of the Ark theme park, so now obvious signs of collapse. It this just wishful thinking from you?

          • BarkingDawg

            8 years and they have yet to show a profit. Some people like to throw good money after bad

      • gizmo23

        Dinosaur to chicken is nowhere found in evolutionary science.
        Don’t make the mistake that dinosuars were all giant beasts. Most were small animals. Nobody I know claims that any of the creatures most people view as dinosuars in popular culture turned into any of today’s animals. Also the idea that pigs turned into birds or snakes turned into penguins or other nonsense is a fabrication of creationists.

        • Pererin

          Well that’s great to know you don’t believe such nonsense.

        • Cady555

          Modern animal A will not turn into modern animal B any more than you will wake up one morning and find you’ve turned into your 3rd Cousin. But you and your cousins have ancestors in common.

          Likewise all animals have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. We even share about 60% of genes with the banana. Tobacco plants can be used to make Ebola treatments because of shared genetic material. Modern birds do descend from one branch of dinosaurs.

      • Cady555

        There is evidence that documents the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

        The Wikipedia article Origin of Birds summarizes and discusses the evidence in the following categories:
        Feathers
        Skeleton
        Lungs
        Heart
        Sleeping posture
        Reproductive biology
        Brooding and care of young
        Gizzard stones
        Molecular evidence

        Follow the references at the end of the article for the detail evidence supporting each area.

  • WGB

    Trying to indoctrinate unbelief in children early. Lord forbid in Jesus’ name.

  • Heidi K.

    The end times are screaming at us.

    • BarkingDawg

      In that case, can I have all your stuff?

      • tyler

        Have you heard of the genius who started a business where he, as an atheist, will watch people’s pets after they are raptured? They pay him because they are convinced they will vanish during the rapture. I’m thinking of started my own chapter in my home town!

      • Heidi K.

        Sure! Just wait until after the rapture then take anything you want.

  • Nathan

    I think it’s good there are finally resources for children that make complex scientific topics like evolution more accessible! Growing up in a very conservative household, my parents gave me all kinds of children’s books on creationism. It’s great there is now an alternative for children that will tell them the truth! It is possible to be a Christian and scientifically literate!

  • Cady555

    For those that are interested in fairly considering the evidence, read

    – Introduction to Evolution on Wikipedia
    – National Center for Science Education website, including info on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, the Evolution Education tab, and the Science and Religion page.
    – The Evolution 101 website of Berkeley University
    – Your Inner Fish by Shubin
    – Why Evolution is True by Coyne
    – The Story of Earth by Hazen

    The Theory of Evolution is well supported by evidence just as the Germ Theory of Disease, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Plate Tectonics are supported by evidence. Evolution is no more a threat to personal religious belief than the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System.

    Learning about Evolution left me with a sense of awe. It is worthwhile to consider it fairly. Some people make a good living by instilling fear of knowledge and by spreading misinformation. A fair person would consider the evidence from a reliable source.

    • afchief

      Evolution is a boldface lie!!! Explain to me how life started from non-life? Where is the evidence?

      • Cady555

        Surely you are aware that the Theory of Evolution does not address abiogenesis.

        • afchief

          You are on a Christian site and we Christians KNOW that evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell. There is NO doubt in our minds!!!!

          • Cady555

            Then ignore my list. It was intended for those interested in learning more.

            Many Christians accept evolution with no problem. I already figured out you do not accept evolution and have no interest in the facts that support it.

          • afchief

            Christians do NOT support evolution. It contradicts a creator. It is a lie!!!

      • tyler

        Christians who are smart enough believe the fact of evolution. It’s true, and a fact, and will never change from that. Let that sink in for a while.

        Your post makes evolution sound like a huge conspiracy. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re applying more tin foil around your head right now.

        Also, Charles Darwin is known as the father of evolution, but that was only scratching the surface – evolutionary science has made enormous leaps and bounds many many times since Darwin’s time.

        • Cady555

          Yes. And the Theory of Evolution does not depend on what Darwin knew or thought. The evidence is overwhelming, and some evidence such as genetics, was unknown to Darwin.

        • afchief

          I will repeat what I said; evolution is a boldface LIE!!!

      • Cady555

        Examine the evidence or not. Your choice.

        • afchief

          If men allegedly evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

          How do evolutionists know that the ‘Missing Link’ is missing if they’ve never found it to begin with?

          There is absolutely NO evidence of a half man/half ape creature that once existed.

          I’ll repeat what I said; evolution is a LIE!!!

          • Cady555

            If man was created from dirt, why is there still dirt? Seriously, examine the evidence or not, your choice.

          • afchief

            Because that’s how God created us.

            Evolution is a LIE!!!

  • Reason2012

    If fish to men evolutionism was actually science, one wouldn’t need to “believe in it”.

    “Get ’em while they’re young” he says. He makes it clear this is flat out anti-science indoctrination.

    • tyler

      correction – It is science he is teaching, not anti-science religion.

      • Reason2012

        Feel free to show its anything but a mythological belief. Giving reasons to believe in it doesn’t make it science

        • tyler

          how ironic that you’re calling it ‘mythological belief’. You can read the bible for mythological belief.

          Evolution is science at its finest. There are enormous mountains of research which has lead to evolution being a fact. It is already true, and a fact. Look it up yourself. But I’m pretty sure you won’t.

          • Reason2012

            Giving reasons to believe in something the human race has never seen is not research, it’s storytelling.

  • tyler

    Did you know that evolution is true, and a fact?
    Look it up yourself.
    I’m trying to stop laughing about you finding a ‘scientist’ from ‘answers in genesis’!

  • Reason2012

    Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen.

    • tyler

      Do you have any explanation why evolution is a fact?
      99.9% of scientists the world over accept evolution.
      Less than a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of biologists believe in creation. (0.15% in 1987, much less today)

      • Reason2012

        So that’s the definition of science? Make up a belief that does not happen and if x% of scientists believe in it, that makes it science? Where’s that definition of science cited?

        And scientists couldn’t care less about the fish to men mythology of evolutionism. But knowing how hateful evolutionists become, attacking your funding, smearing your reputation, or even getting you fired, you think they’re going to be in a hurry to point out they don’t agree with it? So of course they’re going to say “yeah, sure, I believe in evolution” – all so they can go back to doing actual science in peace.

        • tyler

          …. right, of course you use the word ‘hate’, which there is none, and you try to link this to some type of global conspiracy where everybody believes in evolution only because someone else did… right..

          • Reason2012

            When they attack your funding, smear your reputation, and in some cases even get you fired for daring not agree with them, that’s hate. It’s a fact that these things happen – what should we call it? Tolerance?

          • tyler

            I’m perfectly fine for someone to get fired for not believing the fact of evolution, if they work in the scientific community. If they work at a church or religious school, that’s something completely different.

          • Nidalap

            Hmm…maybe you ought to petition them to change the name. It’s currently the THEORY of evolution, not the FACT of evolution! (^_^)

          • tyler

            oh wow..
            You mean like the theory of gravity?
            You are too stupid to respond to.
            You do not understand what a scientific theory is.
            A scientific theory is the highest level that something can attain.

          • Reason2012

            It’s FACT that objects fall to the ground. It’s a THEORY about how gravity works.

            It’s BELIEF that populations of fish could ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish – ignoring that’s just a belief, they skip to the “how” part and hope no one notices.

            As usual hateful ad hominem is all you can fall back on.

          • tyler

            You very simply do not understand what a scientific theory is – you’re just rambling

          • JGC

            Just it’s a fact that evolution occurs–we’ve directly observed it in real time, including speciation and extinction events which by definition represent macroevolution

          • Cady555

            1. Evolution is a fact. There is insurmountable evidence that species evolve.

            2. A scientific theory is an explanation of facts that addresses all the evidence and for which there is no contradictory data. In science, theory is the highest level of certainty.

            Thus evolution is a fact and is explained by the Theory of Evolution.

            Likewise, gravity is a fact and is explained by the Theory of Gravity.

            Likewise, continental plate movement is a fact that is explained by the Theory of Plate Tectonics.

    • JGC

      Populations whose fossil evidence documents a transition from fish to amphibians during the Devonian period:

      Cheirolepis
      Osteolepis
      Eusthenopteron,Sterropterygion
      Panderichthys,Elpistostege
      Obruchevichthys
      Hynerpeton, Acanthostega
      Ichthyostega
      Labyrinthodonts

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    I think make-believe is fine for very young children. Let them use their imaginations. If they want to believe in Santa Claus, that’s OK. But by the time a child is well into elementary school, it’s never to early to teach them about the real world, rather that having them cling to superstition and folklore.

    • Reason2012

      Then why teach them the mythological belief that populations of fish that never had lungs can over generations grow lungs to breath air and grow legs to use their new lungs? Or if given enough time can learn to speak countless languages, read books, publish them, design and program computers and more, all if you just “give it enough time”? You contradict yourself.

      • Cady555

        There are a number of fish today, some with lungs and gills, that can live outside of water for a period of time. For an example, Google lungfish. They are found in Australia, Africa and South America.

        Google the snakehead fish from Asia. It is now invasive in North America. It can survive outside of water for up to 4 days and travel on wet land for up to 1/4 mile. This means it can spread between unconnected bodies of water.

        Google Amphibious Fish.

        Species of fish can evolve to live on land for increasing periods of time. We can see it happening.

        • Reason2012

          I didn’t say show me animals with lungs that you call fish and pretend they evolved from populations of fish over generations that never had lungs. I said the human race has never seen any such claims. Making up the claim that “this thing that has lungs and has legs evolved from fish that had no lungs and had no legs” is not us “seeing it happening”.

          • Cady555

            There is evidence tracing the evolution of various traits found in fish, moving on to amphibians and reptiles. The evidence is found in genetics, paleontology, embryology, and additional areas.

            Instead of closing your eyes and saying “Nope. Can’t see it. No evidence here”, open your eyes and do some reading.

          • Reason2012

            So now you change your tune from “seeing it happen” to merely “well here are reasons we believe it happens”.

            No, circular reasoning is not “evidence”.

            Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens and then claim fossils are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            (repeat)

            It would be similar to someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”

            Ad hominem only shows you’re feeling defensive and hence find these points valid.

          • Cady555

            I cannot fit 150 years of research and study by scientists around the globe into s single comment. I cannot address every misconception about the nature and strength of evidence.

            For example, DNA evidence is far deeper than similarities between cousins. One small example – Sometimes a strand of retrovirus DNA will accidentally make its way into an egg or sperm if an animal, and the DNA will become part of the DNA of the offspring, inserted in a random location in the offspring’s DNA.

            These are just random flukes. The only way that two individuals will have the exact same strand of virus DNA in the exact same location is if both descended from the individual that was born from that first egg or sperm. Scientists can track which species share these virus DNA errors. They can tell when species branched off by comparing whether related species do or do not share these errors.

            Look at the evidence or not, your choice. But you are missing out on amazing knowledge.

      • tyler

        It’s called science. It’s fascinating and you should check it out someday.

        • Reason2012

          Science is just fine: the human race observes something actually happen, we then try to figure out HOW it happens (hypothesis, theories are such explanations). Right or wrong, that’s science.

          Contrast this with what evolutionists have told us: they do not start with something the human race has seen happen -they start with made up mythological beliefs that the human race has never seen, that does not happen, ignore that it does not happen, pretend it happens anyway, and move to the “how” part and perhaps hope no one notices. They give reasons they believe in it and call that ‘evidence’. Then when you have the nerve to point that out, the hate ensues.

          We see ground move very small measurements (the thing we say happens actually happening) – tectonic plates is the theory about HOW it happens.

          We see that sickness/disease spreads (the thing we say happens actually happening) -germ theory the theory about how it might happen.

          Atomic theory: we see how matter moves and reacts to other matter (the thing we say happens actually happening), then make up atomic theory to explain what is actually happening. We can apply voltage in a near vacuum and see how rays are created and deflected (the thing we say happens actually happening).

          But enter evolutionists: do populations of fish that never had lungs ‘evolve’ lungs to breath air over generations? No.

          Do populations of fish ever ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish? No. Not for ANY animal in the existence of the human race.

          But they move on to the “theory” part of such a claim anyway and hope no one notices. Anti-science.

          What HAS the human race only ever seen? No matter how many generations go by: ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, amphibians remain amphibians and so on.

          If SCIENCE were really at work, what would happen is to start finding out HOW these barriers are never crossed.

          Is that what we’re investigating? Not at all: instead evolutionists:

          – ignore that what they believe in does not happen
          – pretend it happens anyway (even though it does not)
          – skip to the “how” part and hope no one notices
          – claims reasons they can only believe in it are suddenly ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ of it

          Make no mistake: evolutionism is as anti-science as you can get.

          Please think about it: why they so dogmatically and even hatefully insist something so blatantly anti-science IS science (it’s not) that is then passed off as fact to all kids in schools under the dishonest or ignorant guise of “science”.

          • tyler

            I can’t find the ‘hate’ you’re talking about.
            I will say you’re completely ignorant of science, and haven’t the slightest idea what a scientific theory is. Guess what? it’s not the same thing is the other definition of the word ‘theory’.

            By me calling you completely ignorant of science is not ‘hate’.

          • Cady555

            There is extensive evidence supporting evolution, including all the things you claim are unsupported.

            Read what scientists say, or not. I provided a list of resources elsewhere.

            Someone decided that Atomic Theory and Germ Theory and Heliocentric Theory do not challenge the Bible but evolution does. Why? This does not actually make sense. However, Fear of Evolution is a great source of fundraising for some preachers, so opposition to evolution is perpetuated.

            Read some solid scientific sources. You will be amazed at the thoroughness and beauty of the Theory of Evolution. If Atomic Theory and Germ Theory are reconcilable with biblical, so is evolution.

          • Reason2012

            No, there’s NO evidence supporting fish to men evolutionism, just circular reasoning dishonestly or ignorantly called such.

            Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens and then claim fossils are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            (repeat)

            It would be similar to someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            Germ theory starts with the OBSERVATION that disease spreads. Fish to men evolution starts with ignoring the observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on, and instead pretending the opposite can happen anyway.

            Atomic theory: we actually make physical USE of that theory by using what we say happens actually happening. Again faulty comparison.

            Resorting to actual science does not in any way show that fish to men evolutionism is science, when it instead contradicts science,

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        Uhm, you know that there is actually a species of fish, who has lungs, right?

        • Reason2012

          An animal we call fish that has lungs doesn’t prove it had to evolve from populations of fish that never had lungs. If you’re making such a scientific claim, then please cite the observation of such a thing happening over generations.

  • http://rummaged-and-ransacked.blogspot.com/ ciaradawn

    “get ’em while they’re young”? really?! Ugh. this is sad. It’s one thing for an atheistic parent to get this for their kid. It’s another thing if it enters schools.
    Revelation 14:6-7

    • tyler

      teaching facts in school? the horror!

      • http://rummaged-and-ransacked.blogspot.com/ ciaradawn

        Oh, I think you mean teaching theories as facts while not allowing other theories to be considered.

        • tyler

          wow! another moron who does not understand what a scientific theory is!

          you mean like the theory of gravity? that’s right, gravity is a theory too.

          a scientific theory is the highest possible level a scientific idea can attain.

          I’m sorry, it is ignorant of me to think people on this website could understand the most basic concepts of science.

          • http://rummaged-and-ransacked.blogspot.com/ ciaradawn

            I can see how your non-religious beliefs have benefited you in social skills. Has anyone ever told you that name-calling is unkind and is not the best way to win people to your point of view? Let me be the first to tell you.. The first person to throw out an insult loses the argument.

            You’re also missing the point of my statement; which is that evolution is the ONLY proposed option. It’s not even ok in schools to propose other options. What is education? I thought it was teaching kids all sorts of different things and teaching them to think critically. Not brainwash them.

            Gravity is proven. It is the same in every area of the earth. Gravity and Evolution are not on the same playing field. They are NOT the same. Math is not the same as evolution. Find me a study that shows EXACTLY how the cell was formed at the VERY beginning. Find me ONE scientific study that PROVES evolution to the standard that gravity is proven and i’ll look into it. (and by scientific study I don’t mean magazine article.)

          • tyler

            So much incorrect and hypocritical statements in your post.
            Evolution is the one option, and that is because it is true, and a fact.
            You used the word brainwashing – that is what many christians do when they teach that creation is the one way, and that evolution is wrong because of bible/god/jesus etc.
            Evolution already is proven, true, and a fact.
            There is still plenty that science does not know. Science does not know exactly why the big bang happened. Nobody knows that.

          • http://rummaged-and-ransacked.blogspot.com/ ciaradawn

            Let me know when you find those studies. I’d like to read them.

          • Cady555

            I provided a list of resources. Each has an extensive list of references.

          • Cady555

            There is not one study. There are hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. Evolution is a fact, and is explained by the Theory of Evolution.

          • Reason2012

            There is no study for what fish to men evolutionists believe in as it does not happen and such “studies” are really just reasons they believe in it anyway. You cannot “study” that which does not happen and is only a belief.

            Not sure scientists have “proven” the explanation for why objects fall to the ground – the fact is objects do fall to the ground and gravity is the current “theory” about how it happens. Fish to men evolutionists like to compare their belief in fish to men evolutionism to the theory of gravity, but that’s a farce because the theory of gravity is the “how” of what’s observable: objects fall to the ground. The “theory” of fish to men evolutionism instead does not start with an observation of what they claim happens, but instead ignoring observable, repeatable, scientific fact that it does not happen, pretend it happens anyway, then present the theory about how it happens when it doesn’t. In effect skipping to the “how” part and hope no one notices is just a belief to begin with.

            You bought up a lot of good points!

        • Cady555

          By definition, if there is a theory that explains a set of facts there is no other “theory” that explains those facts.

          From the National Academy of Science (nas dot edu)

          “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

          “Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.”

          • BarkingDawg

            When we teach Germ Theory of Disease, we do not also teach about the four humors because the four humors explanation of disease is not true.

            I don’t know about that, there seems to be an over abundance of bile in these threads.

        • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

          Sure, we could teach the theory of gravity, or we could teach other theories, like the theory of invisible rubber bands.

  • AlexandriaTheGreat

    I personally believe that the theory of evolution is a fact. We can see evolution occurring on an incredibly fast time scale in species that reproduce every few hours, such as bacteria, who mutate and evolve to be antibiotic resistant in just a few generations. One of the signs that a species is speciating, or becoming two different species, is that the new species cannot successfully mate with the old species. This is why I believe that humans are speciating at this very moment. I would never consider mating with a Republican or a religious person. They are becoming like another species to me. One I do not admire. Humans are going to leave the primitive, savage and superstitious religious right in the dust, the way we left Neanderthals far behind us.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      One of the most common questions from the creationists is, “Where are the transitional forms??” I would answer, “Look in the mirror. YOU are a transitional form. Your facial structure is subtly different from those of your ancestors of 50,000 years ago, and your descendants 50,000 years hence will be far, FAR different.” Post-human, in all likelihood. ALL species that ever were and ever will be are “transitional forms.” Evolution isn’t about fishes giving birth to mammals. Evolution is, as you not, gradual speciation over vast periods of time. But of course evolution cannot fit into the view that Life, the Universe, and Everything was spoken into existence just 6,000 years ago, so creationists dismiss it (and most other science) as nothing more than an elaborate Satanic deception.

      It’s not that creationists don’t believe that evolution is occurring. They just don’t WANT to believe it, because their folklore and superstitions are so precious to them.

  • Reason2012

    @ Alexandria // I personally believe that the theory of evolution is a fact. We can see evolution occurring on an incredibly fast time scale in species that reproduce every few hours, such as bacteria, who mutate and evolve to be antibiotic resistant in just a few generations.

    NO one’s talking about adaptation. We’re talking about the mythological beliefs fish to men evolutionists will demand you believe it leads to but does not.

    Ask fish to men evolutionists to show an example of populations of adaptation, or anything else, EVER lead to fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    // One of the signs that a species is speciating, or becoming two different species, is that the new species cannot successfully mate with the old species. //

    Fish not being “able” to mate with other fish is hardly “proof” or “evidence” or “an observation” or what the real topic is: populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish at all. But fish to men evolutionists continue to dishonestly pretend it’s the same thing.

    • John N

      Once again Reason, no scientist ever stated that fish morphed into something else. Repeating your cartoon version of evolution realy makes you look silly, so stop it.

      Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over succesive generations. It is observed in the lab, in nature, in the fossil record, and is evidenced by anatomical and molecular comparison. Therefore it is accepted as a valid theory by the scientific community for more than 150 years.

      As for fish evolving into something else, the change of inheritable traits will, over many generations, likely lead to organisms looking differently from their ancesters. The fossil record is full of organisms that look like their ancesters in some point, but are somewhat different in other characteristics: transitional fossils. We see it in life: you call it adaptation. If you know a mechanism that adaptation on the long term will not lead to speciation, please show us.

      Now compare that to your explanation, creationism. Never observed, unexplained, even unexplainable, not a speck of evidence, and all we learned so far contradicts it. After all that time, creationists don’t even have a hypothesis describing how creation could have taken place. You only have your holy book to support it, and even that has unexplainable contradictions. This is not science, it is religion. And it has no place in scientific education.

      • Reason2012

        You’re right – no scientist would claim this – it’s fish to men evolutionists that claim this.

        Fish to men evolutionists claim in the past:
        Some populations of fish ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into amphibians (something else).
        Then some populations of amphibians ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into reptiles (something else).
        Then some populations of reptiles ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into mammals (something else).
        Then some populations of mammals ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into human beings (something else).

        That’s far more than “looking different from their ancestors” – that’s evolving over generations into, as you put it, “something else”. You’re being dishonest.

        So in effect, they’re claiming populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish (a.k.a., amphibians in this case). Ask evolutionists to show an example of “change in ineritable traits”, “natural selection”, “mutations”, “adaptation” or anything else ever lead to populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

        Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

        Why do you think attacking belief in God makes the fish to men mythology science?

        It doesn’t.

        It only shows what your motivation is for promoting the anti-science mythology of fish to men evolutionism. Your hate for the belief in God and your obsessive attack on it shows what the real issue is here, John. Stay on topic: the topic is how fish to men evolutionism is anti-science, and belief in God has nothing to do with it. What has no place in science education is the anti-science mythology of fish to men.

        • John N

          So I’m being dishonest because I showed you use a strawman argument? How nice of you.

          You claim, according to scientists, fish should ‘morph’ into something else, like reptiles, in a human’s lifetime – because you want this ‘observed’. That’s what you say. Isn’t it?

          On the other hand, you didn’t show any evidence of scientists stating that. Ever. Did you?

          So who is being dishonest here?

          >’Ask evolutionists to show an example of “change in ineritable traits”, “natural selection”, “mutations”, “adaptation” or anything else ever lead to populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish’

          Well, of course there is a lot of evidence for gradual change coming from transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, etc.. Evidence enough to say that, indeed, extant fishes and amphibians had a common ancestor – a primitive fish – etc. But for some strange reason you don’t seem to accept this, because only eyewithness accounts seems to satisfy you.

          Do you realize that in science, eyewithness accounts are considered among the least reliable form of evidence? We are not so good in observing things if they are very small or large, or if change happens very quickly or very slowly. Hard evidence, like fossils, anatomical and molecular structures ar so much more reliable. They can be observed – repeatedly, by different people. They can be measured and compared.

          >’Why do you think attacking belief in God makes the fish to men mythology science?’

          Where did I attack God? I have no reason to believe he even exists.

          But I do attack lousy ideas – like creationism – promoted by people who want their specific flavour of religion thaught as science for political or religious reasons. And that is the real topic here – promoting your religion as science, and denying the real science of biology, geology, astronomy, etc. in favour of that.

          • Reason2012

            // You claim, according to scientists, fish should ‘morph’ into something else, like reptiles, in a human’s lifetime – because you want this ‘observed’. //

            Now you finally start adding the four words “in a human lifetime”.

            This after you have been using nothing but the phrase:

            // Once again Reason, no scientist ever stated that fish morphed into something else. //

            Amazing how different that statement becomes when you leave out “in a human’s lifetime”.

            So now you admit that fish to men evolutionists HAVE in fact stated that in the past populations of fish have ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish (i.e., using your words, ‘into something else’)

            But time and again you responded to that with

            // Once again Reason, no scientist ever stated that fish morphed into something else. //

            When called on it you now include the phrase “in a human lifetime”.

            Well you now at least are admitting fish to men evolutionists ARE saying such a thing takes place over time.

            // Well, of course there is a lot of evidence for gradual change coming from transitional forms between fish and amphibians, //

            That’s only reasons you believe in it. As you have just shown, fish to men evolutionists cannot show something like this happening in the entire existence of the human race and can only give reasons to believe in it (circular reasoning to call it evidence).

            Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

            (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

            (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

            (c) Where that belief *never happens* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

            It’s clear you want your belief system passed off as science in schools – many are waking up to the anti-science mythology fish to men evolutionism truly is.

            And making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens and then claim fossils are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            (repeat)

            It would be similar to someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”

            Fish to men evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

          • John N

            >’So now you admit that fish to men evolutionists HAVE in fact stated that in the past populations of fish have ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish (i.e., using your words, ‘into something else’)’

            No Reason, wrong again.

            First of all, there is not something like ‘evolutionists’. There are biologists, which are scientists.

            Second, I have never contradicted that scientist claim amphibians evolved from primitive fish.

            Third, it is not because amphibians evolved from primitive fish, we no longer consider them as fish. They still are, just like they are vertebrates, chordates, eukaryotes, etc. Guess you are not a fan of phylogeny.

            And I repeat, no scientist worth the name ever stated a fish morphed into something else like your strawman argument says. Repeating it does not make it less than a lie.

            >’That’s only reasons you believe in it.’

            No, I don’t believe in it. No scientist believes in it. They have seen the evidence, they accept the evidence, they accept the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the evidence. That is what scientists do. Believing is for religious people, like creationists, when you have no evidence.

            Since the rest of your response is just the same dull creationist ramble, I am not going to respond again. It must be awkward, denying science while typing on a computer. Come back when you actually can show us some evidence of your creator, Reason.

          • Reason2012

            // no scientist worth the name ever stated a fish morphed into something else

            More lying, John? I already addressed we’re not talking about one fish and here you are repeating the lie that I’m talking about “a” fish.

            It’s clear dishonesty is all you can bring to the table, which helps others see what fish to men evolutionists are really about, and for that I thank you. Take care, John.

          • John N

            >’Ask fish to men evolutionists to show an example of populations of adaptation, or anything else, EVER lead to fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens’

            Your words. Your lie.

          • Reason2012

            Populations, not “a” fish. Lying is all you can do, John.

          • John N

            And repeating it doesn’t make it any better. Nowhere in science you’ll find an ‘evolutionist’ or ‘morphing fish’.

            If you can’t even get your definitions right…

            By the way, did you already find an example of fish being created out of nothing?

  • Claire Michael

    This book sounds awesome, I need to google where to buy it.