Research Biologist Says Bible, Not Evolution, Accounts for Human DNA Diversity

DNA 2When did human ethnic groups originate? And can the biblical young earth viewpoint explain differences between races today? One research biologist says the biblical model, not evolution, accurately accounts for human DNA diversity today.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is a PhD biologist with Answers in Genesis who studied Cell and Developmental Biology at Harvard University. In his latest article, published last week in Answers Research Journal, he considers “why African people groups tends to harbor more mitochaondrial DNA differences than non-African groups.”

According to the young earth creation (YEC) model, human ethnic groups began to diverge after the Tower of Babel dispersion some 4,000 years ago. Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe early humans began separating into different populations over 100,000 years ago. Which model is supported by scientific evidence?

To answer this question, Jeanson explored marriage data collected 40 years ago by the United Nations and found that, on average, African women married earlier than non-African women.

“The fact that these differences appeared in the oldest UN dataset available suggests that this practice may have been true historically, well before Westernization took hold of the African continent,” Jeanson wrote.

These young marriages common in Africa result in shorter generation times and likely accelerated the development of DNA differences, which may explain why African groups today have more mitochaondrial DNA (mtDNA) differences than other ethnic groups. Jeanson also calculated that the YEC model more accurately predicts the number of DNA differences.

“In short, the evolutionary model predicted a minimum number of differences nearly six times higher than the maximum number of mtDNA differences present today,” he observed. “By contrast, the YEC model exactly captured the full spectrum of mtDNA differences observable today. These results demonstrated the scientific robustness of the YEC model and intensified the explanatory challenge for the evolutionary timescale.”

  • Connect with Christian News

In his paper, Jeanson acknowledged the limitations of his research and stressed that more studies would be helpful.

“Whether these generation time differences are indeed the explanation remains to be seen,” he wrote. “The observed generation time differences among ethnic groups in the last several decades may not have been the same throughout history. … More precise measures of the mutation rate among various ethnic groups will be required to differentiate between the faster generation time hypothesis and the faster mutation rate hypothesis.”

“Either way,” he continued, “the YEC model comprehensively explains all known modern mtDNA diversity. Conversely, these generation time findings further challenge the evolutionary model of human origins, and they do so on two counts.”

When it comes to DNA and generational time differences between African and non-African groups, Jeanson said evolutionary theory relies on questionable assumptions.

“Though evolutionists will likely dismiss the data in the current study as a modern anecdote and as irrelevant to populations living hundreds of thousands of years ago, these data represent a documented example of non-equivalent generation times in various ethnic groups—groups which just happen to be at the forefront of the out-of-Africa debate,” he stated. “At a minimum, these data should force the evolutionists to acknowledge that their conclusions about the relative timing of the various people groups stand only under the assumptions of equivalent generation times across ethnic groups.”

In closing, Jeanson said the young earth model sufficiently explains genetic conditions today.

“Differential generation time data and a constant rate of mtDNA mutation are sufficient to explain human mtDNA diversity on the YEC timescale across all ethnic groups,” he wrote. “These results potentially unify the YEC model of human genetic origins, and they intensify the explanatory challenge for the evolutionary model.”


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
  • gizmo23

    Whether you believe in evolution or the Biblical account of Adam and Eve the genetic fact is that we are all from Africa. There is no such thing as race just different cultural groups that adapted to the enviroment that they migrated to.
    All of mans genetic traits can be tracted to groups of people living today in east centeal Africa

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

      So you’re saying that the original primitive savages we pale faces evolved from are those groups of people living today in east central Africa? You do know that considering yourself superior to other groups is the essence of racism? It is. Fortunately, you’re wrong.

      You’re also wrong about coming from Africa. According to the Biblical account, we are not from Africa, but from Mount Ararat. We’re all recently descended from Noah & Sons, and so you can find the genetic traits of the entire population of the earth in pretty much any sub-population because this was a relatively recent event. We’re one human race because we are all family: direct family, with no “improvements” for favored races.

      • gizmo23

        I never stated or implied anything about superior races, especially since I don’t believe in the concept of race.
        Noah was descended from someone and that person was African. All human genetic lines point straight to east central Africa.
        Adam and Eve were Africans with very dark skin tones and if they were created in God’s image it leaves no doubt in my mind that God is what we would call a black man, much like the people living in Africa today

        • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

          Speak for yrself, Black’ie.

          • gizmo23

            Very nice racial slur, is that how you express your faith, insulting someone by attacking their skin tone?

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Didn’t u say that everyone is a Black’ie who had originated from East Central Africa n that even God is also Black.?

          • gizmo23

            I didn’t use the term “Black’ie, whatever that means? In the USA that would be a bigoted word

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            U hv insulted God by saying He is Black.

          • gizmo23

            How is that an insult to God ?

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            It is an insult to God bc God is not Black – REV.1:14, REV.4, EZEK.1.

            Blackness, darkness n the moon r symbolic of Satan n evil.
            Whiteness, light n the sun/star r symbolic of God/Jesus n good.

            Compare Black Africa n White Europe. Which is more evil.?
            Compare night n day. Which has more evil/crime.?

          • gogo0

            god created man in his own image, and a lot of men are black. good chance that god is black. what color did you klan leader tell you god was? let me guess… was it white?

          • Kelly Samuelson

            I believe God is olive-toned, like the Israelites, since they are his chosen people, and all

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            No, God lives in heaven, but His Spirit n His Image/form(eg the Son Jesus, the Angel of God, etc) can be anywhere, eg on earth or on Mars = God’s Omnipresence, Omniscience n Omnipower.

            …….The God or Word u r referring to is only Jesus Christ who had appeared on earth as God-in-the-flesh, n not Almighty God the Father who forever “art in heaven”.(MATT.6:9)
            …….Jesus Christ = Olive-toned = like Antonio Banderas, Hugh Jackman, Beyonce n Kim Kardashian = Black/White mix.
            .
            .

            HEB.1: = God’s Supreme Revelation

            1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person,

            and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our[b] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

            EZEK.1: = Ezekiel’s Vision of God

            1 Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the River Chebar, that the heavens were opened and I saw visions[a] of God. 2 On the fifth day of the month, which was in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s captivity, 3 the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans[b] by the River Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was upon him there. 4 Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. …….

            26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the
            color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the
            appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            Ok. I’m not really here to argue about the ‘color’ of God. I’m just here to turn non-believers into believers, that’s my mission in life

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            To do that, u need to know who God n Jesus Christ really IS.
            Who will u be meeting in heaven.?, God, Jesus, the Spirit.?
            How will u be going to the kingdom of heaven.?

          • Kelly Samuelson

            In the Bible Jesus tells us, ‘The only way to the father is through me’. The only way to Heaven is to believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and was raised from the dead three days later. Then following Christ by modeling Jesus. I believe that our God is three in one, he is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, so I’m sure I’ll be meeting all three in Heaven

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            1COR.15: = 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

          • Kelly Samuelson

            First, that doesn’t contradict anything I just said.
            Second, I’m not going to argue with another believer over Bible verses. I really do have better things to do. God bless you though, we’ll meet in Heaven, I’m sure

          • hamfish

            I’m here to do the opposite.

          • hamfish

            I believe he’s purple. And since he’d made up, who’s to say I’m wrong?

          • gizmo23

            Your true colors are coming out. There is evil everywhere in the world. Do I really have to remind you that Nazi’s and communists were white Europeans? I’d say Europeans are right up there in the evil department.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Actually, yr black color is coming out.
            …….”There is a Black sheep in every family,”, eg Idi Amin, Charles Taylor, Said Barre, Rwandan genocide of Tutsis, etc. When comparing peaceful White Europe n lawless Black Africa, I was referring to the people as a whole.

          • gizmo23

            Your statements are too off the wall to respond too

          • hamfish

            Yup, European imperialism and hegemony is pretty much evident worldwide. That’s not achieved by going about being nice to people, but by oppression, enslavement and murder. The yanks are still trying it 200 years too late.

          • gogo0

            I’m not surprised by most of the nonsense I see on this board, but I am surprised now at how so many comments have been flagged and removed, yet the overtly racist “Black’ie” comments remain.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            It’s even more racist of u to pigeon-hole God as Black, be rejecting of a White God n be anti-Whites.

          • gizmo23

            I agree and I don’t get it

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            The Book of Darwin says man originated from East Central Africa as a Black man 100,000 years ago. The Book of God or Bible says differently.
            …….Why r u mixing the 2 Books together n say that Noah, Adam n Eve had originated from East Central Africa as Blacks, n that even God is Black.? R u very partial to yr own Blackness.?

          • gizmo23

            1. There is no “book of Darwin”
            2. The Bible doesn’t say where God put the first people
            3. Science shows that is where man originated and doesn’t contradict the Bible
            4. I am not black

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            GEN.2: = 10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel;[b] it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
            _ _ _ _ _ _ _

            The Bible says that the Garden of Eden, where God put the first people, was somewhere in Syria or Iraq, n definitely not in East Central Africa. So, yr science contradicts the Bible or Word of God.

            Didn’t Charles Darwin authored books that espoused the Theory of Evolution.?
            …….So, the Book of Darwin = the Theory of Evolution. Similarly, the Book of God/Bible = the Theory of Creation.

            R u dark brown or grey.?

        • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

          REV.1: = 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.
          17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me,[h] “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
          .
          .
          JOHN.1: = 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

          3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it. …….

          14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

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

          The wide range of not-entirely-black progeny of Noah strongly indicates that Noah’s family was “mixed race”, and gave us the characteristics that we display. We are either one family, or competing groups that evolved differently. If you don’t see the racism, good for you.

          • gizmo23

            Noah”s family would have all the human traits we see today

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

            And with the brief application of science, the Bible, not evolution, accounts for Human DNA diversity, as per the headline.

          • John N

            The wide range of progeny of Noah strongly indicates that there was not such a person nor such a global flood.

            If there was a genetic bottleneck a few thousand years ago, this would be clearly visible in all extant species of plants and animals, including humans.

            There are some species in which we see these kind of bottlenecks occuring in the recent past, like for cheetahs around 10.000 years ago.

            We do not see this for all species occuring exactly at the same time 4300 years ago.

            More evidence that the biblical flood is a myth.

          • Elie Challita

            Technically there were a genetic bottleneck or two during out history, but they are all predicted to have happened more than 70,000 years ago, far beyond what any of the yahoos at Ken Ham’s nuthouse would predict.

          • hamfish

            Noah is a fairy tale character, you damn fool!

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

            If you read the account carefully, you will notice that there are no fairies. By his faith Noah damned all the fools to destruction in a global disaster movie, and as a result there is the limited genetic diversity that we see today.

        • benning

          Actually, Adam and Eve were most likely coffee-colored since they held within them ALL the racial characteristics we see today.

          • gizmo23

            And those traits were handed down by Africans

      • Elie Challita

        Careful not to throw out your back by reaching out so far, bud.

        All archeological and genetic evidence points to us having originally evolved in Africa, and left it in multiple waves over millennia. Some populations fared better than others, but that is mostly due to circumstances and cultural adaptation rather than genetics, so there is no racism involved.

        You’re the first one to even mention the concept of favored races in this discussion, which says a lot more about you than about gizmo.

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

          Educated supporters of evolution know that the concept was introduced to the world with the title “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. You should be pleased by the reference to the holy text. There is a visible genetic difference between families and nations, which is ample excuse for racism for those that add belief in evolution to their poor character.

  • Tangent002

    Why has this not been published in any peer-reviewed journal? Surely such a solid refutation of evolution is deserving of the Nobel Prize!

    XP

    • getstryker

      Hahaha . . . yeah, I wonder why!!! Just watch how fast ‘grants and funding sources’ would dry up . . . it’s ‘tow the evolutionist line’ or else!

      • Elie Challita

        Apparently this guy has already found someone to fund his research anyway, so that objection holds water about as well as Noah’s Ark would have done in real life.

        • getstryker

          I noticed in your personal profile that you refer to ‘delusions of grandeur’ . . . I can see you got the first part of that description right.
          The design presented in the biblical account has been built to scale and tested numerous times by secular researchers and has proven to be an extremely seaworthy craft. Look it up.

          • Elie Challita

            Always with the personal attacks. I should expect it from you people by now 🙂
            Yes, I’m sure it has. Which why no wooden boat of that size has ever been built, nor could be built, considering the tensile strength of wood.

          • getstryker

            I beg to differ . . . It’s NOT a personal attack – you wrote your own profile – I simply made a simple observation and agreed that you are, in fact, a writer of delusions, grandeur or not.
            You are ‘in error’.again, concerning the existence, size and wooden construction materials. You make an unsubstantiated statement without data or proof to back it up. Do your research before you respond to me again. Your ‘opinion’ of the Ark, precisely built by Noah according to the specifications provided by God himself means nothing to me except that your desire to mock God is obvious.

          • Elie Challita

            Hm, I must’ve missed responding to this.
            The largest wooden ships ever built were less than half the supposed size of the ark, and they were found to be notoriously unreliable and fragile. Furthermore, they could only be built using techniques and materials that would have been impossible to find in the bronze or iron age in the middle east.

            I’m fine with you believing the story, but at least concede that it has no scientific basis at all, and that you’re literally relying on some good old divine magic to hold the boat’s planks together long enough for Noah to get the critters in there.

          • Phaenius

            HEY…a source…you know the tennis strength of wood? Is it a generic tensile strength or do you know the particular strength of that wood the Bible says the ark was built of.

          • Elie Challita

            Tennis strength of wood? Really?

            Apparently the ark was built out of something called gopherwood, which nobody’s ever heard of. Some assume it was built of cedar wood, which is pretty likely given the region, and the fact that cedar is prime ship-building wood. The ark was supposedly 520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high.

            The longest documented wooden ships were less 160 feet long. There are claims of longer ships, but no good evidence remains of any of them. The longest documented ships were actually very advanced pieces of engineering, using knowledge and materials that a primitive like Noah would never have had access to. Attempts to build larger ships than the documented length were fraught with failure, because they were very vulnerable to rough seas and capsizing.

            So, quite frankly, the only way you can claim that Noah ever built the damned thing, never mind getting it to float, is to invoke some good old Jesus magic. You might as well abandon all pretense of rationality then, and concede the argument by admitting that the entire story is built on the premise of supernatural assistance. Apparently god didn’t only send the flood, he also held the Ark’s planks together throughout 😉

          • Phaenius

            Primitive? Why think you this? No one has recently built the boat to the specs you mention, or so I am surmizing you to say, so where is your SCIENCE (Anglicized Latin for KNOWLEDGE) or the modern methodology that is taken from the Biblical law of two or three witnesses that establishes a matter (in two corollaries, One being in the form as Moses puts it generically as “in the mouth of one witness shall NO man be put to death, or as Jesus puts it magically “if I bear witness of myself my witness is not true,” or as Papa Peter puts it in this corrected to the Greek translation of 2 Peter 1:20 “this first knowing that every prophecy of scripture is NOT OF ITS OWN interpretation.” The Second correlation being “in the mouth of WITNESSES, TWO OR THREE shall a matter [justice as in Moses time, truth in Matthew 18 where Jesus is describing what the church should do in case of personal conflict in the church, and doctrine in 1 Cor. 14 concerning translation of tongues and the judging of the testimony of prophets]), introduced by European Christian or Bible influenced searchers after knowledge(Science or GNOSIS in the Greek). In other words, has there actually been testing of this design in its full scale?

            As for it being made of GOPHER WOOD, the best I think you have made a case is for the presumption of Biblical scholars that this refers to the cedar of the region, others seem to indicate the cypress, but even so if it is “of the region”, why not make the ark of the covenant of the same material in that the Bible says that little box and accessories such as the carrying staves were made of shittim wood, apparently that was wood found in the region Moses passed through. Or could it be that the gopher wood no longer is extant in that the flood apparently deprived the earth of many species of flora as well as fauna? As for size, since this was a bit over a thousand years since creation, the stand of trees at a thousand years could have been massive. It is reported in genesis that metal tools were available so I am not so sure that primitive could be a realistic term for the peoples of the time of Noah.

            And by the way, God apparently closed the door as well since it was three stories high.

          • Elie Challita

            Primitive is a very accurate term to describe an iron age culture, especially when compared to the late 1700s when ships of the size I mentioned were built.

            Look, it simply doesn’t matter what kind of wood he built it with. No wooden ship can be that big and maintain its structural integrity. Especially not if it was built by a man who was far from an experienced ship builder, and who had to contend with a cargo of wild animals.

            It’s all right if you present the story of Noah as an allegory, or even if you want to claim that God essentially did everything for Noah, because the old man sure as hell couldn’t have done it for himself. But don’t kid yourself and pretend that there’s a scientific or rational basis for any part of the story.

          • Phaenius

            Again, you say this is an “iron age culture.” It is an account of events PREDATING an IRON AGE CULTURE. You presume that a wooden ship can be that big built of a type of wood we are not certain exists today anyway. Unlike you I do not believe in EVOLUTION, but DEVOLUTION is quite possible and rather scientific considering that there is an increasing build up of mutations among all species that are deleterious to the viability of that species in some normal setting, unless there is a crossbreeding which produces a temporary hybrid vigor. I believe Adam to be quite reasonably bright and only when wrested from the culture that maintains the skills and documents the SCIENCE (knowledge) obtained by that culture and the infrastructure that maintains the material artifacts of that culture, will it appear that the approximation of what was once familiar by materials unlike the material that some tool was made of might appear quite primitive. For instance I am about an eighth Cherokee Indian, and I have seen remarkable flint and chert tools made by ancient cultures of Indians, and I am going to be embarrassed to show you the approximations I have flint knapped.

            What you amazingly are not understanding is that of all ancient literature, the Bible maintains itself as an archive of EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY of normal things and of when “the finger of God” moved about the earth, and it has a schema of interpretation built in from Genesis that is even found in the words of the testimony of what Jesus and the Apostles say.

            This schema of interpretation is what is the basis of the scientific method we use today, and as a geologist myself, am quite familiar with in that geology is an eclectic science deriving much from the other disciplines such as chemistry, physics, biology, and the mathematics necessary to understand what the earth is, its processes and rates. And it is even found in the Third Article, Section three of the constitution requiring two witnesses in the cases involving treason.

            Moses has it in two corollaries mentioned about three times in his TORAH (the first five books of the Bible) concerning judgments.

            Corollary One generically stated concerning things dealing with capital offenses, “in the mouth of ONE WITNESS, shall NO man be put to death. Jesus said in John, “If I bear witness of myself my witness is not true.” And Papa Peter says in 2 Peter 1:20 in this corrected translation of the Greek, “this first knowing that EVERY (as in single) prophecy of scripture is NOT OF ITS OWN INTERPRETATION.

            Corollary Two generically stated by Moses, “in the mouth of WITNESSES, TWO OR THREE shall a matter be established.” Jesus uses it concerning church discipline in Matthew 18, and even has the seed church defined by it, when He says something like, “where two or three of you are gathered in my name, there will I be in your midst.” And Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 14 concerning tongues and prophecy to establish doctrine for the church in lieu of the archive of testimony of what Jesus said and did would be written down.

            The Bible is therefore a BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE, GNOSIS from which EPIGNOSIS (or knowledge upon knowledge as the brain processes the different images of two eyeballs that has differences even up to contradictions that it interprets as three dimensional vision 1 Cor. 13:12) is established, and SCIENCE, which is but the Anglicized Latin for KNOWLEDGE.

            Our SCIENCE or KNOWLEDGE is actually based upon a methodology that lends credibility to once an esoteric art hidden from the public but which methodology was developed by Christians in Europe for sake of credibility or those influenced by the Bible, whose observations were even set against the traditional knowledge of the Greeks containing theories the Roman Church insisted on (who at the time discouraged the laity from interpreting the Bible since it mistranslated 2 Peter 1:20 in its Latin Vulgate and carried on over into the English translations so as to have only the CHURCH magisterium interpret the Bible that is why you get the “not of any private interpretation.” when in fact the Greek says quite the opposite, you can privately interpret as long as you use two or three at the minimum scriptures of prophecy to obtain an established teaching of prophecy, not just one scripture).

            The Biblical accounts are eyewitness testimony set in pairs which have differing sets of information so to take them together will give you a more knowledgeable understanding of what happened at creation and during the time of the flood, and since this schema of interpretation involving multiple witnesses was being used in the new Testament scriptures, this is how we understand such things as the rapture and even the trinity.

            The Christians own the origin of GEOLOGY as the science we are familiar with today, only usurped now a days by the likes of you who forbid the very establishing principles if it is tainted by the Bible today. Ironically the early Christian geologists were developing things according to observations and by repeated experimentations to obtain what the processes and rates being experienced in the earth then and today. The usurpers such as Darwin were actually PHILOSOPHERS, not field scientists, but even Darwin was drawn to the observation part and began the modern derailment of knowledge so as to counter the concept of a personal God.

          • Elie Challita

            Sigh. The Bible, in its entirety, does not count as independent witnesses. If all of the witness testimonies come from a single source, which is itself under investigation, then they do not count as independent, let alone corroborating, testimony.

            That’s like saying that the Greek Gods must have existed because the Illiad and the Odyssey list many people who are supposed to have personally verified the events.

          • Phaenius

            Double Sigh. I know this is an extremely novel understanding and even folk who claim they believe the Bible, being educated in government schools and undereducated in Sunday Schools tend to be extremely ignorant of how valuable the Bible is to our American culture and the world.

            The Bible does NOT represent ONE WITNESS and is indeed an archive of INDEPENDENT WITNESSES brought together as ANY modern trial cases would bring together witnesses in some dossier or if you insist a STACK of them relegated to one case. The Bible even contains a schema of interpretation that you do not find in the Iliad and the Odyssey or much of any other ancient literature and barely in the codices of law mounted on monuments or piles of clay tablets in the ruins of some ancient library.

            The Bible is the major ORIGIN of folk desiring procedures to insure credibility. It speaks of how to bring witnesses in for questioning. It also talks of FALSE WITNESSES, a major commandment in one of the TEN that Liberals are zealous to tear from public display, says THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS. Jesus was even attacked concerning his reputation in his trial by FALSE WITNESSES. LYING PROPHETS and TEACHERS are warned of and excoriated by entities discussed in the testimonies.

            People are in wonder when they see things that are NOT NATURAL, and in fact the majority of reality is NOT ALWAYS experiencing the finger of GOD moving about. The New Testament is not unlike the older Hebrew scriptures when events that are “marvelous” are verified by several and even several HUNDRED witnesses are spoken of and Jesus even tells them that his critics THEMSELVES are witnesses of what he said and what he did.

            The precedent of establishing the credibility of witnesses today are found in some of the vigorous rules I myself repeated in the above posting of mine concerning the law of multiple witnesses, perhaps more vigorous than what is even found in America today concerning murder where the Torah of Moses insists that “IN THE MOUTH OF ONE WITNESS SHALL NO MAN BE PUT TO DEATH, but in the mouth of WITNESSES, TWO OR THREE, shall a matter be established.” Put this in your pipe and smoke it as you wrap your mind around what this says and which is found in no other ancient literature I am familiar with, and perhaps you ARE so you would be helpful to me to enlighten me so I can add an AMEN to the ancient societies that might be concerned in delivering truths as they see it.

            The major Liberal dig is that the Bible is not a book of SCIENCE, and I have begged to differ, because I am aware of how IGNORANT the government educated people are so that they seem to IGNORE that SCIENCE means KNOWLEDGE, and that the METHODOLOGY OF CREDIBLE KNOWLEDGE only can obtain that which is observed today in reference to processes and rates normal to the Universe, and never can determine the truth of origins in that origins are NOT observable today whether that of scripture or of the current disciplines involved in such things, and that we ALL would be dependent on a report or reports or eyewitness reports of what happened…such as that delivered by GOD HIMSELF to folk who also witnessed the FINGER OF GOD MOVING to the point of giving that testimony credibility to the authors of the original documentation. You do NOT have an eyewitness of the origin of this universe to COUNTER a report of such origin, and you have no SCIENCE METHODOLOGY to obtain that though folk are fond of chasing light of objects traveling away from us to catch that glimpse of “ancient” history.

            Even YOU depend on documentation of scientific experiments, and it is granted as per THAT MODERN understanding we have the means to test those, but when such experimentation is not to be had then it is HISTORY that we refer to and the documents to understand such are dependent on the eyewitnesses of irreproducible events, that might be countered by other historical documents…if you had it and you don’t and you are in NO position to be able to discredit such reports.

            The irony is that copies of the Bible are in more abundance than the collection of ALL of ancient literature, many of these being one of a kind testimony. When you contemplate this how laughable are your pokes at the Bible, though I have no problem with you poking at those of us who are supposed to understand and follow our own literature, which some of us are careless in doing…thus a right irritant concerning fallible humans as we NOT DOING THAT WHICH IS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD.

            Since the Bible indicates that the church age is not having MARVELOUS SIGN GIFTS TO THE JEWS still going on until the time after the end of the church age, we cannot demonstrate a FINGER OF GOD event by MAGICAL incantations. We do not even have prophets for this time, BUT THERE IS ONE CREDIBILITY GIVING GIFT we have left that you an unbeliever cannot possess but the simplest Christian can were he to actually be knowledgable to practice it and this is AGAPE, or the Greek word used by the Apostles and the Bible to describe the unconditional love that GOD/JESUS had for us. In fact Jesus is said by John who had a promised HOLY SPIRIT enhanced remembrance of what Jesus said and did, being the last of the prophets and eyewitnesses of what Jesus said and did, “in THIS shall ALL KNOW that YE ARE MY DISCIPLES in that YE HAVE LOVE ONE TO ANOTHER.”

            So my friend, I am aware of LOTS of folk claiming to be disciples of CHRIST and by lacking this AGAPE, many of these are easy to spot as fakes, but Jesus says you have the capacity to KNOW when this AGAPE is being done, so I would proffer that you go around “looking for a heart of gold” mission to find such, and if you do not find any, than you can be assuredly satisfied in your own heart that the Bible is fiction, and go to Hell in that confidence. You will know it because you desire to be known to have such love, that has no personal agenda, and you cannot do it, but you will know it when you see it. You can practice by looking at lots of movies which depict that by really great ACTORS (HYPOCRITES being the Greek word for STAGE ACTORS who can wear those THESPIAN MASKS depicting characters they so brilliantly interpret. In all the art such as novels, stage, screen, songs and such are full of such accurate depictions of such AGAPE, but be aware that when the actor takes off that thespian mask and goes home, though he brilliantly portrayed such Agape on the stage, unless truly a Disciple of Jesus and saved, he cannot do it at home.

          • Roger Peritone

            You made the claim, YOU back it up. You give us the source for that “research”

            Don’t worry though, I did it for you:
            The Sensuous Curmudgeon’s article: “ICR: Noah’s Ark Was Seaworthy”

            also from the Smithsonian site:
            “Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes” Don’t get your hopes though before you read that article though!

            oldearth dot org slash arkstudy dot htm

          • getstryker

            Hahaha . . . I investigated this years ago . . . do your own homework . . . BTW – why would I read your link? . . . you wouldn’t read or believe any of mine. We’re finished! 😉

          • Roger Peritone

            Yep, fingers in the ears. No. I will not do your research for you. You made the claim, you back it up.

            I did, but of course you won’t even bother to look.

            How stupid of you.

      • Roger Peritone

        Baloney. Evolution was arrived at because of the evidence. It used to the the creatonists who ruled. There didn’t use to be a “line” to toe.

        Check out Talk Origin’s site’s article: “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” for many examples of the tests that evolution has passed.

        • getstryker

          Yeah . . . I’ll get right on that about the time you show me a cat that became a dog or a bear that became a whale or whatever. . . you pick it – YOU made the claim 😉

          • Erasmus Pickler

            If a cat turned into a bear, or gave birth to a bear, that would actually overturn not just the theory of evolution but everything we thought we knew about biology.

            Why do you deny a theory you obviously aren’t familiar with?

          • getstryker

            Oh . . . obviously 😉 You can’t even repeat my example correctly and you think you’ve got any answers? . . . Hahahaha. You need to crawl back under that rock you came out from for a while longer . . . you and your ‘know it all’ attitude need to ‘evolve’ some more!

          • Roger Peritone

            Well, since these people don’t like links, I’ll just direct you to the 13 minute, 42 second point of Aron Ra’s video “Refuting the Irrefutable Proof of God – part X “

          • getstryker

            What – you really think that ‘yo-yo’ is going to actually refute and destroy my faith in God . . . REALLY?

            Attilla the Hun has more credibility as a ‘social worker’ than Ra has as an authority on anything concerning the Almighty God, The Creator of the Universe and you and me and Ra too.

            God didn’t create men to have an IQ ‘3 points below a carrot’ – it’s NOT God’s fault if some people act like it.

          • Roger Peritone

            As I knew you’d react: Fingers in your ears when you are given sources for the claims that you demand that we support.

            Here’s a tip: Aron is not making this stuff up. It’s all backed up by peer-reviewed science. You’d know that if you bothered to look in the TO links I referenced earlier.

            Stop acting so childish. It’s not one of the gifts of the “holy spirit”, as far as I know….

          • getstryker

            Considering you and Ra know NOTHING of the Holy Spirit, God or anything else requiring biblical truth, discernment, understanding . . . why should I bother.
            ‘Peer reviewed?’ . . . that’s a joke! How long do you suppose their funding, grants, etc., continue if your ‘scientists’ endorse the truth that ‘God did it?’ –
            Do you really believe that you’re the first ‘know-it-all punk’ that I’ve come up against . . . God gives everyone a ‘free will’ and the opportunity to choose . . . He tells you the consequences and the rewards based on that choice. Nothing anyone says will change that for you or Ra or anyone else until they decide to listen. I hope that time comes for you and Ra – in the meantime – we’re finished.

          • Roger Peritone

            This is about the scientific evidence for evolution.

            If you want to laugh at “peer-review”, look at the statement of faith that creationist groups like AiG take where they outright promise to disregard as invalid any evidence that goes against the so-called “scriptural record”.

            That by the way, is the exact opposite of the scientific method. There, one is supposed to go by the evidence to the conclusion, not the other way around.

            And good grief: “…How long do you suppose their funding, grants, etc., continue if your ‘scientists’ endorse the truth that ‘God did it?’ -”

            Funding and grants have jack-all to do with it. “Goddidit” is an outright science stopper.

            How does the sun work? “goddidit”!
            How do the tides work? “goddidit”!

            How many times has a supernatural explanation ever been shown to be the correct one in history?

            How can we possibly learn anything about the world around us if we just stop thinking?

            Geez, you’re a complete fool.

          • getstryker

            Uh huh! Hahahahaha – nothing wrong with ‘science’ when it comes to cars, computers, medicine, etc. – no problem . . . the problems start when it comes time for ‘science’ to explain ‘eyes, hearing, male/female genders and procreation, structures of the human body, etc.’ – it’s all speculation, imagination, and a ‘definite maybe’ thrown in for good measure. Explain how life came from non-life, why a dead, dry bone in the dirt evolved way back when and yet, nothing evolves today? Yeah, I know – ‘Gould’ – yeah right ;-( Explain dinosaur tracks with human footprints in Texas, why there’s no erosion evidence in the Grand Canyon if everything is millions and millions of years old. . . . it goes on and on. There are so many holes in your evolution BS – then the big one . . . explain the Big Bang theory . . . supposedly everything crunched up in a ball the size of a period at the end of this sentence. What exploded? Ever heard of the Law of Angular Momentum? Why are their planets and moon in our solar system spinning backwards? Huh? Don’t talk to me about who’s the fool here – you really believe that evolution garbage??? REALLY?!

          • Roger Peritone

            Dinosaur tracks with humans in Texas? You realize that not even Answers in Genesis accepts that canard/hoax anymore right?

            Good grief. If you bring up claims that even other creationists reject, should I even be bothered to reply?

            Here. Learn something, please. See Talk Origins “Index of Creationist Claims”.

          • getstryker

            🙂

          • Roger Peritone

            Ah! A Poe. Ok, I fell for it. Never mind, then.

          • Roger Peritone

            Yes. It’s your fault entirely for acting in such a manner. Keep those fingers in your ears, deny evidence by attacking those who present it, and keep living in fantasy land.

          • getstryker

            Ok hotshot . . . give me your top, can’t beat this example of evolution. Name it – what one thing should I look at that will prove that evolution explains EVERYTHING in the universe.
            Go ahead . . . I’ll wait.

          • Roger Peritone

            Your ignorance is showing right here. The ONLY thing that evolution is supposed to explain is the biodiversity of life on this planet. That’s it. Not “EVERYTHING in the universe”.

            As I’ve tried to say before: Do some reading. Especially about what evolution, or just watch segment X of “Refuting the Irrefutable Proof of God”, as most of that entire series so far, is dealing with creationist claims. Whale evolution is explained there.

            The conflicting creationist claims about Tiktaalik are informative

            For reading…Talk Origins “29+ Evidences of Macroevolution” is a good start.

            “evolution dot about dot com” is another site.

            Oh right. You refuse to read them!

            Edit:
            How’s about human evolution? Check out the chart of creationist opinions as to which are humans, and which are apes?
            talkorigins dot org slash faqs slash homs slash compare dot html

          • getstryker

            😉

          • Roger Peritone

            You may also want to actually check out the talk origins site I listed…they provide the EVIDENCE for my claim.

            Instead of putting your fingers in yours ears and pretending to be smart by asking people for evidence for their claims you may want to actually look at what they say, so you don’t remain ignorant.

  • The Last Trump

    Yeah.
    We know.

  • Jerry J Brown

    I believe God created the world, but please don’t use the bible as a science textbook. Genesis chapter one is very vague about the details of the human population when Adam and Eve were here. And it was written by Moses a very long time after the story actually happened. Too much speculation

    • Guest

      You are wrong. Pupin based his science on Genesis. Many scientific discoveries have been based upon the Word.

      • Seen From Space

        “Many scientific discoveries have been based upon the Word.”
        Ahem, I would like you to provide just ONE example please. Even the devout Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler never derived a single technical insight from Scripture. AiG, the ICR and DI all practise theology, not science. They camouflage it in techie language, which only impresses those who don’t understand the actual science.

        • Guest

          You are very much mistaken. Newton cited Isaiah 40:22 for his discoveries in Principia, Book III. Pupin cited Genesis 1 and Psalms for teaching him that we could communicate via light. Matthew Maury cited his scientific findings on ocean currents as coming from Psalm 8:8. As far as ICR, etc., every single one of their scientists were educated in secular institutes of learning, including Harvard.

          • Seen From Space

            None of these are technical insights in the way I meant. Isaiah 40:22 and the rest may have had poetic resonances after the fact. With the ICR, AiG et al, the results of the little research they do are predetermined by Scripture. They ignore anything that can’t be manipulated to fit the necessary conclusion. That’s a travesty of the scientific method. All the above men followed legitimate methods and their faith was incidental. None are alive to judge this, but I suspect they’d be nauseated by the way ideology is dressed up as science.

          • Guest

            Poetic nothing. You obviously haven’t read the scientists’ explanations themselves. The Bible is not “poetry” – the Bible is facts. It’s truth. It’s wisdom. These men read it, studied it, and based science on it. They made great scientific discoveries based upon it, discoveries that affect you today.

          • Seen From Space

            In fact the Bible is poetry as well as all those other things! I’m not saying it’s not inspirational. Their faith was still extraneous to their modus operandi. They followed the scientific method, and so should we. AiG do not. There is no scientific case whatsoever for YEC cosmology. If you believe there is, you should widen your reading.

          • Guest

            Their scientific method was based on the Bible. They even say so. There is much evidence for a young earth.

          • John N

            There is only one scientific method, used by all scientists in the word. And that is based on actual evidence, not on divine revelation.

            And if there was indeed ‘much’ evidence for a young earth, then young earth creationism would be the leading theory in the scientific fields of cosmology, geology, biology and historical science. Last time I looked it was still a religious belief based on ancient bronze age ideas on how the world came to be. But please show us this ‘much’ evidence.

          • Guest

            I agree that true science is based on knowledge – that is what the word “science” means. Evolution has never been proven, and has no evidence. Thus, evolution is not real science.

            While there is much evidence for a young earth, some scientists (not all), dispute it because they want evolution to be true, because then they can live sinful lives and think they are without excuse. However, real evidence points to a young earth.

          • John N

            >’Evolution has never been proven …’

            And by that you show you actually do not know what science means. Because in science, nothing is ever proven – science can only disprove things, like globals floods and special creation ex nihilo.

            And of course the theory of evolution has the supporting evidence. If not, it would not be called a scientific theory.

            >’…. because then they can live sinful lives and think they are without excuse…’
            Why would scientists, of which the majority are non-christians, worry about living sinful? This is nonsense.

            >’However, real evidence points to a young earth.’
            You keep on saying that. Do you think it will become true if you just repeat it enough? Or are you going to show some of that ‘evidence’ of yours?

          • Guest

            John, even some of the top evolutionist scientists will tell you that evolution has never been proven. 🙂 And with your comment(s) you prove that you have never truly studied science. 🙂

          • John N

            Guest, ALL scientists will acknowledge the theory of evolution CAN NOT BE PROVEN. That is not how science works. Proof is for mathematicians and lawyers – scientists work with evidence.

            All scientists will also tell you that there is abundant evidence to SUPPORT the theory of evolution, and NONE has ever been found to disprove it.

            Please do try to catch the essentials of a subject before trying to criticize it.

          • Guest

            Evidence is a form of proof. I’ve corrected you on this before. Please use a dictionary.

          • John N

            Evidence is a kind of proof? No it is not.

            Evidence supports a scientific view, or disproves it. Until disproving evidence has been found, a theory is accepted to be correct, not proven.

            And to study science you don’t use a dictionary – you use scientific articles and books.

          • Guest

            Scientists don’t use fake words. 🙂 Evidence means the same to scientists as it does to non-scientists. 🙂 Please use a dictionary. Reality is your friend. 🙂

          • John N

            Well, you make it very clear that non-scientists do not realize that evidence does mean something else for scientists.

            Like scientific evidence is to be empirical, gathered by observation and/or experiments; a prioiri evidence is not accepted. It is based on the results of statistical analysis, and it has to be validated by scientific controls.

            But of course you do not find this in a dictionary. You do need a minimum of scientific education to know this.

          • Guest

            You do realize that you are the non-scientist to whom you’re referring, don’t you? 🙂

          • Seen From Space

            Proof exists only in the domains of mathematics and logic. Don’t look for it in biology. The fact that you have to have this explained is very telling. As is your certainty that you understand these technical subjects better than the people who study them professionally. I see this a lot.

          • Guest

            Again, you are wrong. There must be proof for something to be true. Otherwise it’s merely a fairy tale. Like evolution.

          • Seen From Space

            Proof, true, must, something. These are just words. Ever used GPS, or a camera? These respectively depend on relativity and quantum mechanics to operate. These are theories and they WORK. Neither is subject to or depends on proof in your naive sense. There’s at least as much evidence supporting evolution as for either of the above, and all 3 make verifiable predictions. Why am I having to explain this??? You could not be more wrong.

          • Guest

            If something works, then it proves a theory, doesn’t it? 🙂

          • Seen From Space

            No. It SUPPORTS the theory.

          • Guest

            What do you think support means? 🙂 What do you think proof is? 🙂 Define your terms.

          • Seen From Space

            “ICR scientists all have impressive scientific credentials” Why do they never do any origins research then? All they do is invent problems with the work of others. How much reported research by the ICR can you find on this website?

          • Guest

            I see ICR scientists published in journals all the time. You clearly don’t read them.

          • Seen From Space

            Examples from 2016 please. Where the PROOF that the universe began 6000 years ago? They’re swimming in money, unlike university departments, yet where’s their PROOF?

          • Guest

            Who’s swimming in money? And why can’t you prove evolution?

            Just some ways that illustrate a young earth: the amount of sodium in the sea. Fossil radioactivity. The amount of carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

          • John N

            No I don’t.

            But if course I didn’t learn science from a dictionary. Or from a ancient holy book.

          • Guest

            You also didn’t get a science degree from a respected institute of learning. 🙂

          • John N

            Well, I have. What about yours?

            And if you’ve got one, why don’t you use it?

          • Guest

            No, you haven’t. You clearly don’t know the first thing about science. 🙂

          • John N

            Claims the guy telling us evolution is just a fairy tale that has no scientific basis, thereby making clear he does not understand what a scientific theory acutally is.

            You’re a fine example of a creationist. And outside your little world of fundamentalism, that is not a compliment.

          • Guest

            John, you have a poor memory because you and I discussed this months ago. If you truly had a degree in any of the scientific disciplines, you would know that the higher up you go, the more they admit they know nothing, or at least, very little. No one has ever claimed to have proof of evolution. Everyone admits it’s a supposition, and a poor one at that, since most of its tenets have been disproven. Look, for example, at just one small aspect of it, and that is the claim that each “race” was once evolved from a different type of ape. We know now irrefutably that all mankind came from a common start, the genomic Adam and Eve. Yes, even in secular science, we use the terms Adam and Eve, meaning a common ancestor. Creationists knew that all along, but now science is finally admitting to it. Racism, genocide, eugenics, and all sorts of other ugliness, however, has sprung from evolution, and it’s all been wrong. All that evil could have been avoided had mankind simply heeded the Word of God.

            I have explained to you in the past that I arrived at my conclusions from studying science, from studying secular sources because that’s the only education I had. The more I studied, and the deeper I got in my studies, I saw that evolution could not be true, and that evolution clashed with the scientific truths that we knew to be true. I saw that both could not be true, that one must be false, and so I went with what we knew to be true and then logically followed to the conclusion that evolution was false. I later came to know God, to study His Word, but I long rejected evolution prior to that based upon science, and there are more people like me who are standing up in the scientific community (secularists) who no longer hold to evolution.

          • John N

            >’No one has ever claimed to have proof of evolution.’
            Maybe because they call it ‘evidence’? Seems you are the one with a bad memory, because only a few days ago I told you scientists don’t look for ‘proof’.

            >’Everyone admits it’s a supposition, and a poor one at that, since most of its tenets have been disproven. ‘
            Is that so? I can’t wait to see you disprove it. I won’t hold my breath though, creationists have been promising this for more than 150 years.

            >’…and that is the claim that each “race” was once evolved from a different type of ape.’
            Oh, please try to keep up. This claim has been debunked more than 50 years ago! In fact only some fundamentalistic religious zealots think that human ‘races’ have been created separately.

            >’We know now irrefutably that all mankind came from a common start, the genomic Adam and Eve. Yes, even in secular science, we use the terms Adam and Eve, meaning a common ancestor.’

            I’m afraid you are wrong again. Not that we came from a common ancestor, but about the Adam and Eve part. ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ and ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ are the layman’s name given to the most recent common ancesters (MRCA) of all human females (mtMRCA) resp. all human males only (YMRCA). They were not the first, nor the only living humans at that time. They very probably did not even live at the same time – current estimates for mtMRCA at 100,000–200,000 years ago, while for YMRCA at 200,000 to 300,000 years ago – and at the same place

            And what is more peculiar, with every new generation passing today, the role of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam could go to more recent ancesters.

            It is very clear that you do not understand the concept of an MRCA. I advice yo to read something about it before making such ridiculous claims.

            >’Racism, genocide, eugenics, and all sorts of other ugliness, however, has sprung from evolution, and it’s all been wrong.’

            Humans don’t need the theory of evolution to do that. Racism, genocide, infanticide, slavery misogeny, rape and all sorts of other ugliness, however, has been condoned using your own bible, and it’s all been wrong.

            >’All that evil could have been avoided had mankind simply heeded the Word of God.’
            Yeah right. Because drowning the entire human population is the just way to correct your own mistakes.

            >’I saw that evolution could not be true, and that evolution clashed with the scientific truths that we knew to be true. I saw that both could not be true, that one must be false, and so I went with what we knew to be true and then logically followed to the conclusion that evolution was false’

            This makes no sense. What were the ‘scientific truths we knew to be true’? Science is not about ‘thruths’. Science is about explaining the world based on available evidence. If new evidence pops up, theories change or will be replaced. So what evidence did you find that shows the theory of evolution to be false?

            My guess is you started with the conclusion – goddidit) – and filtered the evidence based on supporting your conclusions or not. And the evidence for evolution doesn’t fit your conclusion, and should therefore be revoked.

            >’…and there are more people like me who are standing up in the scientific community (secularists) who no longer hold to evolution.’

            Strange that the only people we see or hear objecting evolution are religious fundamentalists like you are.

          • Guest

            John, you’re not a scientist, and as thus, you don’t know, nor understand, the terminology. You’ve misused it.

            You cannot tell me how I came to faith. You don’t know me nor my life experiences. I came to God via searching, even when I didn’t know I was searching for Him. I wanted knowledge and wisdom, and via secular studying, I came to know Him. That is the truth. I didn’t grow up in church, but God graciously sought me out.

            As far as secular scientists go, I already gave you the name of Dr. Patterson with which to start.

          • John N

            So what terms do I not understand? Is it ‘evidence’? Is it ‘proof’? Is it the stuff about common ancestry? Is it ‘truths’? Please teach us.

            Since you do not try to refute my answers to your claims ‘scientists claim that each “race” was once evolved from a different type of ape’ and ‘..we know now irrefutably that all mankind came from a common start, the genomic Adam and Eve’, I guess you drop your case for these. Glad you do, they were really silly claims to start with. I assume you have better arguments for refuting evolution, so don’t hold back.

            No, I cannot tell you how you came to your faith. But your story is so typical of creationists – like Jonathan Wells – trying to convince ‘secular’ scientists they started from the same basis and were converted by ‘evidence’.

            At least you gave us a name of a scientists who, according to you, does no longer hold to evolution. I presume you mean Colin Patterson, the British paleontologist, and a scientist that creationist like to quote – or misquote, I must say. These are Colin Pattersons own words:

            ‘Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth … a world-wide flood … or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. … I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of ‘quotable quotes’, often taken out of context’

            I guess Dr Patterson is not very happy with you calling him one of yours.

            So, I’ll give you a second chance: can you show us secular scientists – in the relevant fields of science of course – who do no longer hold to evolution?

          • Guest

            You have clearly glossed over all my posts – probably because a.) you did not understand them, and b.) you have no rebuttal.

            Dr. Patterson is one who voiced serious doubts about evolution. I already told you that he wasn’t a Creationist, and never implied that he was. I told you I was speaking strictly in secular scientific terms, meaning scientists who are not Christians nor observant Jews. In “Expelled”, Ben Stein’s film, he interviewed secular scientists who no longer hold to evolution. It’s available on Youtube. Francis Crick, Michael Denton, Fred Hoyle, George Wald, Jeremy Rifkin, Charles J. Smith, George P. Stravropoulos, N. Takahata, Philip Yam, Freeman Dyson, are others. There are so many more.

          • John N

            Did I? Well, tell me where I went wrong then.

            As for the rebuttals, I just debunked all your claims in your previous post. Since you don’t come back with more evidence, I guess I was pretty effective.

            Colin Patterson never doubted evolution. Creationists have tried to make him say so, but as you could read in my last post he did not appreciate that.

            For one moment I thought we were discussing science here, Guest. Until the moment you came up with ‘Expelled’, a creationist propaganda movie described by the American Association for the Advancement of Science as ‘dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms’. Yes, I did watch it.

            Thanks for showing your colors and acknowledging you have no actual evidence of secular scientists who do no longer hold to evolution.

          • Guest

            John, you clearly are not reading my posts. 🙂 Every scientific source I gave you was from a recognized scientific journal. The long list of names I gave you were of living secular scientists who doubt evolution, but who are not Creationists. Please read posts thoroughly before commenting or don’t waste my time.

          • John N

            I’m waisting YOUR time?

            While you wanted me to look at a propaganda movie filled with deceptions like ‘Expelled’? While you are spreading lies about Colin Patterson, even repeat them after I show you his own words?

            Who is waisting who’s time here?

            >’Every scientific source I gave you was from a recognized scientific journal.’

            Since you gave now source at all, only claims, you could be right with this one.

            >’The long list of names I gave you were of living secular scientists who doubt evolution’
            Do they? When I look at this list, I see a result of the quote mine project, the creationists’ bible of what real scientists ought to ave said about evolution.

            At least three of them have been deliberately misquoted time and time again (Patterson, Crick and Wald). Denton and Takahata both accept evolution. At least three of them are not biologists, and therefore irrelevant in this discussion (Hoyle, Rifkin, Dyson); and at least one of them is a christian (Dyson), proving my point. After that, I decided I didn’t want to lose more time to check the others.

            Your sources are clearly not scientific; what is more, they are unreliable. You’ve been lied to, and you are spreading lies as well. A fine and typical creationist, you are.

          • Guest

            Ben Stein isn’t a born again Christian, John. Neither are most of the scientists he interviewed. It’s hardly “propaganda”. Meanwhile, I gave you many, many 100% secular sources and you were too ignorant to recognize who those people are. They themselves say they are secular scientists who do not believe in Creationism, per se, but they also do NOT believe in evolution. If you really studied science, you’d know that.

          • John N

            >’Ben Stein isn’t a born again Christian’
            So what? Do you mean to say only born again Christians should be allowed to lie to support their point?

            ‘Expelled’ is nothing but propaganda with a political goal: to introduce your specific version of creation into science education. That is what secular scientist sources tell us; and of course you have no reason not to believe them.

            >’Meanwhile I gave you many secular sources…’
            No, you did not. You gave me a movie and a list of names.I would not call that a ‘source’.

            And none if the relevant scientists in that list that I checked have ever stated they did not ‘ believe’ in evolution. Which would be a very strange statement for a scientist, because usually they accept – or do not accept – a scientific explanation; belief is for religious people who have no evidence.

            If you really had studied science, you would not make such silly mistakes.

            By the way, does any of these ‘secular ‘ scientist do accept special creation? They don’t, do they?

          • Guest

            I’ve tried to be kind to you because I feel sorry for you. You are the one evolutionists target – non-scientists who don’t know how things work, and who are gullible and easily fooled. I pitied you and tried to break down the science behind this in easy-to-understand terms, but all you did was lie and misrepresent the facts. Either you are an extremely dishonest person or you don’t even read your own posts.

            I gave you credible sources of real scientists and real citations from today’s scientific journals, but that went right over your head, and instead of admitting that, you chose to lie.

            You are ignorant because you choose to be ignorant.

          • John N

            >’I’ve tried to be kind to you because …’

            Yeah right. You are obviously too good for this world. Don’t expect to be rewarded in a next one, though.

            >’I pitied you and tried to break down the science behind this in easy-to-understand terms …’

            Is that the reason you use religious terminology like ‘proof’ instead of evidence, ‘belief in a theory’ instead of ‘accept a scientific theory’ and ‘type of ape’ instead of species, and why you do not seem to understand what a scientific theory actually is?

            Good to know that. I was afraid you were just trying to make a fool of yourself.

            >’I gave you credible sources of real scientists…’

            You gave me the name of a creationist propaganda movie. And a list of names of scientists you claim no longer hold on to evolution, probably copied from a creationist website. You gave no evidence of them actually doing so, and for most of them we know you just misquoted them. That is it. No references to scientific journals. So i doubt you would even recognize such a journal.

            You gave me two ‘scientific’ claims against evolution (‘scientists claim that each race evolved from a different kind of ape’ and ‘mankind came from a common start, the genomic Adam and Eve’) which are soooooo original I could almost refute them with my eyes closed.

            You gave me a claim about Colin Patterson which he himself refuted, and you kept on repeating them, thereby making you a liar.

            To make this story short, you gave me nothing but unsupported claims an bald lies.

            If being ignorant means not willing to enter in your fantasy world of divine creation, then I prefer ignorance. But of course reality, as explained in the scientific theory of evolution, is even far more preferable than your bedtime stories.

          • Guest

            I used scientific terms, but since you’re a faux scientist you failed to recognize them. 🙂

            Have a good life with your frauds, John. It must be terrible to go through life with nothing but lies.

          • John N

            Nice.

            Show me the evidence ‘proof’, ‘belief’ and ‘type of apes’ are scientific terms. Show me were a scientific theory is actually a supposition.

            And above all, show me the scientifically acceptable evidence for your claims that all those scientists, starting with Colin Patterson, no longer hold on to evolution.

            Can’t be to difficult for a ‘real scientist’ like you, can it?

          • Guest

            John, you keep going around in circles, pretending I’ve not said things I have said, or mischaracterizing them because you don’t understand them or because you’re intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

          • John N

            You are the one that started this carrousel. And until you actually present your evidence or drop your claims, we’ll go round and round again.

            It could be so easy, Guest. Just point me to your post where you reveal your ‘secular scientific’ sources.

            And tell me where I have mischaracterized things you said.

            If you can do that, we can stop going around in circles.

          • Guest

            Actually all I did was give secular scientific fact. You pretended (again) to be a scientist and were called out on it. If you don’t want to be called out on your lies, stop lying.

          • John N

            All you did was giving ‘secular’ scientific fact?

            If that were true, you could easily answer my request for evidence. But you don’t even try.

            All you did was making religious based claims unsupported by any evidence at all.

          • Guest

            I already did, John, but you’re doing what you’ve done before: pretending to not see it, nor misinterpreting it. You are not a scientist, and thus you fail to understand when you see real science. It reminds me of the time I gave a citation from NATURE and some non-scientist started yelping that I was using a “religious” source and that it came from ICR. 🙂 Keep talking though – you are proving your own self to be wrong with very little input needed from me. 🙂

          • John N

            No, you did not.

            In all your piosts, you did not present or even cite one credible source.

            If you had, you would by now have shown it. You are unable to do that.

            As for real science, creationism is not. It is religion. It is pseudo-science.

            If it were real science, it would be taught in every science curriculum in the world. It is not. If it was real science, scientists all over the world would be busy working on a theory of creation. They are not. If it was real science, we would see the results of this theory being used in other fields of science like medicine and agricultural engineering. They are not.

            And your language and terminology shows you don’t even understand what science actually is. Scientists do not search for proof, they do not believe in scientific theories, they do not think a theory is a supposition, they define species, not types. This is religious language, never used in a scientific context.

            Thanks for showing creationism is only religion.

          • Guest

            John, your denial only proves further how ignorant and uninformed you are of real science. You really should consider taking a course. Education is your friend.

          • John N

            You mean a bible course? Because that is were creationism is taught, isn’t it?

            But no thanks. I prefer to stay in touch with reality.

            And again, you did not present any evidence of your ‘secular’ scientific sources nor a reference to your posts were you claimed you did. I guess that means you have none. Using religious terminology and arguments in scientific discussions, promoting creationist
            movies, quote mining, lying about scientists’ sayings on evolution … i see you have got some form of education. Not what I would call scientific though.

          • Guest

            I’ve never mentioned a Bible course. All my education – and I have lots of it – is secular. You also have made false accusations about non-Christian scientists stance on evolution because you a.) are lying yourself, and b.) have clearly never studied their work, or studied any science for that matter. You’ve been exposed repeatedly as a liar here. I pity you.

          • Elie Challita

            Proof and evidence are not synonyms in a scientific context. Evidence refers to physical or otherwise observable material which affirms or supports a certain theory of idea.

            Proof, on the other hand, is used in the context of a mathematical proof: A line of reasoning that asserts the validity of a certain theory or theorem regardless of all physical evidence, and does not require physical evidence.

          • Guest

            Actually, your incorrect, particularly on the last count. 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            How so? A mathematical proof does not require direct observation of its proceedings before it can be proven.
            The entire goal of the proof is to find the reason behind the observable behavior, without being reliant on that behavior. The Pythagorean theorem would still hold true even if you had no way of accurately measuring the length of a triangle’s sides.

          • Guest

            See your dictionary. 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            Another non-answer. Thank you for your contribution 🙂

          • Guest

            Indeed, Elie, how else can I help you but direct you to a source? 🙂

          • Seen From Space

            Have a look through all the science articles on this website. Try and spot the reporting of research carried out by creationists. This article is a rare example, and a very unimpressive piece of work it is! Always there are quotes from creation scientists being negative about the work done by the real scientists. Do any of the creation “scientists” do any original work that supplies evidence to support biblical creation? See if you can find any.

          • Guest

            You may be unaware of how many times creationists have articles appear in secular scientific journals. 🙂 Most of the great scientists were young earth Creationists, and they did real science. 🙂

          • Seen From Space

            Not on origins science they don’t! On neutral fields like engineering or physics. Where are the peer-reviewed papers on YEC cosmology?

          • Guest

            I’m pointing out that Young Earth Creationists have been published in secular scientific journals, and yes, in topics other than engineering or physics. I smile whenever I see one of their names appearing in these journals because I know what their views are, and I know what they are really expressing.

          • John N

            I guess you are right – creationists are known to have published scientific work in peer reviewed scientific journals.

            What they did not do, is publish scientific work supporting creationism in scientific journals. And that is what it is all about, isn’t it?

          • Guest

            Well, they have, but it went *whoosh!* right over the secularists heads. 🙂 Some secular scientists have published pro-Creation findings, too, but haven’t always realized that their own science proved Creation.

          • Seen From Space

            PLEASE understand this: AiG, the ICR and fellow travellers employ PhDs to invent “problems” with the work of others. Their relationship with science is entirely parasitic. If all the science reading you do is from these sources, you may come away with the impression there’s good evidence for a 6000 year-old universe.

          • Guest

            You are wrong. ICR scientists merely point out the truth, as do other non-Christian scientists who are uncomfortable with evolution (see information about the late Dr. Patterson who was NOT a Creationist yet who said he doubted evolution). More and more non-Christian scientists are becoming disillusioned with evolution because it’s just a fairy tale thought that has no scientific basis.

          • Seen From Space

            “ICR scientists merely point out the truth,” This is laughably naive!
            “More and more non-Christian scientists are becoming disillusioned with evolution” Your evidence for this is…?

          • Guest

            You clearly are not a scientist and do not deal with the scientific community on a daily basis, so I can forgive your ignorance.

            ICR scientists all have impressive scientific credentials from recognized and respected institutes of learning, such as Harvard.

            For your last point, see the writings of the late Dr. Patterson, who was not a Creationist nor was he a Christian.

          • Seen From Space

            I cannot emphasise strongly enough that EVERY data point in 250 years of hard science is consistent with a universe billions of years old. The nay-sayer PhDs are consistently wrong. There are so few of them that they have to speak on multiple topics they don’t have specialist knowledge of, and they screw up all the time. These are technical matters, and if an argument is technically flawed, it fails.

          • Guest

            You are wrong, Seen, and clearly don’t know science. 🙂 Have a great night.

          • John N

            >’…but haven’t always realized that their own science proved Creation.’

            If science would have ‘proved’ creation (again, science does not work with ‘proof’ but with evidence), we would not have a theory of evolution.

            But we have. And it is certainly the most challenged theory scientists have ever formulated, because it seems to conflict with certain interpretations of an ancient book written by people ignorant of current knowledge.

            Creationism is pseudoscience. It is, just like the global flood, angels and demons and other magical beings, mythology.

          • Guest

            You just keep repeating the same false narrative every few months, even though you misuse terms, have no knowledge of science, and clearly have no degree in it. Why make yourself look bad?

          • John N

            Do I?

            I didn’t see you refute it.

            Must have gone right over my head, just like your evidence for creation. Because I didn’ t see that either.

          • Guest

            Actually, it did. 🙂

          • gizmo23

            Just because someone has gone to school doesn’t mean they are honest or know what they are talking about

      • Jerry J Brown

        you are wrong…….the bible is NOT a science textbook. What about Math? Why don’t we use the bible as a math textbook. The universe is full of math…….

        • Guest

          There actually is math in the Bible. 🙂 How else do you think we comprehend the number of the beast or Daniel’s prophecy? Do you know that his prophecy was so accurate that it’s listed in the secular archives of history?

      • Jerry J Brown

        and why the hell can’t you use your real name? What are you hiding?

        • Guest

          Why do you need to know someone’s name on Disqus? Very weird.

        • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

          Are you going to ask everyone else why they are not using their real name? Or are you just picking on Guest? Only two are using what might be someones name. Who can tell if the name you are using is your real name? Very few use their real name. I don’t think we are hiding anything by not using our name. Guest is really nice. Please cut Guest some slack. Thank you.

  • gizmo23

    Why are my posts deleted but people are allowed to use racial slurs ?

    • Jerry J Brown

      The moderators are just as whacked as this article is…..

    • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

      Fyi, this is a CHRISTIANNEWS website. So, strident anti-mainstream-Christian comments n insults will likely be deleted.
      …….If u want most of yr comments to be not deleted, go to satanicnews websites. …duh.!

  • Seen From Space

    This really is spectacularly unimpressive. AiG will fully exploit a nuance of population genetics like this, but when it comes to the vast weight of genomics data that points the way of mainstream science; well folks that’s just not admissible! They just keep quiet about it, or when in a corner and forced into a response (like Chromosome 2 fusion), it doesn’t matter TOO much if the response is technically wrong: their supporters won’t know the difference.

  • TC914

    Mitochondrial DNA is only maternally inherited so generational timing wouldn’t affect mutation rates which are what is actually used to determine the timeline. I’m a geneticist and this biologist is wrong, hence why it’s not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

  • Doc Bill

    Well, this “paper” is total nonsense. Extrapolating 40-year old marriage data to ancient times, incorporating NO data on birth records is simply incorrect. The “paper” demonstrates nothing which is why it would fail peer review. The paper ignores thousand of years of marriage records that refutes the author’s thesis. Not the least of which is the genetic record post Flood. That record alone refutes the Flood and the author’s premise.

  • Reason2012

    Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

    Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

    At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

    • John N

      >'”… things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

      Which means exactly? And atoms are ‘things that do appear’ how?

      >’ The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.’

      Right. But it forgets to mention why circumcision is needed in the first place.

      >'”He…hangs the earth upon nothing”
      I’m afraid you are wrong again. Your bible clearly states ‘The pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.’ So the earth rests on pillars.

      To conclude, all your ‘scientific’ findings from the bible are either just wrong, contradicted by other ‘scientific’ findings in the sam book, or too vague to be of any use. And anyway, none of them ever lead to advancing our knowldege. It really seems as if your bible was written by ancient humans using the knowledge available to them at that time, and really ought to get updated.

      • Reason2012

        // Right. But it forgets to mention why circumcision is needed in the first place. //
        Right it’s just a coincidence according to you.
        It doesn’t need to explain WHY any more than it explained WHY they are to use running water that doctors and scientists were clueless about as well.

        // I’m afraid you are wrong again. Your bible clearly states ‘The pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.’ So the earth rests on pillars.//

        False. Even today we talk about the foundations of the Earth when we’re talking about some things, yet we’re not talking about any sort of literal foundation the Earth is “resting upon”. And this is what his use of “pillars” is in this case.

        But He does go on to say He hangs the Earth upon nothing, which of course you ignore, which shows you’re being dishonest.

        // To conclude, all your ‘scientific’ findings from the bible are either just wrong, contradicted by other ‘scientific’ findings in the sam book, or too vague to be of any use. //

        False. Even the running water alone contradicts your false claim – light being sent and manifesting itself as speech – day and night at the same time on the planet – germs – and more. Useless? Hardly! Those facts were in the Bible hundreds and thousands of years before scientists / doctors ever figured them out – in the Bible when the human race couldn’t have possibly known about such things.

        We will be without excuse when we face God and try to pretend “Well how was I supposed to know?!”

        Willful ignorance – precisely the kind displayed in your dishonest attempts to twist what was clearly said as if it doesn’t say those things at all.

        I would think again.

        • John N

          >’It doesn’t need to explain WHY …’

          Well, it could explain why your god thought such an medical surgery is necessary, because we know not of a reason to have boys circumcised at any age – except for specific medical reasons.

          Anyway, the eight day can be explained without the need for a supernatural being by trial-end-error or simply coincidence. Occam’s razor, you know.

          >’But He does go on to say He hangs the Earth upon nothing, which of course you ignore, which shows you’re being dishonest.’

          Aso again, the pillars of the earth are just a matter of speaking, but hanging the earth upon nothing is scientific fact?

          I’m afraid you are making this up as you go, don’t you? Cherry-picking the bible verses you like and calling them science, and defining everything you don’t like as metaphorical?

          And closing your argument with threats of judgment eternal torture? That surely is a way to conclude a scientific discussion.

          Reason, your bible is worthless as a source of scientific knowledge. The evidence being that no scientists ever has based a scientific theory on it. That would make you think, doesn’t it?

  • Reason2012

    Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

    The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled,” and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

    Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”

    • John N

      >’Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).’
      Local winds do turn continuously on a daily basis, that is correct. On a global level, air flows do not go south and then turn north. Most do not return but flow in a spiral.

      Solomon also described ‘The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose’

      He was wrong in that as wel, as we know now.

      >”And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean”

      You might be surprised that doctors do not wash their hands with running water from a river. They use soap or antiseptics for that. How strange that, again, your bible forgot to mention something crucial like that.

      • Reason2012

        // Solomon also described ‘The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose’

        He was wrong in that as wel, as we know now. //
        Just like today we still say “the sun rises..” or “the sun went down..” and you know we’re not saying that it’s the sun that’s moving – so to pretend that’s what He meant only shows how dishonest you need to be to ignore the fact that Solomon described air currents that scientists could not figure out until thousands of years later.

        // You might be surprised that doctors do not wash their hands with running water from a river. //
        Doesn’t have to be from a river -just has to be running water from any sort of fresh source. And doctors / scientists didn’t figure that out until the 19th century.

        • John N

          >’Just like today we still say “the sun rises..” or “the sun went down..”‘

          Correct. We still say that. But we do know it as a scientific explanation. And neither do we use the observation that the wind changes direction on a daily basis as an explanation for global air currents.

          >’Doesn’t have to be from a river -just has to be running water from any sort of fresh source’
          Ah! So where does the bible says it has to be a fresh source? And ieven then, running water is not the answer – although it is a lot smarter to use a stream uphill the village than a local pond.

          Doctors have learnt to wash their hands with soap. Now where in the bible did they get that knowledge from?

  • Reason2012

    Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

    “During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine).” Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, “Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” (11:3 continued)

    • John N

      >’Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field.’

      And where does he say this happens all at the same time? As far as we know, a day still counts 24 hours, part of which we call night.

      >’The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’

      Isn’t Leviticus the same book that also describes a cure for leprosy? You know, like sprinkling the blood of birds and lambs on the patient and his house? I wonder why scientists actually do not follow that ‘scientific thruth’ as well.

      • Reason2012

        // And where does he say this happens all at the same time? As far as we know, a day still counts 24 hours, part of which we call night. //
        So now you’re trying to pretend when Christ returns He’ll take 24 hours to call believers into the air? You only show how dishonest people need to be to try dismissing scientific facts in the Bible that the human race could not have known.

        The Bible speaks in many places of how when He returns and we are called away some will be working during the day and others will be asleep at night.

        // Isn’t Leviticus the same book that also describes a cure for leprosy? You know, like sprinkling the blood of birds and lambs on the patient and his house? I wonder why scientists actually do not follow that ‘scientific thruth’ as well. //

        Way to ignore the fact that they knew things about sanitation scientists and doctors did not figure out for thousands of years.

        And now you’re confusing other things they’re told to do – ceremonial things – for God with the things that really DO avoid the spreading of diseases and deal with germs the human race had no idea about.

        • John N

          So now your trying to pretend the bible does not say what ihat it says? “Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” Not the second, not even the minute or the hour, the day. Which counts 24 hours and includes one night. If you want to stick to the bible, then stick to it.

          By the way, the bible also says he’ll come back within the generation of his disciples. Now, one generation is something like 20 years. Did he miss his plane?

          So the priests’ advice are not ceremonial, but these are? You mean the things in the bible that seem to support your point are science, and the rest is ‘ceremonial hings’? Right.

          By the way, if you can show me one doctor that actually uses the advices given to this priest today, I’ll agree your god knows best.

          • Reason2012

            // “Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” //

            We use that phrase all the time: it doesn’t mean an event that lasts an entire 24 hours.

            “One day you will pay.”
            “One day I’ll pass that test”
            “One day I’ll have enough money”

            Your claim: “They’ll take an entire day to pass that test” and so on.

            You’re clearly just trolling, but I thank you for making it clear to others.
            Take care.

          • John N

            Well, you started your argument by saying the bible contains a lot of scientific findings if taken literal.

            Now it seems it only does if interpreted in the correct way, meaning by a believer.

            Scientific texts don’t work like that, Reason. They are very precise, no room for interpretation.

            Just more evidence for my claim your bible is worthless in explaining the world.

            How strange than whenever someone succesfully refutes your silly claims, you call it ‘trolling’.

    • Elie Challita

      Dude, the ancient Greeks had pretty much proven that the earth was round long before the Hebrews even had a written alphabet. Furthermore, the heliocentric model was also being speculated at the time, long before any of them had heard of the bible.

  • Reason2012

    The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world

    God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

    • John N

      >”It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22)”
      A circle is a flat disk, both in ancient Hebrew and in modern English. The Israelites copied their worldview from the Mesopotamians, a disc floating on water beneath an arced firmament separating it from the heavens.

      The Greek already considered a spherical earth around 600 B.C. and Aristotle provided evidence for it around 330 B.C. – 1700 years before Columbus, who knew very well the earth was round. So the world did not have to wait for your bible, actually it is high time your bible finally gets updated.

      And in fact, both the Israelites and the Greeks were wrong – the earth is not a sphere, but an oblate spheroid. How strange that Jahweh did not know this.

      >”Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35)”
      So you are claiming that all lightnings are sent by Jahweh? I’m afraid you are mistaken – that is supposed to be Thor, god of thunder and lightning.

      Actually we do know a lot of electromagnetic waves, and we need no supernatural being to explain them. And, we did not need your bible to find out about them.

      • Reason2012

        // A circle is a flat disk, both in ancient Hebrew and in modern English //

        Except the Hebrew word doesn’t just mean flat circle.
        Not to mention 7 Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

        // So you are claiming that all lightnings are sent by [God]? //

        He created the mechanism that they are created and He can create some as well if He wishes.

        And you ignore the fact that He’s pointing out something mankind could not figure out: that

        // Actually we do know a lot of electromagnetic waves, and we need no supernatural being to explain them. And, we did not need your bible to find out about them. //

        God created the means of electromagnetic waves.
        Actually we do know a lot of electromagnetic waves, and we need no supernatural being to explain them. And, we did not need your bible to find out about them: that light can be “sent” (just like WE send it even now), and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

        • John N

          >’Except the Hebrew word doesn’t just mean flat circle. ‘
          Except that is does – ‘chugh’ means circle or compassed. The hebrew word for sphere used elsewhere in the bible is something like ‘dur’.

          Not to mention the bible also tells us ‘…the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor ….’, which could only happen on a flat earth.

          >’God created the means of electromagnetic waves. ‘
          Bible chapter and verse, please. And after that, please provide some actual evidence, like first showing your god exists and was capable of creating anything.

          And repeating your claims doesn’t make them any better, it only shows how silly they are. Scientists discovered electromagnetic waves and they did not use your bible.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    There is no other possibility. God created us all.

    • getstryker

      Thank you Grace . . . I was waiting for someone to simply state the Truth and you have. God Bless you and yours.

    • John N

      So, which one of the 4000 or so gods that humans have imagined created us, and how do you know?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        There is only one true living God. The Creator’s Manual for all mankind, the Holy Bible, teaches the fact clearly and science as data proves creationism. You secular Westerners have become stupid and vain by attacking Christianity. It has been evil of you to try to equate Christianity with anything in this world. Stop repaying the good with your evil to the Christian Church. I really feel sorry for all your forefathers. What shameful descendants they have today. You only know how to ridicule Christianity, the most wonderful and vital thing on earth. You need to repent of your sin to get saved. Read the Gospel of John in the Holy Bible, from which your name was taken, to know the way of salvation.

        • hamfish

          Every creation myth says the same thing, their guy made us all. They are all equally wrong. Yours too. I’d be embarrassed being religious in this day and age. Its like a deliberate affront to common sense.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Only the Holy Bible is evidential. That’s why atheistic scientists try to refute Genesis all the time (in vain), not other religious documents. The Holy Bible is simply matchless in the entire universe. Common sense is to admit that God created the world.

          • John N

            So again, Grace, how do you know your god is the one real creator? The bible is just a book written by ancient humans, you can not use that as evidence.

            So how do you know? And what if you are wrong – are you prepared to be judged by Odin, Zeus, Ganesh or Baal?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Holy Bible is the living Word of God; it is self-evident. All the names in your list are idols.

          • John N

            Again, Grace, how do you know? Self-evident is not an explanation, it is a claim. Why is your holy book any better than that of the others gods, who’s followers all claim(ed) the same thing you claim? And what version of your holy book is the correct one? The catholic bible? The protestant? Or one of the 30.000 other versions going around?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Holy Bible is incomparably superior in content in all the world and provides salvation to all who believe and changes humanity for good. Claims become evidences when backed internally and externally. The West became Sodomic crazy after abandoning Christianity; the present condition of the West is one of the newest and strongest evidences that the Holy Bible is right and vital to all mankind. You guys were so much more normal when you were mere average racist instead of baby-killing perv. KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV are recommended version. Just read the Bible you have. Your problem is NOT-reading any. Come and see! (The Gospel of John)

          • John N

            Oh Grace, I’ ve read your bible. Like for many of us, that was one of the reasons they became athiests.

            Because we realize that your bible is a book of myths written by ancient people, no more and no less than all other holy books in the world.

            About John: I think he was the guy telling us that unbelievers are already condemned by your god, wasn’t he?

            Some fine hero you have there, sentencing three quarters of the world population to eternal torture for thought crimes.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are lying. You’ve never read the Holy Bible. The only thing you read was your atheist guru’s manual on how to imagine evil. You Americans have no idea on atheism’s reign because you never suffered atheism’s tyranny. Stop dreaming falsehood. If you repent of your evil, you will not face the eternal justice you deserve. Everyone gets exactly what he deserves, nothing more or nothing less. (Revelation ch. 20) Read John ch. 3 to discover what you are and how to get saved.

          • John N

            Thanks for calling me a liar without even knowing me. Such vulgar and discourteous behaviour seems to be typical for religious bigots confronted by people wo do not share their fanaticism.

            I guess you did not read many holy books, Grace. In fact your bible is very comparable with other holy books . It contains comparable mythical stories about our origins and our destination. And it contains comparable contradictions and factual errors about our world.

            And your Christian Church happens to be responsible for the deaths of millions during the dark ages and the misery of even more then and today, which you do not seem tp realize.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You must not be upset over people seeing you as stating falsehood. Everything comes with observation and evidences. People who read the Holy Bible and remember the content never talk as you do. You yourself have proven that you’ve never read the Holy Bible, the very entity you are attacking and insulting. A man is evil when he scorns what is good You must mourn over the fact you do not possess the truth. Myths are alike because everyone is Adam’s descendant and Noah’s descendant. We all have distant memories, but no one retained better memories than the Hebrews, as usual. Your effort to equate Christianity with anything else is futile. The Christian Church rescued billions of humans and her contribution is incomparably massive among all mankind. The Westerners would have been just another case of illiterate barbarians if the Church did provide you literacy. You secular Westerners have forgotten your own history because you try to uphold immorality unconditionally this century. Happy is a man whose descendants are not today’s secular Westerners. You guys are a total disgrace and a shame to all your hard-working Christian forefathers. Poor your forefathers. Stop killing unwanted children and pushing your Sodomic culture upon the nations. Your forefathers created the most excellent nations only to spread Christianity.

          • John N

            >’You must not be upset over people seeing you as stating falsehood….’

            I’m not. In fact, having a religious bigit as yourself calling me a liar must mean I hit something.

            I did read the bibe when I was young, and just like million others I realised that it is a book of myths showing a very low moral standard.

            >’Myths are alike on the planet because everyone is Adam’s descendant and Noah’s descendant …’

            Adam and Noah are both myths. Just like giants, talking snales and donkeys, whales eating people, satan, … Myths are alike on the planet because that was the only way ancient people could explain the world around us. Luckily we know better now.

            >’The Westerners would have been just another case of illiterate barbarians if the Church did not provide you literacy …’

            The Church kept people illiterate for more than thousand years while building its empire. Only when we succeeded in ending its domination with the Enlightment, culture and science could finaly start to flourish.

            >’Everyone who existed on earth is better than your generation regarding morality.’

            Well, your bible and your god condone slavery, racism, misogyny, genocide, infanticide, rape, … Atheists do not.

            Fundamentalist Christians today still claim the right to discriminate other people based on their belief. We do not.

            So who is the moraly better one here?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            1) You don’t remember a thing therefore your “Bible-reading” counts to nothing. Judeo-Christian teaching holds the incomparably highest moral standard on earth among all religions and ideologies. People learned of holiness and unconditional charity and equality from the Holy Bible.

            2) Yours is a myth. You desire is to be ape’s descendant, but the fact and reality is that we are distinctly Designer-made human. It is observed that nothingness produces nothing and apes never become human. DNA proves God’s distinct creative works. Don’t go against science.

            3) The Christian Church provided you literacy and everything excellent. The Church and Protestant Reformation are what’s unique about the West’s superiority because those made Europeans quest for the objective truth instead of mere power or wealth. Enlightenment only helped mankind to pollute the Planet Earth. If Europe had no Christian era, the planet would have been completely dead by now from man-made pollution or nuclear wars. All the pioneer thinkers and artists and scientists were Christian anyway.

            4) Atheists massacred the believers and whoever refused to comply, that’s the only thing they did. USA has a short history and never went through suffering at the hands of atheists – the reason you guys are naive.

            5) God never did wrong. You accuse Christianity only because you desire to continue infanticide and Sodomy but are scared of bullying the Muslims. Fundamental Christians are the only moral people in the Western nations. Secularists kill unwanted children and enforce Sodomy. Learn to be moral from them. You must not hate morality. Your hatred against morality is the reason of the West’s regression. You need Christianity to be normal.

          • Roger Peritone

            So when god ordered the deaths of children and allowed the raping of the Midianite women in the OT, those actions were JUST??

            If killing kids is not wrong, what is?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It was an exception because the evil of Medianites was irreversible evil. The Creator God’s taking away human life is not wrong. He gives life and He takes away. Because God is perfect in holy, loving, just, and sovereign,

          • Roger Peritone

            So, the only way for this “perfect in holiness, love, justice, etc” god of yours to combat evil was to counter it with even more evil? By having the virgin girls being taken for sex by the Israeli soldiers?

            Uh, what did those young girls do to deserve any punishment?

            Is there no act of barbarity that you apologists will excuse when it comes to your god?

            How can this being be “righteous” if he does the same kind of things that he forbids people to do because the actions are “sinful”?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The virgin girls received special mercy and were married off to Israeli soldiers; it was an exception. All others carried obligation to annihilate Israel; so they were out. You grew up in a protected Christian bubble you know nothing about pagan world. Most girls were married off for survival all over the world. Marriage for love has been luxury. The Christian West brought rights and freedom to all; secular West brainwashes girls to become willful prostitutes and commit suicide. You do not decide anyone’s happiness. Follow God’s instructions to live with decency. God created you and gave you life and everything you needed, but you unbelieving Westerners lost even sanity by hating the Christianity. Why do you hate God and Christianity like some madmen? You guys are a typical rotten rich who are bored and try to amuse yourselves by bullying the Christians all over the world. I really feel sorry for your parents. YOU stop making children sex slaves instead of attacking the Christrians who free slaves.

          • Roger Peritone

            “Special mercy”? Oh really? Tell me…where is “marriage” hinted at. It isn’t. The bible says that the virgin girls they could “keep” for themselves. How would it be a “mercy” anyway, to be forced to “marry” the people who killed off the rest of your family and your people??

            “Men are born oppressive”. It seems to be, especially when one reads the “holy books” of the Abrahamic cults. Female inferiority and being treated as property is all throughout the bible and the koran.

            “Follow God’s instructions to live with decency”?

            Are you joking? Even in the NT, god does not forbid things like slavery. The OT is far worse. Genocides, infanticides, women being forced to marry their rapists if the rapist just pays the father off….

            You are the one who has grown up in a protected christian bubble. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that secular law began to displace the rule of the religious and start treating people with basic rights.

            The bible does not give humans rights. It’s not much better than the other barbaric pagan religions that were around at the time.

            Believers in it just stuck around until now.

            “Why do you hate God and Christianity like some madmen? You guys are
            typical rotten rich who are bored and try to amuse yourselves by
            bullying the Christians all over the world.”
            Oh please. We are just trying to stop you christians from bullying other people. Look at what happened with the American-christian backed laws in Uganda that used to call for the outright death of gay people!

            Look at how christians in the states use their jobs to deny giving out marriage licenses, or medications to non-xians, just because of their lack of faith or sexual orientation.

            Look up that one case where some guy’s medical clinic wound up forgoing medicine for prayer therapy instead, when it came to his depression.

            There there is the fact that, due to your god being one of the most anti-human characters in fiction, there are apologists today who see no problem with killing babies, provided that your god gives the commands!

            It is not the atheists who are the bullies here.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Girls were given to marriage because starvation was common. Anything was better than death by starvation. You and your forefathers have been always well-fed and protected by the Christian Church for the longest time, so you don’t know anything about the real world. Religions are better than the Western secularism; religions make people get married and stay decent, but secularism makes women hopeless nudists and playgirls who cuss. Slavery has been a way of economy to be carried out among mankind. Unlike all others, the Holy Bible prohibits abuse of slaves. Slaves get freedom by reading the Holy Bible. Nothing else helps them. Canaan was wiped out by Israel because Canaanites were demon-worshipping pervs. It also tells of what’ll happen to Sodomic America. The Western civilization was forever changed for good by Protestant Reformation; people learned of rights and liberty and equality and justice by reading the Holy Bible. Enlightenment made many Westerners only porn-addicts and only contributed to pollution. Most of southern Africa is Christian by now. Africans do not want the Westerners’ perv practices. You guys sucked their blood before, and now you want your depraved filth to corrupt global children. God forbid such evil. The planet has too many troubles even without the mentally-ill West oppressing the Christians. You must stop racism and oppressions. Gay marriage is not marriage, but sinners living together. Gays need calls for repentance for them to obtain life. God judged the world with water before, but it’ll be with fire next time for final. You need repentance to get a life.

          • Roger Peritone

            No. What would have been merciful? Taking the young girls (and boys!) and feeding and raising them as kids instead of forcing them into marriage with the people who killed off their families.

            The true merciful thing? Leave the families alone in the first place.

            You: “You and your forefathers have been always well-fed and protected by the
            Christian Church for the longest time, so you don’t know anything about
            the real world.”
            Huh? You don’t know anything of the history of your religion, do you?

            The christian church has started more wars/crusades/inquisitions than it has ever fed people.

            You don’t even know who my forefathers are! Maybe they’re among the indigenous people of North American whom you christian people helped to almost wipe out.

            You: “Most of southern Africa is Christian by now.”
            Hopefully not the kind of christian like you people got to run Uganda where they outright made homosexuality a death penalty crime for a time!

            You: “Africans do not want the Westerners’ perv practices. You guys sucked
            their blood before, and now you want your depraved filth to corrupt
            global children. God forbid such evil.”
            Huh? “Sucked their blood”? What? The only blood-sucking I know of is a few jewish rabbis doing that unsanitary circumcision thing.

            What are you even going on about?

            You: “The planet has too many troubles even without the mentally-ill West spreading depravity and oppressing the Christians”
            Baloney. Churches don’t even pay taxes in the states. You people have tv and radio stations all over the place…the republican party is always sucking up to you people, christians use their jobs as opportunities to force your views onto other people.

            ex) Kim Davis, pharmacists who refuse to give out birth control pills, etc.

            You people have been privileged for so long, if anyone dares treat you like regular people, or tells you that you can’t force your views onto others, it feels like “persecution”!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            They can’t do that. The Midianites and certain tribes in Canaan had to be wiped out for the sake of other less evil tribes and future generations and the creation world, just like the cases of Noah’s days and Sodom and Gommorah. Married women and boys carried the responsibility of vengeance upon Israel while virgins didn’t. You are in error. Christianity rescued most of human races and provided medical care and education to all. It was a light in savage darkness. You always used and took advantage of Christians’ kindness and have been always ungrateful. Some other humans remember history correctly. You didn’t die of starvation or abortion solely because of the Christians’ contribution. Be thankful. I mean, you Westerners enslaved Asians and Africans before; you have no rights to force your sexual depraved culture upon us now. Thank God the Westerners were not Sodomic pervs when they owned slaves for cotton-picking. Your average-racist Christian forefathers were one million times better than you regarding morality. They had many excellent things for all mankind to learn from and mimick after. Your generation has nothing for others to learn from, because all you have is blasphemy, ingratitude, sexual depravity, cussing, drunkenness, nudity, addiction, and desire for infanticide. Christians created Europe and America; they have all rights to the special status because Christians alone can provide morality and literacy and fairness and safety to all. Your generation needs to learn to respect older people. The generations of your parents and your children will have too much burden to take care of too many mentally-ill people at this rate. You need Christianity for salvation, sanity, and morality.

          • Roger Peritone

            One: Paragraphs are your friend, ok? I makes your rambling rants a little bit easier to read.

            Two: Even if the adults from the Midiantes and Canaanites had to be “wiped out”, how does that justify the kiling of kids and babies??

            As I said once before: Read Hector Avalos’ “Creationists for Genocide” to see how stupid and anti-human your reasoning is.

            Three: “Christianity provided medical care and education to all”?
            Baloney: The
            first hospitals were created around 842 BC in Egypt and were in Greece
            and Rome long before the creation of Christianity.

            The first universities were apparently all pagan:
            Nalanda University and Takshashila University, both
            ancient schools located in India, predate Al-Azhar University in Cairo, which was founded in 969 AD, and way before that, there was the University of Nanjing, in China, founded around 258 AD and has stuck around till modern times

            “Christians alone can provide morality and literacy and fairness to all”? Ever hear of ancient Rome? You know, the people who built aqueducts, had scholars, built roads, and an empire that spanned Europe before being corrupted by lead poisoning and christianity?

            The ancient greeks worked out the scientific method and contributed to both science and politics, as the romans did.

            I’m sorry, but I don’t have the energy to dissect your rants thoroughly. After seeing a few worms in an apple, why should I eat it, after all?

          • Roger Peritone

            You: “Slavery has been a way of economy to be carried out among mankind. Unlike all others, the Holy Bible prohibits abuse of slaves. Slaves get freedom by reading the Holy Bible. Nothing else helps them.”
            Baloney on both counts:
            Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1, 1 Peter 2:18

            The bible is what provided the justification that enslaved them in the first place!

            You: ” Canaan was wiped out by Israel because Canaanites were demon-worshipping pervs. It also tells of what’ll happen to Sodomic America”
            Citations? Any evidence that the charge is true? And again, why kill the kids and babies? Were they “demon-worshipping” pervs?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Holy Bible declares everyone belongs to God and therefore everyone is free. Mankind did not know of freedom until reading the Holy Bible. You must read the Holy Bible. What the Holy Bible wrote regarding slavery is about employer-employee relation. Those never change. Citations on the peoples in Canaan: Leviticus ch.18-20, II Peter ch. 3, Jude ch.1. Evidences are historical records as for all else.

          • Roger Peritone

            The bible does not say that everyone is free. The closest it gets is saying that “in the kingdom of heaven” there is no “male, no female, no slaves” etc. But that’s in heaven, and not on earth, as is obvious since there are still males and females on earth.

            And no. It is not about “employer-employee relations”. Read those verses again. Ray Comfort once said something that stupid, I believe.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, the Holy Bible says we are free in Christ. His truth sets us free. Your quote means everyone is equal in God’s sight. God told us not to become any man’s slave.

          • Roger Peritone

            Uh, since the bible says that “everyone has sinned”, then even heterosexual marriage has sinners living together.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Marriage of one man and one woman is the right thing to do. Everyone needs repentance and the faith in Jesus for salvation. You secular Westerners must stop pushing your depraved culture upon the nations. No one must submit to Sodom. Americans must submit to God alone, to be good and right. You guys are suffering from mental illness from the decades of indecency after WW2. Too many drinking parties and stupid despicable entertainment on a planet of 2 billion suffering humans. Experiencing real starvation may cure your evil insanity. Only God knows. Read the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

          • Roger Peritone

            “You secular Westerners must stop pushing your depraved culture upon the nations”
            Again, remember the american christians who encouraged Uganda’s capital crime law for homosexuality?

            And you are the last person here to talk to anyone about mental illness, judging by your almost incoherent, fact-free rants, and baseless broad-brushing of non-xians.

            Then there is your saying that it’s ok for god to kill babies, but that “abortion of murder”!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Beautiful witnessing from a beautiful woman of God – thank you, Grace!

          • Roger Peritone

            You said:
            “YOU stop killing unwanted children and selling their body parts and
            making children sex slaves instead of attacking the Christrians who free
            slaves”
            You do realize that those videos about Planned Parenthood were basically altered to promote that “selling body parts” lie, right? Do a google search and see.

            “Making children sex slaves”? Oh BOY, I hope you’ve got some serious citations for that accusation.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Abortion is murder. It’s true Planned Parenthood does things worse than Nazis. You are just refusing to admit the facts because you do not want to take care of unwanted children. The Western tourists rape children in Southeast Asia. Know your own culture. Only the Christians kept Europe and America intact and provided everyone literacy. You guys are simply bad descendants who repay your ancestors with evil. The West is a mere Sodom in absence of Christianity. Slaves have been everywhere; the Christian West is the only civilization that abolished barbarism without interference from others because they had the Holy Bible. They needed no other. The slaves in the Christendom who read the Holy Bible never stayed in slavery, either.

          • Roger Peritone

            As I said: Do a search on the video tapes:
            “Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered, Analysis Finds” or “The Campaign of Deception Against Planned Parenthood” by the New York Times

            No. “The Christian West” did not abolish slavery without interference form others. Again, read about the Civil War. The bible has many verses which justified slavery, which you dismiss as “employee-employer” relations!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Canaan had to be wiped out. Such commands were only a few times. God the Creator is sovereign, and it is up to Him to use water or fire or wars to wipe out irreversible human evils. He will do it again one more time because America has become a Sodom. (Jude ch.1) You need to fear Him instead of ranting stupid things; you’ve hurt human babies and His creation world enough. The Britiah and Americans freed slaves only because of their Christian conscience. There was no other factors. Read your own history correctly. People practiced slavery and God told them not to abuse them and to gain freedom where possible. Borrowing money makes one a slave. It signifies slavery to sin. Everyone gets freedom in Jesus.

          • Roger Peritone

            “Canaan had to be wiped out”. Even the kids and babies, right! They must have been really rotten, or as you say: “irreversibly evil”.

            You say that I “have hurt human babies and His creation world enough”. Back that accusation up. Give examples of where I have hurt babies. I’m not the one who is arguing for reasons to have them killed…that’s you!

            “The Britiah and Americans freed slaves only because of their Christian conscience”
            Baloney. Read my response to “Rocker83” below.

            If “everyone gets freedom in jesus” as you claim, then please show where Jesus outlawed slavery on earth.

            In the meantime:
            tinyurl dot com slash j6uo7wd

          • Seen From Space

            Funny, I could have sworn the above article was about evolution! Faith, or lack of it, is irrelevant. Evolution denial is for those who don’t understand modern biology, and/or those who find it ideologically distasteful. Please understand there is no scientific case whatsoever for denying evolution or deep time. Misrepresenting highly technical subjects to people with no science background has to be the world’s easiest job! The world is lousy with misinformation and ignorance on this.

          • Rocker83

            You are dead wrong about the Bible endorsing the kind of slavery that existed in America 150+ years ago.

            Exodus 21:16 – “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found to be in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

            In this context, the word “steal” means to take into captivity.

            1 Timothy 1:9-10 – “understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their mothers and fathers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
            The word “enslavers” describes someone who literally takes people into captivity to sell them as slaves.

            The only kind of “slavery” permitted by the Bible is the equivalent to what we would call indentured servitude. The racism that existed back in the early days of this nation stemmed from extreme forms of European paganism which polluted a number of denominations on account of the fact that people didn’t bother to study the Bible even after Martin Luther and others in the Reformation made it available to the common man. After the Civil War, the Klan carried on this hypocrisy and polluted the churches of the American south. Put simply, racism is and always was heresy.

          • Roger Peritone

            Except when the god of the OT had entire groups of people wiped out…of course the “justifications” were different.

            You “forgot” Exodus 21:20-21. You can beat your slave to death, so long as they didn’t die within 1 or 2 days. “Indentured servitude”? Baloney!

            And no, racism was not always “heresy”. Check out the “Pre-Darwinian blood purity” section of Hector Avalos’s article “Creationists for Genocide” on talk reason. See what he and the “prophet” Ezra say.

            This was well before the “European paganism” that you blame for racism.

            Too bad you mentioned Martin “On the Jews and Their Lies” Luther. It was his work that Juluis Streicher acknowledged as one of the bases for nazi anti-semitism during the Nuremburg trials.

            You may also be interested in “Daylight Atheism’s” article: “Did Christianity Abolish Slavery”? The comments are also good.

            It seems the only real error made was in the author’s claims about Abner Kneeland being a “freethinker”.

            You may want to do some reading: “Little-Known Bible Verses VI: Slavery” from the “Daylight Atheism” blog.

          • Rocker83

            Exodus 21:20-21 has nothing to do with allowing abuse of servants. Verses of this kind have to do with corporal discipline, which was a common practice in those days. The verses are there to put limits on the severity of punishment. Furthermore, you would do well to read verses 26 and 27 in the same chapter which state that damaging a servant’s eye or knocking out his/her tooth require him/her to be immediately released and, by implication, the debts they owed be canceled.

          • Roger Peritone

            But it’s still ok to beat them so badly that they can die 2 days later with no problem?

            Right……..

          • Rocker83

            If someone is beaten badly enough with a rod to cause death, it is unlikely that they would live two days after that ordeal. And verse 26 & 27 provide a clear deterrent to striking the head. Therefore, the punishment would, more likely than not, consist of blows to the torso. To kill someone with a blunt object in that fashion would require considerable effort. Bear in mind as well: Causing serious injury to a servant would cost the master financially.

          • Roger Peritone

            “You need christianity to be normal and human and fair”? How can you say that and then say what you did below in your response to me? You had no problem with god killing kids and whatnot, but you pretend to be upset when doctors do it?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            When the Creator God takes away children from this world, that means He takes care of them. The Creator is the only One who can make all creation happy and decides everyone’s fate with perfect fairness. (Matthew ch. 5-7, Romans ch. 8, Colossians ch.1, Revelation ch. 20) When governments and doctors and men and women kill unwanted children (abortion), it is murder. Humans must not take away innocent fellow humans’s life. Period. You are at error because you place God on your level. He is the sovereign Creator; you are a mere sinful creature. He knows what He is doing. You know not a thing.

            Minority or majority, it does not matter. Bullying is wrong. It is wrong for the secular Westerners to attack the Holy Bible, Christianity, and Christians. It’s evil equivalent of rotten kids trying to murder their own good parents or dogs biting the feeding hand. Besides, the former Christendom who opposes the Holy Bible always commits the most heinous kind of evil upon its own people and other nations. Examples include Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Sodomic USA. Pagan civilizations do evil out of barbarism, illiteracy, and ignorance, but Post-christendom does genocide and evil knowingly. The latter is more guilty than the former.

            Pre-christian = barbarism. Post-christian = Sodom. Christianity = truth, light, life, and hope. Mankind discovered rights and freedom only from the Holy Bible. You guys must stop attacking your own conscience. The West has no conscience other than Christianity. You American kids need Christian education to become civilized again. Stop being shameful descendants to your forefathers. There is zero respect respect in a world where kids disrespect their parents and dishonor God. Disrespect and immorality is your national crisis. Stop blaming other people for your ills. God gives land and takes it away, too.

          • getstryker

            Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your comment . . . ‘a deliberate affront to common sense!’ . . . do you really believe that ‘life can come from non-life?’ . . . got a living example of that – Hummmmm???

          • Elie Challita

            Well, yes, frankly. Feel free to research the Miller-Urey experiment.

          • Roger Peritone

            yeah. Adam being made from the “dust of the earth”!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s scientific. The components of human flesh and the soil overlap.

          • Roger Peritone

            Right…care to replicate that in a lab then, missy if magic man bringing wholly formed people from the ground is “scientific”?

          • Rocker83

            This coming from someone who expects us to buy into a pseudo-scientific theory that predates the discovery of DNA by about 70 years. In Darwin’s day, cells were thought to be as simple as golf balls and filled with some sort of “magical” protoplasmic goo. Now, we know them to be more complex than any machinery ever crafted by man and operated by utilizing DNA coding more elaborate than any computer program ever written.

          • Roger Peritone

            You really need to do some reading about this, don’t you? There is a difference between computer code and biological genetics.

            Here. Look up “complexity of the cell” on talk origins or look up “cell complexity” on the “Understanding Evolution” site on the Berkeley university website.

            I can’t teach you biology…you have to do some learning yourself. Provided that you actually want to…

          • Rocker83

            I don’t need you to teach me about biology, you are the one who needs to learn. While we’re at it, maybe you in all your “wisdom” can answer this little conundrum: DNA is made up of proteins, but the only natural process observed to produce proteins is the division and replication of DNA; a process that requires a fully developed and functioning cell in order to occur. So, which came first, DNA or proteins?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God prohibited magic because magic is of evil spirits.

          • Roger Peritone

            So either god did NOT use magic when he “spoke” the universe into existence in 6 days, or else your god is also an evil spirit.

            Ok.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God prohibits magic. His hand formed man and woman as recoreded in His Word. The process is more scientific than men making up robots. All you do is mimicking without acknowledging the Master Creator and Master Scientist and Master Mathematician. Your nothingness and time creates nothing, scientifically speaking. Your way of thinking is unscientific and downright selfish. Stop blaspheming.

          • Roger Peritone

            Uh, Your god DOES magic, all the time! Did he cook up the universe in a hadron-type collider or something?

            And you have no evidence whatsoever of any “god” making people as recorded in his alleged “word”, much less any evidence that such hocus-pocus is “scientific”.

            All I’m doing is asking you to back up your claims. I’m not being “blashpemous”, you’re just being evasive and stupid.

            For example: “the components of human flesh and soil overlap”? Which ones, and how much? Do any scientistis out there say that one could actually make a fully formed human from dirt?

            Back up what you say.

          • getstryker

            Grace’s answer below is correct.

          • Roger Peritone

            I forget: You’re likely a Poe, but on the offhand chance that you’re not:

            Look up “Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors” on the “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” page of talk origins

            You could also look up Aron Ra’s video:
            “Refuting the Irrefutable Proof of God – part X”. It goes into whale evolution and transitional forms right off the bat.

            Poe or not, you won’t though, but perhaps some of those who read this will.

          • getstryker

            Yeah, that’s gonna happen – NOT! – It’s all ‘BS’
            If anyone else wants to follow your little rabbit down the hole . . . have at it. Aron Ra is always good for a laugh. (BTW – do you ever actually answer a simple question put to you out of your own ‘knowledge’ or are you just a shill for Ra?’ – Tear ducts – remember?
            How many ‘millions of years’ AFTER eyes did they take to evolve? What did the ‘evolving humans’ do without them? Did they wonder around for millions and millions of years blind? Hmmmmmmm?????

          • Roger Peritone

            I don’t “shill” for anyone. I just give resources for people to look at so see if my claims stand up.

            I don’t make things up, unlike creationists.

            You ask questions, but you ignore the answers then given to you.

            You may want to look up Talk Origins “Index of Creationist Claims” for the “gotcha” questions that you ask.

            Or just go to Google and type in “evolution of tear ducts”

            You won’t do it, though. Yo dismiss any source that does answer your questions

            So why even bother asking questions?

          • getstryker

            You’re right – I won’t follow your walk thru ‘evolution fantasyland’ – I did my research into evolution and decided it was ‘garbage’ strewn around under the foundations of ‘real science’ – there is NOTHING scientific about it . . . it’s all speculation and guesses.
            You can call it ‘science’ – call it what you want. It’s BS.

          • Roger Peritone

            Lol. Where was your “research” done, please?

          • getstryker

            Well let’s see . . . I’m so old that I had to shovel the dinosaur poo-poo off Darwin’s book, I had to find a 12 year old to teach me to stumble around the internet, etc., etc. Is that what you wanted to hear??? You don’t know a darn thing about me, who or want I’ve done, been or seen. My education level, anything at all of my former work experience or anything else and yet, you question the basis of my knowledge and beliefs? It should be obvious, even to someone one as scientifically and biblically ignorant as you. I’m smart enough to see that when ‘flys’ like Ra and ‘the Amazing Atheist’ are buzzing around the subject – you know it’s a ‘big pile’

          • Roger Peritone

            And again: Where did you do your “research”?

            I know that I “don’t know a darn thing” about you. That’s WHY I’m asking in the first place, sherlock!

          • getstryker

            Frustrating isn’t it?! You never really know ‘who’ your opponent is in situations like this . . . do you?! 😉
            You figure it out Sherlock – here’s a clue – Watson was not as old or as ‘bumbling’ as he was portrayed ;-))

          • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

            You wallow in ignorance, apparently joyfully.

    • Roger Peritone

      Oh, really?
      1) Go to the “Talk Origins” site, and click on the “Comparison of Creationist Opinions” on the “Human Evolution” page. It has many examples of creationists different opinions on fossil hominids. Some say that a certain fossil is fully human, while others look at the same fossil and say it’s an ape.

      Just what one would expect from a transitional form.

      2) Read “Creationist FUD refuted” by biologist PZ Myers on Freethought blogs. He talks about some of the evidence for chomosome fusion which shows the relationship between us and apes:

      Quote:
      “The story is this. At some time after the separation of the human and
      chimpanzee lineages, two ancestral chromosomes, #12 and #13 in the
      chimpanzee, fused end-to-end to form a single chromosome, #2, in humans.
      Chimpanzee chromosome 13 forms the short arm (2p) and part of the long
      arm (2q) of human chromosome 2, while chimpanzee chromosome 12 forms
      most of the long arm (2q) of chromosome 2.

      The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis
      confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the
      correspondence.

      What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there
      ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the
      middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And
      the prediction has been confirmed.”

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        God created everything that exists. (Genesis ch.1, John ch.1, Colossians ch.1) Your nothingness and your time create not even a single atom. The probability of your theory is the absolute zero. Existence of the Creator God is 100% real.

        • Roger Peritone

          So you’re just going to ignore all the evidence I gave then, while giving nothing to back up your case.

          Not surprised. Thanks for the win, though.

  • Joe Soap

    Do you guys really just post here because you know most of the other people who post here will agree with you and therefore reinforce what you already think is so which by extension brings you comfort in an increasingly secular world?

  • truecreation_dot_info

    What’s ironic is that Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and some other creation science proponents now argue for evolution as the way that the thousands of pairs of animals from the ark evolved into the millions of distinct species that we see today, but it all happened within the last 6000 years. You will see this in the most recent Christian homeschooling materials. For example, the hundreds of thousands of modern beetle species diverged from a single breeding pair of beetles on the ark. They refer to this as an example of microevolution, but in reality they are suggesting macroevolution, since it involves the generation of novel, complex forms. Apparently, evolution is only true when it is convenient for them. I find this to be very hypocritical. They of course claim to adhere to a strict Biblical reading due to their dogmatic (and incorrect) insistence on a literal interpretation of the creation text, but they strain out a gnat only to swallow a camel.

    The problem is, macroevolution doesn’t happen that fast. And microevolution can’t account for such a rapid rise in the number of alleles (variants of a gene) even within the individual species over this time period. It takes far longer. There are far too many species now, and these species have far too many alleles in their respective gene pools for them to have evolved in the span of 5000 years from any set of thousands of animal pairs that could have fit on the ark. Furthermore, their explanation for the variety of modern species refutes their own assertion that mechanisms such as the bombardier beetle’s chemical defense mechanism could have evolved naturally. You see, young-Earth creationists also teach that animals’ parasitic, predatory, and defense mechanisms only appeared after Adam and Eve’s sin, as they claim that all animals lived peacefully with one another before this event. If we follow this argument to its conclusion, all animal forms such as the bombardier beetle’s chemical spray must have evolved after the fall, or even after the flood — in either case, a time span of only a few thousand years. This is nonsensical, since they elsewhere claim that the bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism is so irreducibly complex that it couldn’t have evolved even given millions of years. If it developed after Adam’s fall, then it happened within thousands of years, which implies evolution of novel, complex forms on a far grander scale than anything taught in a science textbook.

  • NManning

    ‘Research biologist’? From a story on him on the ICR website – “He went straight to Harvard Medical School, which he said “sounded like it would be useful for credentials and evangelism.””
    Anyway, I do wonder why he felt the need to increase known mutation rates in order to come up with a bible-friendly “explanation”?