‘Increasingly Aggressive’ Atheists Target Children in New Evolution-Promoting Book

Photo Credit: Amazon.com
Photo Credit: Amazon.com

An evolution-propagandizing illustrated children’s book is drawing praise from the secular community and currently ranks as a best seller on Amazon.com.

“Annabelle & Aiden: The Story Of Life” is a 26-page children’s book that was published last month. Advertised as an “inspirational storybook” that will help kids “gain a basic understanding of evolution,” the book walks readers through the history of life according to Charles Darwin.

Featuring a “wise owl” who describes evolution to two young girls named Annabelle and Aiden, the book proselytizes evolution using rhyming text and whimsical illustrations.

“Why do we look the way that we do? With hands and feet in neat sets of two?” asks Anabelle in the book’s opening pages. “What made my eyes? And what made my nose? And the shape of my body from my head to my toes?”

In response to Anabelle’s questions, the owl describes the evolutionary theory of life’s origins, beginning with a lifeless blob millions of years ago.

“In a little corner, on a tiny blue dot, deep under the ocean, in a very special spot…An itty bitty thing woke up anew, and came alive. I tell you, it’s true!” the owl says.

“But to share this world, it needed a friend,” the owl continues. “So it pushed and it pushed and it managed to create a perfect copy of itself: a new friend and mate.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The owl goes on to say that “slight random changes” created all the species of life in the world today, including humans.

“Every living thing, people from every single race, their dogs, cats, and flowers, came from the same exact place,” the owl asserts. “A young boy in Africa, the grass, bugs and bees, your teacher’s pet parrot who speaks Cantonese. We are all related.”

In addition to the dialogue between the owl and the girls, pro-evolution statements are interspersed throughout the book.

“Every animal, every single form of life, all share a common ancestor,” one page in the book says.

“If you go back far enough, people, like most mammals, evolved from fish,” another page claims.

A few well-known evolutionists, including Bill Nye and Lawrence Krauss, have praised “Annabelle & Aiden” for its potential to convince young readers of evolution’s validity. Last week the book was recognized on Amazon.com as the #1 best seller in the children’s prehistoric books category.

The book’s author, J.R. Becker, believes evolution is an “established fact” that should be taught to children from a young age.

“I simply see myself as doing absolutely nothing more than delivering facts to children,” Becker said in a recent interview with Patheos.com. “If there’s ‘controversy’ about that, well, I try to ignore that noise.”

As previously reported, evolutionists are increasingly targeting young children in their campaign to spread Darwinian mantra. Last year, an evolution-promoting author published a children’s book titled “Grandmother Fish” that tells preschoolers they are the byproducts of evolution and the descendants of fish.

“Yes, secularists know where the battle is in this culture: it’s for the hearts and minds of the next generation. And they are growing increasingly aggressive in trying to capture the next generation—starting from a younger and younger age,” wrote Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham in a review of “Grandmother Fish.” “That’s why parents and church leaders need to be active in discipling the next generation to stand on the authority of God’s Word from the very beginning.”


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
  • Lexical Cannibal

    It’s always kind of amusing when you guys get huffy over those darn atheists/muslims/satanists/whoever targeting kids, like you guys don’t spend incredible resources targeting children both inside and outside your communities.

    • Amos Moses

      and the purpose of each is the same ……….. no … it is not …………

      • Al Cibiades

        And you suppose the purposes are? My guess..some theists wish to implant the notion of biblical literal accuracy in order to gain authority to govern others. Secularists want to encourage reason and foster productive thinking.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Naw, it’s Christians and Jews who believe in reasoning together. Secularists just want excuse for their sins.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Sins are just rules for the religious, Secularists don’t have to follow those rules.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sins aren’t rules. They’re infractions against God. Whether you choose to follow God or not, you will have to answer to Him one day.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            No I won’t. He/She is imaginary. It’s weird how your list of sins includes what you’re allowed to think.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know that historians acknowledge Jesus Christ as an historical figure, don’t you?

          • OhNoodlyOne

            All of them? Nope. Some of them? Probably. There were probably guys named Jesus walking around. Can you prove it? No.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s not under dispute. There is more proof for the historical existence of Jesus Christ than there is Julius Caesar.

          • OhNoodlyOne

            Did your priest tell you that?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Priest? I’m not catholic. No, I got that from my history profs. 🙂 Don’t tell me you’re scared of history, too? 🙂

          • OhNoodlyOne

            You shouldn’t try to get “history” from a christian school “teacher”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I went to a secular school. 🙂 However, Harvard and Oxford were once all-Christian schools.

          • Mark Steiner

            Where do you get “history” from?

          • Glandu

            Citation needed, definitively.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Joesephus
            Tacitus
            Craig Bloomberg
            Richard Lane Carrier
            James Dunn

            etc. etc. Historians never argue that Jesus Christ wasn’t an historical figure. We measure our calendars by His appearance. We have changed laws and built nations upon His teachings. We quote His sayings all the time. You may not even realize you do it yourself. There is no question that Jesus Christ walked this earth.

          • Glandu

            Which historians?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Joesephus
            Tacitus
            Craig Bloomberg
            Richard Lane Carrier
            James Dunn

            etc etc. See other post.

        • Amos Moses

          “Secularists want to encourage reason and foster productive thinking.”

          and yet they have abandoned both ….. and have no concept that they have done so ……..

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      So you think that teaching children to love God and to love each other is equivalent to teaching them that blacks are inferior and women have lower intellects?

      • uninvitedguest

        since both are untrue……yes

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          You’re lying – again.

          • uninvitedguest

            opinions vary

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Facts aren’t opinions.

          • uninvitedguest

            yours aren’t facts

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Facts are facts and you’ve been given some. Instead, you choose to believe in the racist, bigoted fairy tale of evolution.

          • Wesley Willis

            With only a few words you’ve demonstrated that you have no idea what evolution is. If you are going to criticize something you should at least have some idea of what it is you are talking about.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            With only a few words, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what science is. If you are going to criticize something you should at least have some idea of what it is you are talking about. 🙂

          • Al Cibiades

            What a peurile come back, a tit for tat. So how do you define science? How should we suppose you know what you’re talking about with such silly quips.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Hey Alex, try to have some substance to your posts. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            how is evolution racist and bigoted? can’t wait to hear this one:)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Just read Darwin’s books. He says that blacks descended from apes, that they are substandard and must be controlled and managed due to their low intellect. He said that women were stupid because of brain size (failing to realize that smaller bodies tend to have smaller organs, but it has nothing to do with function). He said that Australians (not just aborigines who Darwin already said were lowest of the low) were stupid. Hitler loved Darwin’s books. He based his belief system on Darwin’s.

          • uninvitedguest

            just a single scientists theory. theories tend to change as research develops new findings. desperate aren’t you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            While some things can be fine tuned, truths cannot be changed. Some things that have passed for science (claims that mice can produce from rags, for instance), have clearly been false, just like evolution.

          • uninvitedguest

            nope

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now you’re just proving you’re not here to discuss science. That’s because you are ignorant on the topic.

          • uninvitedguest

            you got me again. totally ignorant of evolution…lol

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Indeed you are. You’ve offered no proof. 🙂

          • Al Cibiades

            Care to demonstrate you know something other than emitting inane jabs? So far, not a clue.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why don’t you provide some proof of evolution, Alex? 🙂

          • Al Cibiades

            How tiresome. “mice can produce from rags”? Is this a literate expression?
            Evolutionary theory has been shown true, and all the gyrations of the religiously besotted make not a dent.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What I wrote was quite correct, Alex. And evolutionary theory has not been proven. It cannot be, because it’s false. If you had proof, you’d have produced some by now. 🙂

          • Al Cibiades

            I don’t know who Alex is, As to your being correct, I haven’t found an example on this thread. But there is always hope.

            If you were conversant with science, you’d know that science doesn’t deal in proofs, since it is empirical. And as to evidence, well its abundant, monumental, well documented and available. I’m sure you’ve been pointed to talkorigins, or pandasthumb many times, or reading books like “Why Evolution is true”, but reading would take effort, and you appear to be too frightened of fact to absorb any.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then you won’t mind me calling you Alex Stewart. Hey there, bud. Have you got any proof of any of your assertions? Because all you’ve been producing are childish tantrums to the contrary. 🙂

          • Tangent002

            Indeed! They’ve had 150 years to find evidence that falsifies evolution and come up with bupkis.

          • meamsane

            Exactly!! And yet you desperately cling to one scientists theory.
            Remember what Darwin said about the fossil record? The fossil record shows he was wrong and that fossils come fully developed. There are no “missing links”. And the few that have been trotted out have been proven as frauds by bitter clingers.

          • Tangent002

            Darwin was writing 150 years ago. A LOT has happened since then.

          • Al Cibiades

            Sorry meamsane, your ignorance of the data and facts is apparent. Every fossil is a link. Read “Why Evolution is true” to see a thorough refutation of this old nonsense.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re quite incorrect, Alex. You’re still a student. You have a lot to learn. Perhaps you should read Damadian’s “Gifted Mind”. Or anything by Newton. Or Faraday. Or Maury.

          • meamsane

            There is a difference between data and interpretation of what that data actually says. And bias towards evolution will try to skew the data towards that bias. While focusing on similarities and leaving dis-similarities at a distance.

          • Tangent002

            Are you expecting paleontologists to find a croco-duck?

            Every species is ‘transitional’ in some regards or another.

          • meamsane

            we go from no transitional links in the fossil record to every fossil or species is transitional? Yeah. Any argument to cling to the foundation of sand your standing on. Arguments are not facts!

          • Tangent002

            What evidence would convince you?

          • meamsane

            It would have to be something pretty amazing like seeing it actually happen. But advocates say that it happens over long periods of time and we would not see this in our life times. Sounds convenient. Isn’t the world already 500 million years old or older according to them? So why don’t we see it?

          • Tangent002

            The world is over 4.5 billion years old, the universe far, far older.

            Frankly, if a dog gave birth to a goat in a single generation, that would be evidence of special intervention, not evolution.

          • meamsane

            Exactly! That is why we are not “observing evolution” at all since dogs give birth to dogs not goats.

          • Cady555

            Nothing in evolution would cause one to believe a dog would give birth to a goat. Likewise a Newfoundland male and female would not give birth to a chihuahua. But Newfoundlands and chihuahuas share common ancestors. If you add genetic isolation, in a few thousand years enough mutations will have arisen that Newfoundlands and chihuahuas would no longer be able to interbreed and would be different species.

          • Tangent002

            Humans are ‘transitional’, which is why our jaws can no longer accommodate our wisdom teeth. Our sinuses have been cramped by a larger brain as well, which is largely why so many people have allergy complaints.

            An approximated 95% of the species that once inhabited this planet are extinct. To me, that does not speak to design, it speaks to constant evolution.

          • Cady555

            Google transitional fossils. Read. Learn something. Wikipedia’s article on this topic is a good starting point. Follow the links in the references. Then read Introduction to Evolution on Wikipedia and follow the links.

            You can stand on a beach with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears repeating “There is no sand. There is no sand.” but the sand still stretches for miles.

            You can close your eyes and repeat “There is no evidence. There is no evidence.” This does not change the fact that the evidence is clear and overwhelming.

          • Cady555

            I expect these claims are false or quote mined, but it does not matter.

            Hitler had Darwin’s books burned, but that does not matter.

            Facts are not dependent on who believes them. The earth orbits the sun. It orbited the sun from the beginning of the solar system. If Galileo had never looked through a telescope, the earth still orbits the sun. If Galileo were racist or immoral or recanted or falsified results or had never lived, the earth still orbits the sun.

            Evolution by means of Natural Selection is fact. Evolution has been tested and confirmed hundreds of thousands of times over the last 160 years. Evidence from multiple scientific disciplines is clear and the Theory of Evolution is the only answer that accounts for all of the evidence.

            Dissing Darwin does not change the evidence or reality.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Completely incorrect. You do not know your history, nor do you know what Darwin really stood for.

            Hitler did not burn Darwin’s books. He quoted from Darwin extensively during his rule, and he used Darwin as the reason for his murderious acts.

            Evolution is not a fact. Even evolutionist scientists will tell you that.

          • Al Cibiades

            “Facts are facts” a tautology, but you don’t define “fact” nor give any way to determine what they are.
            “Instead, you choose to believe in the racist, bigoted fairy tale of evolution.”
            So now we know your understanding of “fact” must be corrupt. You confuse a supposed, and wrong, implication of evolution with the question of verifiable theory. Calling something a fairy tale doesn’t make it one.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Well, that went over your head. 🙂

            And since you think that evolution is true, that must make you also a bigot like Darwin.

          • Mark Steiner

            Hitler admired Darwin.

          • uninvitedguest

            he’s big on insults and short of facts

          • Al Cibiades

            And you can demonstrate that how?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Scroll up.

      • http://www.rejectingjesus.com Acalibre

        Say what? False dichotomy alert! Are these really the only alternatives? Of course they’re not. As for God’s love – would this be the God who created nature red in tooth and claw, with all its pain, cruelty, waste and death?

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          God created all things good, but man has messed them up. Of course death and destruction are horrible. That’s why Jesus Christ came to free us from them.

          • http://www.rejectingjesus.com Acalibre

            He did? So how come it’s not happened? How come we still have death and destruction? As we can all see, Jesus Christ changed nothing at all.

            And how did ‘man’ mess up nature to such an extent it involves – nay, depends on – so much death and waste? Don’t tell me, God threw a hissy fit when a couple of dudes who knew no better ate some fruit and he just had to trash everything. It was the only reasonable response.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I know you’re here because you just want to rail against God.

            That said, God created everything perfectly, but he gave man free will. In order to exercise free will, there has to be a choice. So we have a choice. Your choice has been to rail out in God in anger. It just be hard going through life with such hate and bitterness.

          • http://www.rejectingjesus.com Acalibre

            Please provide the verses from scripture where it says God gave humans free will. Oh, that’s right, there aren’t any.

            There’s no God either so it would be pointless to ‘rail’ against ‘him’, but thank you for your smug condescension. As ever, you Christians ‘know’ what ‘really’ motivates others.

            As you mention it, my life is filled with love, light and peace, thank you; no God required.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like, “choose you this day whom ye will serve”? (Joshua 24:15) Or Proverbs 16:9 -” A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.”? Or “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:But
            of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17) Or Deuteronomy 30:19-20: ” I
            call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,that both thou and thy seed may live:That
            thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”

            You mean those verses?

            And if you were so happy, your posts wouldn’t be so sour and bitter, and you wouldn’t be scouring the internet for Christian posts to argue with.

          • Mark Steiner

            Don’t forget Colossians 1:16-17.

          • http://www.rejectingjesus.com Acalibre

            Yup, that’s free-will okay – ‘obey me or I will curse you, kill you and/or send you to Hell.’ What a monster you worship!

            And there you go again, claiming you know what motivates others. Who was it who said, ‘judge not that you be not judged’? How about trying that – or is it one of Jesus’ commands you exercise ‘free-will’ over?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seem confused about what free will means. Of course there is a choice, and of course those choices must have consequences. Only a bad Father would not teach His children to stay away from poor consequences.

            An observation isn’t judgment.

          • http://www.rejectingjesus.com Acalibre

            And what a good father he is – ‘obey me or I’ll torture you’. You really think this is free will? Imagine a human father saying, ‘Now kids choose to do as I say or else I’ll throw you on the fire’? Would children presented with this kind of a choice really be ‘free’ to make their decision?

            All the same, ‘free will’ is not scriptural. According to the Bible, you didn’t choose God, he chose you (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1.4-6) with neither the need nor room for human free will. Nor is there any scientific evidence that any of us has it.

            Observation isn’t judgement, but telling someone, as you’ve told me, that they’re hateful, bitter, sour, angry and only here to rail against God, is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So if someone offers you a chance to save you, and you reject it, you choose to blame the one who could save you? Logic, man, logic.

          • http://www.rejectingjesus.com Acalibre

            I don’t need saving from what Jesus will do to me if I don’t let him save me from what he’ll do to me if I don’t let him save me. And you think this is logical?

            I notice you don’t address the fact that free-will is not part of the Bible’s salvation plan.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s how you see it, which is why it’s illogical. Jesus comes to save you from yourself.

            I didn’t address the latter part of your post because it was so out there and far from reality. God gives us free will so that we can choose whether to serve God or not. However, He still chooses us in the sense that He creates us and made everything. It’s not hard to understand. It’s called grace.

          • http://www.rejectingjesus.com Acalibre

            You don’t know your Bible. You respond with platitudes you’ve learnt in church and dismiss everything else as being ‘out there’ and ‘far from reality’ without demonstration or argument. You don’t even refer to the Bible; I do that more than you! Then you talk about Grace which, outside the Chraitian bubble (i.e. in reality), makes no sense at all.

            The Bible says the unregenerate are ‘slaves to sin’ (2 Peter 2.19 etc) so how can they also have free-will? Slavery and freedom are incompatible.

            I’m going to leave you to it, ‘Guest’ (not confident enough in your faith to use your real name?) There’s no point in discussing anything with you when all you respond with is unsubstantiated assertion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I wasn’t raised in the church. I came to the Lord by studying and seeking.

            You probably aren’t familiar with the Bible which is why you don’t realize I have been referring to it.

            The Bible says we are “servants to corruption” in 2 Peter 2:19. There is no conflict between free will and being “servants to corruption”. One example: Suppose, through free will, one got into debt, and then one became bound by law to pay back that debt. Does the debt nullify the free will that got the debtor into trouble in the first place? How about someone, of his own volition, walking into enemy camp and getting captured – does his capture nullify the free will that brought him into enemy camp in the first place?

    • Chet

      The first group takes their orders from their father, the Devil. While the latter takes its orders from the Lord Jesus Christ’s Great Commission…

      • Lexical Cannibal

        *Allegedly

        • Chet

          Factually, Sir…

          • Lexical Cannibal

            More than two thousand years of people trying have yet to prove it so.

          • Chet

            Noted historian, Jocephus, has already attested to the resurrection of Christ of Calvary. Nevertheless, it is truly one’s “choice” to receive the Lord Jesus Christ or reject him and face the consequences of such decision for eternity. Choose wisely, Sir…

          • Lexical Cannibal

            The text you’re referring to, Antiquities of the Jews, is a pretty specious attestation of the factuality of an alleged resurrection by one Yeshua of Nazereth. There is some evidence of possible Christian tampering, as well as no clear confirmation that Josephus actually believed those words, or was restating what the Christians believed. Even if he did truly believe those words, it accounts for very little because even noted contemporary historians write down false things they believe to be true, and Josephus’ singularity is does not make a strong case.

            Regardless, your barefaced theological threat has been noted.

          • Chet

            Man, you have apparently worked very hard to engender aplenty non-saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary. Frankly, to a point far exceeding that of myself in simply receiving Christ in childlike faith via repentance. Whereas I was once lost in my sins and tresspasses and on my merry way to a Christless eternity in Hell, God Almighty had mercy. The good Lord granted me saving faith in his only begotten Son and his voluntary death on Calvary’s Cross on my behalf. And my Redeemer lives today, praise his holy name forever. Respectfully, I know precisely what life was like before Christ entered my life via his Holy Spirit and nowadays I would be but a fool to even consider going back to my former life of being not only a filthy drunk, but just plain rotten to the core in every way. Jesus saves from the guttermost (me) to the uttermost, perhaps you, Sir. God bless as you consider Him, the One with whom we all have to do, sooner or later…

          • Lexical Cannibal

            I spent a while thinking about your reply and how I felt toward it. I considered dialing back, finding common ground and sharing my personal experiences. I considered slamming down and driving your inability to defend, like a stake into the ground. I even considered not replying at all.

            In all cases though, my singular hangup was this; when faced with someone who had done better research, your immediate fallback was to deflect and redirect criticism. Literally the first sentence you wrote down was “Man, you must really hate God.” Not “I’ve never heard that before, but I’m not sure if I agree,” not “No, you’re wrong because X, Y, and Z,” not even just simple silence, allowing the criticism and your inability to answer it lie. No, instead you defaulted to implying that my opinion was derived from bias, rather than facts; a sneaky ad homenim.

            So rather than continue this conversation, I’ll just leave you with this; I actually didn’t have to work very hard at all to “engender aplenty non-saving faith.” Not like people like you made it so easy.

          • Chet

            Not sure of your last sentence as to whether or not you blame someone, or anyone, else for your own personal election of unbelief, but, respectfully, you might not want to hang your hat on such in light of facing your own eternity. The fact is that God loves you along with all the rest of us sinners and He, alone, has provided the sole source of obtaining forgiveness for all of one’s own sins via his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, on Calvary’s Cross. Now, in my simple understanding I see coming to Christ via repentance in order to gain eternal life and forgiveness for all of one’s iniquity as a win win for the lost sinner. And if total forgiveness via Christ and his resurrection weren’t enough, in concert with a home in Heaven, can you understand that because of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary, that He, God Almighty, even forgets the sins of the sinner. Now, you know man cannot do such by any means. But God does. And as I think I said previously, Jesus saves from the guttermost (me) to the uttermost, perhaps yourself. Thanks for the exchange of views and God bless you anyway, believe it or no…

    • Azsteve53

      What is wrong is indoctrinating children to indefensible politics of far left atheists.

      Atheism is indefensible scientifically, no one can defend atheism with science, true science has devastated evolution, materialism and secular humanism with science and facts, all that is left is far left politics and orthodoxy

      • Lexical Cannibal

        Hey that’s cool. Quick tip for argument construction that you can take home and try yourself. If you can replace the relevant nouns with that of the opposition and not substantially change the content of your statement, it’s not a good argument. For example:

        What is wrong is indoctrinating children to indefensible politics of far right christians.
        Christianity is indefensible scientifically, no one can defend Christianity with science, true science has devastated Christian theology, ontology and religious moralism with science and facts, all that is left is far right politics and orthodoxy.

        See how easy that was? Such a smooth changeover like that indicates an argument that is insubstantial and poorly supported. If what you said had some more “bones” to it, I wouldn’t have been able to so easily slip those replacement words in. Essentially though, you just wrote a longer version of “atheism is bad and has been disproven, don’t teach it to kids,” which is…pretty vacuous, all together.

        • Azsteve53

          Yep atheism is pretty vacuous, especially when atheists have no science in support of their position.

          It is all cool to try and move words around but the atheist has no science just cool little deflections designed to make the atheist feel better about themselves.

          Atheists are experts at attacking Christians but have no scientific defense for atheism.

          Thank for pointing that out

          • Lexical Cannibal

            See, maybe I was being a bit too high concept for you. What I was saying there, hidden deeply in the subtext, was “you’re spewing empty, hot air. Come back when you have something meaningful to say.”

          • Azsteve53

            Well, I see you are very good at combining invincible arrogance with ignorance, a very special package indeed.

            Still you have no science to defend atheism, just deflection, but I understand, indoctrination is a hard thing to break away from when you appear to be as intellectually limited as you are.

        • TwoRutRoad

          Hey! That was GREAT!

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    It’s like a children’s Bible, just full of lies! What a wonderful way of killing the innocent joy and hope in little children! Consider what a great advantage it gives to little boys and girls to learn that African boys are animals at such a young age, so that they can get a head start into evolutionary racism, which is a true truth! I hope the authors enjoy the millstone and the lake of fire.

    • mirele

      Wow. How Christian. Jesus help us all with that kind of attitude. Whatever happened to “love your enemy”? (Oh, and btw, consigning someone to hell is not love. It’s a lot of things, but love is not one of them.)

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

        Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

        If you love lies, then you will have the special niche you love.

        • mirele

          The problem you have is that young earth creationism is a straight-up lie that does not comport with the physical evidence in front of us. You have to ignore evidence of an old universe and an old earth and evolution from multiple sciences.

          God reconciled the world to Himself through Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:19). All your words do is drive a wedge between human beings and God. Please stop condemning others to hell because they don’t hold the same belief as you.

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

            Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

            Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

  • Dave S

    About time someone pushed back against the Christianist/Zionist/Islamist bloc

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      You seem confused there. Have you ever sought help for paranoia?

      • Dave S

        It’s you who seems confused, perhaps you’re projecting your own need for mental health asssistance onto others.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Dude, I’m not the one who thinks Israel is hiding under my bed. 🙂

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/theangryatheist/ ≐Ṁ𝒾𝕔ⓗa𝖊𝗹 𝑮-13≐

    Seek, help. Professional, secular, help.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Get a science education. A real, authentic science education.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/theangryatheist/ ≐Ṁ𝒾𝕔ⓗa𝖊𝗹 𝑮-13≐

        What would a religionist know about science?

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          A religionist = an evolutionist. (Pssst – try using words actually found in a dictionary).

          Real scientists are people like Newton, Faraday, Damadian, Pupin, etc – all Christians.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            From Merriam-Webster:
            Religionist (n.): a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, but MW took it from urban dictionary first. In other words, it’s slang.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            1) Slang is a pretty fuzzy term in linguistics, but generally refers to language which is informal or not commonly used by the dominant culture. Seeing as we’ve made it to MW with no slang tag, I feel pretty comfortable not calling this slang. 2) Slang also doesn’t make it not a word, usage or lack thereof makes it a word. Any amateur linguist could tell you that. 3) You asked for a word in the dictionary. There you go.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, a word that originated from Urban Dictionary. 🙂 Thanks for proving my point. 🙂 (You guys make it too easy).

          • Lexical Cannibal

            That…is not at all what happened here. I literally said that being slang doesn’t make it not a word. Again, any linguist could tell you that.

            That aside though, it’s not slang, and it’s not from Urban Dictionary. The word “Religionist” has usage going back as far as the mid-1600’s and hit peak usage in the 1830’s.

            So in summary, It’s not a slang term and even if it was, that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid word. Buttressing your arguments with linguistic pedantry only goes until you encounter a linguist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, you copied that from Merriam Webster. 🙂 However, you failed to note the root usage of the word, and its popular usage. 🙂 You just blustered from an online dictionary hoping to sound smart. 🙂 You failed. 🙂

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Is moving the goalposts your favorite tactic? You do it an awful lot.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, that’s YOUR MO. I notice all the atheists and trolls do that here – they re-use the same worn, tired tactic, even mis-using identical phrases. No wonder many think you’re all the same person! 🙂

        • uninvitedguest

          not much

        • Tangent002

          They have their ‘version’ of science, to be sure.

      • uninvitedguest

        you first:)

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          I’ve already done that. So did leading scientists like Newton, Pupin, Faraday, Maury, Damadian, who based their science on the Word of God.

          • uninvitedguest

            you threw out a few named….woo hoo. you’re now a scientist!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            These men are scientists because of their faith, not in spite of. My studying led me to Christ. You should try opening your mind and actually thinking instead of closing it off and hanging onto your superstitious beliefs.

          • uninvitedguest

            no thanks. I spent the first 18yrs of life in the church. I was baptized and became a member. When I started my studies in science, I became an atheist at that point. Again, keep your superstitions.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution = superstition. No scientific evidence for it.

          • Wesley Willis

            Religion starts with the conclusion – the exact opposite of science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s false, but let’s pretend it’s so. Is it wrong if you know the truth of something and then seek to explore other truths that stem from that original truth? Scientists do that all the time.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Evolution has been observed, and plenty of religious scientists have no problem with it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then you should have no problem proving it’s been observed. 🙂 Still waiting. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers – the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) – were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species.

            Christie Wilcox, Scientific American, December 18, 2011

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s microvariation, not evolution.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It’s evolution. Speciation, to be more precise. How do you explain two new species appearing — magic?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it isn’t and I can tell you the blog you’re copying this stuff from. 🙂

          • MarkSebree

            He CITED his source at the end of his quote. Just as any good researcher would. You don’t have to look very heard to find it since he did the work for you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He copied the source from the blog he copied. 🙂 Word for word. 🙂

          • MarkSebree

            And then told you the “blog”, the date, and the author. Which means that he gave credit where credit is due.

            Additionally, Scientific American is a very well respected general science journal. They have had many Nobel Prize recipients write for them since they were found, where they received their Nobel either before or after their articles. It also does not speak to the lowest common denominator, but rather assumes a certainly level of intelligence and education in their audience. Perhaps you should try reading a few issues.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He edited. The case he referred to had been debunked long ago.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It wasn’t “debunked”, and no matter how you slice it, it’s still a change in allele frequencies, so it’s evolution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It was debunked and it proves intelligent design, not evolution. You really are ignorant on basic science, aren’t you, gizmo23?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It was debunked and it proves intelligent design, not evolution.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Sorry, no it doesn’t.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You never have any science in your posts. 🙂 Why is that? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You don’t know any science, so you don’t notice the science in my comments. You’re the one who thinks the earth is only about 6000 years old, not me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You clearly don’t know any science at all because you keep copying and pasting debunked material and hoping it will stick. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, the long-term e. coli experiment hasn’t been “debunked” except in the imaginations of creationists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            P…as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of
            life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so
            minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by
            chance” Sir Fred Hoyle (pp. 11-12).The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983, 256 pp.),

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            P…as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out.

            More copy & paste of creationist nonsense.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I feel sorry for you. You just keep exposing your ignorance over and over again.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Because I think the earth is much older than 6000 years, unlike clever people like yourself.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because you don’t know about the three theories! 🙂 Children know this stuff.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Because you don’t know about the three theories

            You’re the one who came up with that ridiculous assertion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s in elementary school textbooks all the way to university levels. Seriously, were you educated in the west?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It’s in elementary school textbooks all the way to university levels.

            Then quote one saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s like saying, “Quote something that proves ABC is the beginning of the alphabet”.

            Did you attend school in the US? Or at all?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            That’s like saying, “Quote something that proves ABC is the beginning of the alphabet”.

            No, it’s because you can’t find a textbook backing up your ridiculous claim, so now you try to back out of it.

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already gave you the source and the quote. How do you not know this?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’ve given NO quote. Since you have no problem copying & pasting long irrelevant tracts from creationist websites, just copy & paste your exact quote again.

            But you can’t, because you never did come up with a quote.

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Indeed I did. You’re simply trolling now.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Then copy & paste it again.

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No it isn’t and I can tell you the blog you’re copying this stuff from

            Blog? Scientific American. And again, you don’t get to make up your own definition of “evolution”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You did this with the e coli argument that failed. 🙂 You quickly Googled something on the internet and attempted to pretend those arguments were your own. You did the same thing this time, using an old source that’s since been debunked and I call you out on it. Again. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You did this with the e coli argument that failed. 🙂

            Yes, because you don’t know anything about evolution, so you just make up your own definitions. You’re literally ineducable.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you got no science, huh? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Wrong — I have science; you’re the one who has to make up nonsense definitions of actual scientific terms.

            By the way, you never answered — how did two new species of goatsbeards appear? Magic?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you made up a bunch of stuff based on a bad cut-and-paste job you got from an old, discredited, debunked theory.

            I already explained it to you, and my post hasn’t been deleted, so just scroll up for your answer.

            If you have 2 children, and one has blonde hair and one has brown, did a new species evolve?

          • Tangent002

            No, because those kids will likely still able to reproduce with other homo sapiens.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And…? 🙂

          • Tangent002

            Speciation means reproductive isolation.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Secondary speciation does not prove evolution.

          • Tangent002

            Not to you, but then nothing would.

            BTW, science is not about proof, it is about the weight of evidence.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolutionists themselves admit secondary speciation does not prove evolution. 🙂

            Science is not about fairy tales and wild theories, like Darwin’s racist theory of evolution. It’s about undisputed facts and proof.

          • Tangent002

            Nothing is proven in science. Your epistemology is lazy.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re incorrect. You have the same theory that “scientists” had when they said Ignaz Semmelweis was wrong because he PROVED hand washing saved lives. Look him up. “Scientists” of his day killed him.

          • Tangent002

            You’re being pedantic.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you just proved your ignorance. Again.

          • Tangent002

            Sorry, I don’t deal with people who resort to ad hominems.

            Hush.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Me calling you out on your misinformation isn’t an ad hominen attack. 🙂 You should read your own posts though – you probably have to stop dealing with yourself. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Evolutionists themselves admit secondary speciation does not prove evolution.

            Polyploidy IS evolution. It’s a change in allele frequency.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it isn’t. 🙂 Here you go: “Polyploid cells and organisms are those
            containing more than two paired (homologous) sets of chromosomes. Most
            species whose cells have nuclei (Eukaryotes) are diploid, meaning they
            have two sets of chromosomes—one set inherited from each parent.”

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Polyploidy changes allele frequencies. A change in allele frequency IS evolution.

            Once again, you are too ignorant to realize how wrong you are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it isn’t. I just gave you its definition. You are copying false assumptions from old data. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No it isn’t. I just gave you its definition.

            “Polyploid cells and organisms are those containing more than two paired (homologous) sets of chromosomes.”

            Which means when it happens, the allele frequencies have changed.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know what you’re cutting and pasting. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’re the one who thinks the earth is only a few thousand years old.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Few? No. Approximately 6? Yes, and proud of it! That puts me in the same camp as Damadian, Newton, Faraday, etc.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Few? No. Approximately 6? Yes, and proud of it!

            Of course you are.

            That puts me in the same camp as Damadian, Newton, Faraday, etc.

            Which means you believe in alchemy, too.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ve said we’re alike in the fact that we believe in Creationism and a Young Earth. Try to follow.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I’ve said we’re alike in the fact that we believe in Creationism and a Young Earth.

            And you MUST believe in alchemy too, because you keep trying to push that same “reasoning” on me. So you have to follow your own advice.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, logic isn;t your strong suit.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’ve given no justification why Newton’s thinking that the earth is young is a reason to believe that the earth is young while at the same time dismissing his work in alchemy.

            You are just cherry-picking results you want from long-dead scientists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dr. Damadian is still very much alive. 🙂 So are many Creationists who continue to do stellar science.

            You keep focusing on Newton – did you perhaps read about him in the back of a comic book? – and fail to note that my reason for mentioning him is in a group of Creation scientists, merely to prove that they exist.

            Like I said, logic isn’t your strong suit. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Dr. Damadian is still very much alive.

            You get one living non-scientist. Notice his contribution to MRI was so minor he didn’t share in a Nobel prize?

            So are many Creationists who continue to do stellar science.

            Not in biology.

            You keep focusing on Newton

            You keep using him, even though his science is 400 years old.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I used scientists with whom you might be familiar, but since you are a non-scientist, you are clueless. Let’s try these for you:

            “Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts.
            However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.”

            Professor Colin Reeves, Dept of Mathematical Sciences Coventry University

            “Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

            Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

            “Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology.”

            Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I used scientists with whom you might be familiar, but since you are a non-scientist, you are clueless.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Says the guy who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old!

            And now you’re trying “argument from authority”. Want to see hundreds of contrary opinions from scientists just named “Steve”? Just find “project steve”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, your contention is that number = right, and that’s patently false. Like I said, you must be Muslim.

            I post those quotes from LIVING scientists to show you that many do not believe in evolution merely to prove you wrong. Here are more:

            “The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides
            from students the field’s real problems.”

            Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professorof Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

            “Darwin’s theory needs to be questioned, challenged, and examined in order to maintain its scientific integrity and to protect it from becoming dogma.”

            Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical
            Chemistry

            “Darwinian evolutionary theorywas my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote atextbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an
            apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’sorigination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.”

            Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Again, your contention is that number = right

            No, I’m not. The opinions of people from 400 years ago cannot take into account more recent discoveries. Newton would not be a young earther today, just like Einstein wasn’t and Hawking isn’t.

            You’re cherry-picking the results you want, which is shown by how you use Newton to argue for a young earth but reject his alchemy and his anti-trinitarianism.

            Your contention is that “almost nobody” = right.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How many people discovered Penicillin? By your faulty reasoning, that would mean it’s a bust since only one discovered it. 🙂

            Here are more for you:

            Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist

            Dr Alan Love, Chemist

            Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:

            Dr John Marcus, Molecular
            Biologist

            Dr George Marshall,
            Eye Disease Researcher

            Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist

            Dr John McEwan, Chemist

            Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics

            Dr David Menton, Anatomist

            Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist
            Plant Physiologist

            Dr John Meyer, Physiologist

            Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist,
            Embryologist

            Colin W. Mitchell, Geography

            Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator

            Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist

            Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist

            Dr John D. Morris, Geologist

            Dr Len Morris, Physiologist

            Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist

            Stanley A. Mumma,
            Architectural Engineering

            Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering

            Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher

            Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher

            Prof. John Oller, Linguistics

            Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology

            Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner

            Dr David Pace, Organic Chemistry

            Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist

            Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)

            Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon

            Prof. Richard
            Porter

            Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics

            Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)

            Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist

            Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.

            Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics

            Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology

            Dr David Rosevear, Chemist

            Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology

            Dr John Sanford, Geneticist

            Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist /
            spectroscopist

            Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:

            Dr Ian Scott, Educator

            Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist

            Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry

            Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science

            Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics

            Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist

            Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer

            Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist

            Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist

            Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist

            Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science

            Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology

            Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education

            Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer

            Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry

            Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics

            Dr Stephen Taylor,
            Electrical Engineering

            Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics

            Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics

            Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry

            Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:

            Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric
            Science

            Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist

            Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist

            Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist

            Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer

            Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist

            Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)

            Dr A.J. Monty White,
            Chemistry/Gas Kinetics

            Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist

            Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor

            Dr Lara Wieland, Medical
            doctor

            Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)

            Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

            Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist

            Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics

            Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace
            & Mechanical Engineer

            Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics

            Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology

            Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist

            Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

            Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            How many people discovered Penicillin? By your faulty reasoning, that would mean it’s a bust since only one discovered it?

            Why would anyone need to discover it again? How many believe it works?

            And you’re STILL trying to go by argument from authority, which is a fallacy.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now you’re purposely being obtuse which is why so many here think you’re gizmo. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I only appear obtuse to people who have trouble understanding English.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ah, the irony , giz! 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Says the guy who thinks the earth is 6000 years old. BWAHAHAHAHA!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Like all the other great scientists I just named. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So naming a handful of scientists makes it true? So when I name a handful that agree with evolution that will make it true?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There’s more than a handful, but again, you’re confusing number with right. Like I said, you must worship the moon god.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            There’s more than a handful

            Hardly.

            but again, you’re confusing number with right.

            You insist on “small number” = right.

            By the way, did you know that flat-earthers can only get space to promote their “theories” at Creationist conventions? So you must be a flat-earther.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            More fiction from gizmo himself. 🙂

            Newton himself cites Isaiah as the source for the earth being round. Science bears that up.

            Have a good day.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            More fiction from gizmo himself. 🙂

            It isn’t fiction.

            Newton himself cites Isaiah as the source for the earth being round.

            What an ancient religious book says is irrelevant.

            You STILL haven’t explained why you believe Newton when it comes to the age of the earth but not his alchemy.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That Book is the reason why Maury was able to do his work, why Pupin made his discoveries, and other great scientists. 🙂

            You’re just repeating yourself at this point, gizmo.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            That Book is the reason why Maury was able to do his work, why Pupin made his discoveries, and other great scientists.

            No, it wasn’t.

            By the way, geocentrists also “lecture” at creationism conventions. Are you also a geocentrist?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes it was. Maury himself said so. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Are you a geocentrist? Do you believe everything every living young earther believes?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Looks like you found yourself some new words on Google. 🙂 Try a science book next time, giz.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Uh, I’ve known about geocentrists for decades. Your ignorance extends to creationist websites.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean Creationist websites with members like the inventor of the MRI, or the first surgeon to reattach an ear, or a leading geneticist? Yeah, great sites, but I got my degrees in secular institutes of learning – encountered a lot of Creationists there, too. In fact, our movement is rising so much that we get regular mentions in science journals all the time. 🙂 (And published in them, too).

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You mean Creationist websites with members like the inventor of the MRI,

            Keep beating that dead horse, and, by the way, if he’s the sole inventor, why did other people get the Nobel prize for it and he was left out>

            And you still haven’t said if you are a geocentrist or not. I suspect because you are due to the bible saying the earth is “fixed”.

            So, are you a geocentrist?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He is the sole inventor, but he got shafted by the Nobel Prize committee for being a Creationist. They’re not exactly known for giving out fair prizes though. Obama got one, didn’t he?

            You walked all over the mention of other living scientists who are Creationists. Here are more for you:

            Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
            Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical
            Physics
            Dr James Allan, Geneticist
            Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
            Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
            Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
            Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
            Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit
            expert
            Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space
            Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

            Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
            Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
            Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
            Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
            Dr Markus Blietz, Astrophysicist
            Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
            Edward A. Boudreaux,
            Theoretical Chemistry
            Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
            Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of
            Statistics
            Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology
            and Genetics)
            Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read
            his testimony)
            Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
            Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
            Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
            Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
            Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
            Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
            Dr John M. Cimbala,
            Mechanical Engineering
            Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
            Dr Bob Compton, DVM
            Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
            Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
            Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics
            & Nuclear Physics
            Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
            Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
            Dr Raymond V. Damadian,
            M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
            Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
            Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            He is the sole inventor, but he got shafted by the Nobel Prize committee for being a Creationist.

            Yeah, it’s a “conspiracy”.

            You walked all over the mention of other living scientists who are Creationists.

            Because they’re all crackpots.

            Are you a geocentrist? Is the bible wrong, or Newton?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Geocentricity and Creationism are two separate issues. 🙂 Why ask about geocentricity in a discussion about Creationism? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Geocentricity and Creationism are two separate issues.

            Yep, which is why I’m asking you if you’re a geocentrist. You keep dodging, so I assume you are a geocentrist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, I’m not. 🙂 I’m not dodging anything. I can’t figure out why you’re throwing out a completely different topic. 🙂 You’re scatterbrained, gizmo. 🙂

            You seem confused. Let me help you: There are currently 3 theories about the form of the universe: 1.) geocentricity, 2.) heliocentricity, and 3.) relativity. The Bible is silent on the subject, and science has not determined the matter yet.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, I’m not.

            Well then, you agree the bible is wrong when it says the earth is fixed.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re quite incorrect. 🙂 You must be really, really old, or really, really stupid. (Sorry – I have to be blunt here.)

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’re quite incorrect. 🙂 You must be really, really old, or really, really stupid. (Sorry – I have to be blunt here.)

            Geocentric and heliocentric only apply to solar systems, not “the form of the universe”, which is much, much larger than a solar system, (and geocentric is an old discredited theory) and “relativity” is about Einsteinian physics.

            You are a complete buffoon.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re actually proving how clueless and out of date you are! 🙂 Look it up, giz! There are modern scientific sources online! 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            BWAHAHAHAHA!

            You’re just displaying your ignorance in spades.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re displaying your ignorance for all to see. 🙂 You’re either very, very old (and not up on the latest) or very, very dumb. Could be both. 🙂 But this is something taught at basic level science (astronomy, physics, etc.) See Reichenbach, Hans. From Copernicus to Einstein. New
            York: Dover Publications, Inc. for starters. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Look idiot, geocentric and heliocentric are models for the SOLAR SYSTEM, not the “form of the universe”. You can’t even read a book.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You clearly are ignorant of this, aren’t you? 🙂 Stephen Hawking has some books on the topic. Perhaps you should try to read one? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Since the text is online, there is no phrase “form of the universe” anywhere in it.

            Srtike one

            There is no “geocentric” in it anywhere.

            Strike two

            “Heliocentric” occurs once:
            “The mechanics of Newton has thus received confirmation, and it must have seemed like a magic key to his contemporaries. His theory transformed the fundamental facts of the preceding centuries into a uniform system, including the Copernican theory of the heliocentric motion of the planets, Kepler’s laws concerning their orbits, and Galileo’s laws of falling bodies in a gravitational field. Kepler did not live to greet this triumph of thought; no doubt, he would have rejoiced over this proof of the harmony of cosmic motions.”

            Change your name to “Lou”, and in “Lou Zher”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are clearly ignorant. What do you think Dawking did his thesis on? How about Fred Doyle?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            What do you think Dawking did his thesis on?

            He certainly didn’t do it on your ridiculous “three possible forms of the universe– geocentric, heliocentric, and relativity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re quite incorrect. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Then quote Hawking (not Dawking).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are seriously confused. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I’m not the one making up names of physicists like “Dawking”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            ??

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You apparently fixed your typo. But you still have “Fred Doyle” instead of “Hoyle”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            ??

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You keep on correcting your typos, but only after I point them out. Because you aren’t even familiar with their names.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I think you’re confused.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Sorry, I’ve seen your typos change and so have other people.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Plus, you really like outdated sources — that book was published in 1927.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it wasn’t. 🙂 And when do you think Fred Doyle did his science? And Hawking?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No it wasn’t.

            Yes, it WAS published in 1927. It’s been REPRINTED since then, but it was first published in 1927.

            And when do you think Fred Doyle did his science? And Hawking?

            Your statements about the “form of the universe” are complete nonsense.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, it wasn’t. 🙂 Check again. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            “In 1920 Reichenbach began teaching at the Technische Hochschule at Stuttgart as Privatdozent. In the same year, he published his first book on the philosophical implications of the theory of relativity, The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge, which criticized the Kantian notion of synthetic a priori. He subsequently published Axiomatization of the Theory of Relativity (1924), From Copernicus to Einstein (1927) and The Philosophy of Space and Time (1928), the last stating the logical positivist view on the theory of relativity.”

            From his Wikipedia entry.

            It was first printed in 1927 by Ullstein in Berlin.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. Look at the publisher I cited. Look up the New York, Dover Publications Inc. version, which is the one I cited. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. Look at the publisher I cited. Look up the New York, Dover Publications Inc. version, which is the one I cited.

            I TOLD you, idiot, that it was REPRINTED. Dover REPRINTED it. It was ORIGINALLY printed in 1927 by Ullstein, a German publisher that still exists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            For the benefit of others reading, gizmo23, I’m going to explain this (I know it’s over your head):

            When one cites something, one also must cite the publisher, which I did for you. That’s because edits and translations, etc., contain different commentary and different notes.

            Like I said, you are showing your ignorance – again. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            When one cites something, one also must cite the publisher, which I did for you.

            You didn’t at first, and the book was STILL WRITTEN IN 1927. It wasn’t revised.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes I did cite it at first. 🙂 And yes, the translation and republication has different notes and commentary. 🙂 That said, it’s really sad that you didn’t know about this. I’m guessing you flunked Grade 8 science. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            And yes, the translation and republication has different notes and commentary

            No, they don’t. And you still haven’t quoted part of it that says geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three possible “forms of the universe”.

            C’mon, QUOTE part of it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, they do. So now you’re ignorant about publishing rights, forwards, commentary, as well as science? Not surprised. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So now you’re ignorant about publishing rights

            Look, a book REPRINTED doesn’t erase the fact that it was first published in 1927.

            And you keep avoiding quoting it to support your ridiculous “forms of the universe” quackery.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You can’t follow, can you? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Quote where the book (any edition) supports your nonsense claims.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, just look at the title. 🙂 Besides, you said you know science. That’s a basic level textbook. Don’t you own a copy? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Dude, just look at the title.

            Your claim that there are three proposed “forms of the universe” – geocentric, heliocentric, and relativity.

            You keep dodging that, because it doesn’t say anything like that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Of course it does. It takes you from the first theory to the third. Can’t you tell that from the title? The fact that you don’t know this means you didn’t even graduate high school. How can that be?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It takes you from the first theory to the third.

            The first two were about the solar system, not the “form of the universe”.

            You’re still an idiot.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, what do you think relativity is?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Relativity isn’t just about the solar system, it’s about how there’s no preferred frame of reference.

            By the way, why do you like relativity? You know Einstein didn’t think the earth was only 6000 years old, don’t you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m not going to give you a free education. I’d have to start at Grade 4 level and you couldn’t pay me enough to do that.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            This is bizarre that you don’t know this. It’s also strange that you think that something modern means it’s true yet you believe in an old, debunked theory – the theory of evolution.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            This is bizarre that you don’t know this

            Then you should have no problem QUOTING a textbook saying they are three forms of the universe, right?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already did. Dude, you’re just trolling. I hope they ban this ID of yours too.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I already did.

            No, you didn’t. You CLAIMED that “From Copernicus to Einstein” said that, but the text of that book is online, and it doesn’t even mention “geocentrism”, and “heliocentrism” only occurs once, which I quoted at length to show that doesn’t support your ridiculous claim either.

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            ???

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already did. You’re probably going to be banned again for trolling and spamming, gizmo.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I already did.

            No, you didn’t.

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know which hand is your right hand which hand is your left. No wonder you didn’t know what relativity was. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already did, and you didn’t even know who wrote it, which edition I was quoting, and what it meant. 🙂 Guess you slept through Grade 7 science. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Come up with a quote.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I posted it above for you. You keep asking for it. That only proves you are too ignorant to recognize a quote from a science textbook. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Yes I did cite it at first.

            No, you’ve been editing your comments dishonestly.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s untrue. You are very, very bizarre in your accusations.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            ??

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You keep editing your comments and then denying it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m not editing anything. You have serious issues.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You changed Dawking to Hawking and Doyle to Hoyle.

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Try reading the provided quotes. You didn’t even know which textbook I quoted from! Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Quote a textbook saying that geocentrism, heliocentrism, and relativity are the three theories of the form of the universe.

            You still haven’t produced a quote. You have plenty of time to type over and over that you’ve already written it, but never seem to find time to copy & paste it. Because it doesn’t exist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes I did, and you keep asking for it then pretending not to see it. 🙂 You’re doing the same thing on all the other sites where you’re stalking Christians and Jews.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Yes I did, and you keep asking for it then pretending not to see it.

            No, you didn’t. If you did, you’d just paste it in every time I ask.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m not going to repeat myself. That’s called spamming the board – what you’re doing now and what you’re doing on Charisma and other sites.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I’m not going to repeat myself.

            You can’t, because you never posted a quote. But you have plenty of time to type over and over and over that you already wrote it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t even know what relativity was. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Of course I knew. Stop lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t know. Most of your posts about it were deleted, but enough remain to prove you didn’t know what relativity is. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, but keep lying, it’s all you ever do.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If you have any science, bring it. So far all you’re doing is projecting. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, you’re lying about me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m using your own words. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, you’re lying. Again. You never quote, you just lie.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            People with no rebuttal resort to name calling. Tsk tsk. 🙂

          • MarkSebree

            King, I think you need to explain what an “appeal to authority” is, and why it is a logical fallacy. Guest does not seem to understand what you mean, which is why he continues to use that fallacy.

            An appeal to authority is a form of logical fallacy where the writer appeals to the opinion of someone who is a well recognized authority on a subject for a statement that person made in an area where the person is not an authority, either because it is the wrong field for the person, or because time and discoveries have rendered the person’s notion’s quaint and dated. For example, Issac Newton is well respected in the fields of mathematics and physics for his discoveries. However, some of his thoughts in the area of physics are now dated because science has had a couple hundred years worth of discoveries in which to build on his original theories. And Newton was never considered to be an authority on the geological age of the Earth, nor the age of the Universe. To reference his thoughts on the age of the Earth, which was in line with most people of his day, and claim that they are authoritative just because he made them is an appeal to authority.

            A proper reference to an authority MUST be a reference to that authority’s area of expertise, and it must be relevant to either the time period under discussion (example, Machiavelli on politics during the Italian Renaissance), or recent enough to still be relevant (nearly any field of science). Even referencing a modern scientist outside of his field of expertise and claiming that his uninformed opinion should be given weight is an example of the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Unfortunately, Guest seems to be unable to learn anything. But we’ll see…thanks.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Unfortunately, King Gizmo seems to be unable to learn anything. But we’ll see…thanks.

          • MarkSebree

            So I have noticed.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, what you wrote shows that you neither understand the contents of my post nor what an appeal to authority is. 🙂

          • MarkSebree

            I have understood pretty much all you have written, and I understand what an appeal to authority is quite well, as I have demonstrated.

            However, you are free to provide your own examples and definitions of what an appeal to authority is. There is certainly nobody stopping you from doing so.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            An appeal to authority would be if I said, “Such-and-such is true because so-and-so claimed it”. Gizmo was claiming that there are NO examples of one instance, and I provided many. That was not an appeal to authority. That was giving an example. Do you know the difference?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Dude, you made up a bunch of stuff based on a bad cut-and-paste job you got from an old, discredited, debunked theory.

            No, it’s an example of evolution. You’re still too ignorant to even know what “evolution” means.

            If you have 2 children, and one has blonde hair and one has brown, did a new species evolve?

            No. If 3 species of goatsbeards become 5 species, did a new species evolve?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Not only is it not an example of evolution, but the blog you copied it from had an argument that disproved it. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            C’mon you intellectual coward, how do 3 species turn into 5 species? Magic?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ha ha ha! You copied from a blog that disproved what you tried to claim, and you call me an “intellectual coward”?? LOL Come on, you claimed it, prove it. You don’t even know what the terms you cut and pasted mean! 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You copied from a blog that disproved what you tried to claim,

            No, but as I keep telling you, you are too ignorant to even realize that.

            How did 3 species turn into 5 species? MAGIC???

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, you did copy from a blog, and you don’t even understand that what you described isn’t evolution, but secondary speciation. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Scientific American isn’t a blog, it’s a magazine that’s over 150 years old.

            How did 3 species become 5 species? Magic?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t copy it from there. You copied it from a blog. 🙂 The blog cited an OLD study that has been disproven. 🙂 You lied. Admit it.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You didn’t copy it from there. You copied it from a blog

            No, I copied it from scientificamerican dot com. You’re even too ignorant to find it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I saw the blog you copied it from. The blog included the citation, and you just copied it along ignorantly not knowing that you were posting old material that had been disproven. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I saw the blog you copied it from.

            I copied it from scientificamerican dot com

            The blog included the citation, and you just copied it along ignorantly not knowing that you were posting old material that had been disproven.

            You’re quoting ignorant creationism nonsense from evolutionnews dot org, which is a religious evolution denying website.

            Just google for “observed evolution” and educate yourself, or continue to deny science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) That’s not a scientific journal. It’s a puff piece magazine, mostly for kids.

            b.) It cited an OLD study that has since been proven wrong. 🙂

            c.) Everything I’ve quoted has been from standard science journals. 🙂

            d.) Google isn’t a science journals. :)Evolutionists admit evolution has yet to be proven. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            a.) That’s not a scientific journal. It’s a puff piece magazine, mostly for kids.

            All creationist sites are anti-science.

            b.) It cited an OLD study that has since been proven wrong. 🙂

            Nothing is “proven” or “disproven” in science, but you’re too ignorant to know that. And you’re relying on creationist nonsense in denying speciation.

            c.) Everything I’ve quoted has been from standard science journals. 🙂

            Name them.

            d.) Google isn’t a science journals.

            Google is a search engine. It enables you to find actual science.

            Evolutionists admit evolution has yet to be proven. 🙂

            Nothing is ever “proven” in science. You’re too ignorant to grasp that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) Creationists are real scientists. Creationists like Newton, Pupin, Pasteur, Damadian, Faraday, Maury, et al did their science BECAUSE of the Bible, not in spite of it.

            b.) Science relies upon proofs. If you were a scientist, you’d know that. 🙂

            c.) I already did. 🙂 Scroll up. 🙂

            d.) Google enables you to find what it allows in its search engines. It also depends upon what you search. You seem to be inept at searching science since you don’t know what it is. 🙂

            Everything must be proven in science or else it’s not fact.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            a.) Creationists are real scientists.

            No, they aren’t. Cite some living creationists, or you’ll have to say that alchemy is legitimate because Newton, Brahe, and Boyle were alchemists.

            b.) Science relies upon proofs.

            Nothing is “proven” in science. Proofs are in mathematics. Scientific theories often involve math, but they aren’t pure math, because that would be “math”, not science.

            c.) I already did.

            No you didn’t.

            d.) Google enables you to find what it allows in its search engines.

            So you opted for ignorance.

            Everything must be proven in science or else it’s not fact.

            Prove the earth orbits the sun.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If you knew science, you’d know I DID name a living scientist. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            If you knew science, you’d know I DID name a living scientist.

            No, you named a creationist quack.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Is that why he won major awards for inventing the MRI? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            That doesn’t make him correct. He’s a young earth creationist, do you think the earth is only a few thousand years old?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Most great scientists know the earth is only thousands of years old. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s how I feel when I see you trying to talk science. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You are apparently unaware that scientists say the earth is way older than just a few thousand years.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The scientists I named (who are considered amongst the greatest scientists in the world) say otherwise.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            The scientists I named (who are considered amongst the greatest scientists in the world) say otherwise.

            All the scientists except for the crank creationist are dead, so no, they don’t “say” otherwise.

            And you really DO believe in alchemy because Newton was an alchemist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, there are quite a few living scientists who have made significant contributions to science, and who are Young Earth Creationists.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Actually, there are quite a few living scientists who have made significant contributions to science, and who are Young Earth Creationists.

            There are millions of scientists who disagree with that nonsense.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And there are millions of Muslims who think the earth is flat. So you think number = correctness? 🙂 So in conclusion, you think the earth is flat? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So you think number = correctness?

            Those Muslims aren’t scientists. Find millions of SCIENTISTS who think the earth is flat, or only a few thousand years old.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Your point was the number = right. It does not. You were wrong.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Your point was the number = right.

            Incorrect.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know what your own posts say! 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You don’t even know what your own posts say! 🙂

            Yes, I do. It isn’t just what the ignorant masses say. Scientists have peer review, and they say the earth is billions of years old.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, you just equated number with right. That must mean you’re a Muslim.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, it means you believe in alchemy, because Newton was an alchemist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re rambling now. Must be all those Muslim calls to prayer. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’re being deliberately stupid.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh, the irony! 🙂 And the sad thing is, you never learn. You keep repeating the same illogical garbage in every post! 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Oh, the irony! 🙂 And the sad thing is, you never learn.

            Not from creationists like you, no.

            You keep repeating the same illogical garbage in every post! 🙂

            Like “the earth is billions of years old”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yep, you prove yourself wrong every time. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So you think the earth is only a few thousand years old?

          • Tangent002

            The original findings published in the journal Nature in 1971. You found it on a blog site because it is frequently referenced.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No kidding. It was an OLD piece of “science” that has long been proven to be false.

          • Tangent002

            How was it disproven?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because it was an old article whose findings who proven to be secondary speciation. 🙂

          • Tangent002

            According to whom?

            Speciation is speciation.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            According to science. 🙂

          • Tangent002

            I’m sure it’ll be something like: “Well, it’s still a plant isn’t it?”

          • Tangent002

            And 2+2=4 is not math, it’s ‘micro-summation’, right?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You clearly don’t know science or math. 🙂

          • Cady555

            Google lungfish.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here you go:

            Did Lungfish Evolve Into Amphibians?

            by
            John D. Morris, Ph.D.

            Resources › Earth Sciences Resources › Oceans

            In January 95 of this column, I
            reviewed the grand opening of the new evolution exhibit, “DNA to
            Dinosaurs,” at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History. I pointed
            out many inaccuracies in the exhibits, even bad evolution. Yet the
            brainwashing effect was tragically effective.

            The museum pulled a slick trick when it discussed the supposed
            evolution of amphibians from fish. This transition was mentioned in
            three displays, and heralded as a triumph of evolution theory. Only one
            trouble—three distinctly different fish ancestors were mentioned. Each
            one was presented authoritatively, with no mention of the other options
            or the obvious scientific controversy surrounding them.

            One was the famous “living fossil” known as the coelacanth (order, Coelacanthiformes). This
            type of fish, previously known only from fossils, had certain
            structures in its fins, and for years was thought to have been the
            ancestor of the amphibians and later all other land animals. But in 1938
            a living specimen was found off the coast of Africa and others have
            been found since. Evolutionists’ joy turned to consternation when it was
            seen that soft anatomy was not at all like an amphibian, nor did it
            live in shallow areas about to crawl out on land. It lives in the deep
            ocean and uses its stronger fins to navigate in unusual ways, but never
            to “walk” along the bottom. Today few evolutionists still hold to the
            coelacanth as an ancestor to land animals, but there it was in the
            museum.

            A majority of today’s evolutionists hold to the idea that a similar type of fish (order, Rhipidistia), led
            to amphibians. Again, this fossil fish had structures in its fins, and a
            loose comparison could be made with the femur and humerous (arm and leg
            bones in land animals), but nothing to compare to hands and feet.
            Furthermore, as is also the case in the coelacanth, the hard parts of
            the fins are loosely embedded in muscle, not at all attached to the
            vertebra as required to support the weight of the body. In the amphibian
            thought to be the oldest, both the pelvis and shoulder are large and
            strong. Where did they come from?

            A third suggestion was the lungfish (order, Dipnoi), which
            is known to gulp air in addition to breathing through its gills. This
            remarkable fish can survive buried in mud during periods of drought,
            undergoing an extremely dominant state, but his “gulping” has nothing to
            do with it. Despite the fact that many high school students are taught
            that lungfish evolved into land creatures and the museum reinforced this
            idea, few evolutionists consider any form of lungfish to have been the
            forerunner of amphibians, mainly because of skeletal differences, for
            the lungfish has no hint of legs. Only museum visitors are still
            mistaken.

            Actually the skeletal differences are only one of the many problems
            encountered in trying to link fish and amphibian. The internal organs
            are quite different also. Major changes would have had to occur in just
            the right order to accomplish the transition. For instance, while the
            pelvic girdle is forming (by mutation), and the gills are mutating into
            true lungs and the ears and eyes must mutate to work in the dry air. How
            could any possible ancestor accomplish these and other simultaneous
            changes?

            The problem would be solved if we could find fossils of transitional
            forms, but alas, no “fishibian” has ever been found. Every fish, living
            or fossil, even those with unusual characteristics, is fully fish, and
            every amphibian, living or fossil, is fully amphibian.

            To make matters even worse, a fossil amphibian has recently been
            found which “dates” even older than those “primitive” amphibians thought
            to be most fish-like. Yet it is 100% amphibian, just like it ought to
            be if (or should I say since) creation is true.

          • Cady555

            Not yet. Who knows what direction, if any, the population will evolve. But it is a living example of a transitional species.

            Didn’t read the copy pasty.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You should have read it because it proves you’re wrong. 🙂 Evolutionists will tell you it’s wrong. It’s old science.

          • uninvitedguest

            lol

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If there were evidence, you would have presented it. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            there are mountain s of scientific research regarding evolution but zero with regard to creationism. keep trolling

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Hey, if there are mountains of evidence, produce it. Even one. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            it’s all there to see. prove the existence of your holy man.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You said you could prove evolution. If it’s true, do it.

          • uninvitedguest

            do your own research, too funny!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already have, which is how I know evolution is fake. Even evolutionists admit it hasn’t been proven. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            sure they have……

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then you should be able to cite it. 🙂

          • Cady555

            Evidence from DNA, including evidence from viruses implanted in DNA.
            Evidence from paleontology, including Tiktaalik, the evolution of specific species such as snakes, birds, whales, horses, etc.
            Evidence from atavatisms and vestigial traits.
            Evidence from Embryology.
            Evidence from geodiversity.
            And more.

            Pick one and explain what the evidence showed, why you rejected the conclusions of about 99% of the experts in those fields, and your alternative explanation of the data.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Those have all been proven to not prove evolutionists. Even evolutionists will tell you that there is no proof of evolution. 🙂

          • Cady555

            Scientific Theories are supported by evidence. They don’t use the word “proof” no matter how strong tge evidence.

            The sun is the center of the solar system. This isn’t proved because there is always more to learn. But it is true.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, they do tell you that you need proof. You clearly aren’t a scientist. 🙂

          • Cady555

            Evidence – Yes.
            Proof – No.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re clueless. 🙂

          • Cady555

            You are incorrect.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re not very good at this. 🙂

          • Cady555

            So kind.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Would you rather I lied to you?

          • Tangent002

            They think if they can punch enough holes in evolution that Intelligent Design (Creationism) somehow wins by default.

  • uninvitedguest

    this is especially hilarious with indoctrination being the mantra of religion

    • Amos Moses

      you were indoctrinated ……….

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      You’ve been brainwashed so you can’t see. I prefer to stand on the side of science.

      • uninvitedguest

        lol. science and religion are 2 totally different things. you stand on the side of your holy man which contradicts science

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          You clearly don’t know what science or Christianity is. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            you got me there. not. grew up in church of christ and have 3 degrees in science……next insult little man….lol!

          • Al Cibiades

            Really? Educate us. Define science. And then for a laugh, define Christianity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Science etymologically means knowledge. Christianity is a name derisively given to those who follow Jesus Christ.

            Now define “Alex Stewart”. For laughs, of course. 🙂

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            Hello, Guest,
            This is the very first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that “Christianity ” is a derisive term. Could you explain, for my benefit, how it is derisive? Also, could you tell me what name you would prefer people to use to refer to this religion?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Bible explains that it was non-Christians who gave the label to Christians. Most names for Christians or their sects began as derogatory (Methodists, Quakers, etc.). Words evolve, and there is no problem with using the term today.

      • Al Cibiades

        No you don’t stand on the side of science. You stand on the side of pretentious ignorance. Your very use of the word “proof” indicates you don’t really understand the concept of science.

        Science builds conceptual models from data and facts and continually refines and tests them. Evolution has stood the test. It has gathered consistent data, made predictions which have been confirmed, provides fertile ground for practical application and is ever more complete.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Alex, we’ve been through this before. You keep repeating yourself. Give us some factual evidence that evolution is real. Have you got something?

    • meamsane

      What’s hilarious is this book. It belongs in the same category as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, little red riding hood, etc. This is funny stuff!!!

  • meamsane

    Another book based on scientific fairy tales and mythology!

    • Rick Derris

      I’m guessing you didn’t do well in science class.

      • meamsane

        This book has nothing to do with science class. It belongs in children’s fiction!

        My Ancestor, the itty bitty thing, managed to “crawl” out of the pond after “waking up” somehow, and even “coming alive” somehow, and after dying millions of times simply because it didn’t develop the proper breathing system I needed to survive in the conveniently supplied oxygen atmosphere that just happen to be there, and the slight random changes that had to occur over millions of years for my lungs to develop so I can survive, not to mention the distorted appendage that was supposed to be a leg, oops! or my malformed eye, my one nostril, (I guess what was to be the beginnings of my breathing apparatus and smeller) which had to work in conjunction with the other systems of my body that was needed to be whole all had come about at the same time (what timing!).

        The itty bitty thing even “pushed” out a clone of itself, cause it needed a friend!!? Did it know what a friend was? The first thing it must have developed, must have been a highly intelligent mind in order to know exactly what was needed to re-produce itself by slightly random changes over millions of years to come up with all the varied life forms in many external environments that just happen to be there for it? Don’t forget food and water. how did it come up with that? I could go on, but I won’t.

        This reminds me of the book of job. God says “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth”?
        Nobody was there when your supposed “evolution” happened and science has never observed it happening, and yet to you this is somehow proven fact? Like I said, it’s a fairy tale.

        • Rick Derris

          You definitely don’t science.

          • meamsane

            Like I said, a children’s book of fiction!

          • uninvitedguest

            you’re talking about your bible, right?

          • meamsane

            Uh, no!

          • uninvitedguest

            sure you are, with the boats that carry two of every animal, talking snakes, zombies, parting of the waters.

          • meamsane

            Deflecting much?

          • uninvitedguest

            not at all

          • Rick Derris

            Yeah, we get it.

            You’re ignorant of science.

          • meamsane

            Bitter clinger!

          • Rick Derris

            Like I said, you’re ignorant. You don’t need to keep proving it.

          • meamsane

            But we were not discussing science, but science fiction!!

        • uninvitedguest

          you mean fairy tales like talking snakes, water walking zombies, and people who live for days in a whales belly?

          • meamsane

            Human imagination masquerading as science. That’s a fairy tale!

        • Cady555

          It is clear from this summary that you have little idea about what evolution is. How would you react if I said I hate baseball because watching people throw chess pieces over a volleyball net while eating fried okra is boring? Sensible people would tell me that, based on that statement, I have no absolutely no clue what baseball is, so perhaps I should learn about baseball before rejecting it. I might still dislike baseball, but at least I wouldn’t look unspeakably stupid.

          Instead of listening to propaganda and parroting gibberish, I challenge you to read a solid book describing what The Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection actually is and the massive amounts of evidence that supports it. You may still reject the Theory of Evolution, but you will be able to discuss it intelligently.

          Suggestion – Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True is one of the best. There is also a wealth of reference material on the National Center for Science Education website. The transcripts of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial are there as well and make interesting reading.

  • Croquet_Player

    This is too funny. It’s “aggressive” to publish a children’s book promoting science? Is it then “aggressive” to publish ANY science books at all? Some might say so. And how do you know they’re atheists? Plenty of (well-educated) devout Christians accept science, evolution, etc. and they have no problem with it. If you want to teach your child religious “creationism” at home, in private religious classes, or whatever, you have every right to do so. But in public school we teach no religious doctrines, and only science. Because we would like to have nation of well-educated people, who are able to keep up with the modern world and pursue science careers. Ignorance is not a virtue.

  • Jolanda Tiellemans

    Don’t want your kids to read it, don’t buy it. Don’t want your kids to learn about evolution, don’t put them in a public school. Simple.

  • Reason2012

    Human beings read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more, and:

    Our ancestors were supposedly apes, so that means they are claiming populations of apes could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly reptiles before that, so that means they are claiming populations of reptiles could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly amphibians/frogs before that, so that means they are claiming populations of amphibians/frogs could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly fish before that, so that means they are claiming populations of fish could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    This is what they call “reality”.

    Behold the anti-science mythology of fish to mankind evolutionism. And they seek to infect everyone else’s kids and grandkids with this anti-science mythology, which is why they make childrens’ books to indoctrinate them.

  • Reason2012

    Evolutionists claim that populations of fish evolved over generations eventually into amphibians (animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish). Since they claim their beliefs are science, ask evolutionists to show what they say happens: an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. So science really falsifies the anti-science fish to mankind belief system. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

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

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

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

    Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen.

    • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

      This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing,

      Because you are ignoring the timescales that they ALSO claim. You are being deliberately dishonest.

      • Reason2012

        // Because you are ignoring the timescales that they ALSO claim. You are being deliberately dishonest. //

        Precisely the point: it can only be believed in.. In so many words “Well my beliefs take too long, that’s why we’ll never see it – so throw out scientific fact on the matter, instead take my word for it that it happens, and call my reasons to believe in it ‘evidence’. Anti-science deception, nothing more.

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          Precisely the point: it can only be believed in.

          Wrong. Evolution has been observed.

          Your comparison is like claiming that Pluto can’t be shown to orbit the sun because its orbital period (248 years) is much longer than one human lifetime (so it’s impossible for one person to observe pluto orbiting the sun even once), and Pluto’s existence was only discovered in 1930, less than a hundred years ago, so it’s “faith” to say that Pluto orbits the sun at all.

          But that’s because you don’t know how science works.

    • This style ten and six

      The problem with you deniers is that the completely, deliberately, ignore the time scale. The first humans are dated at 1-2 million years ago. This is a mere speck in the history of earth. Think, 3.8 billion years ago first life appeared. that is three thousand, eight hundred million years and we have been around for, at most, two million of them.

      Your belief that science is only what is observed is rather odd. We did not observe the big bang but it has been mathematically proven, based on observation of what we can see now. The same with evolution, it can be traced back to the common ancestor of all life, using the study of genes and DNA.

      • Reason2012

        Can’t “deny” something that does not happen and can only be believed in – simplying pointing out it does not happen, can only be believed in and contradicts observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact.

        Dates of fossils in no way prove “this evolved into that”.

        Fossils do not come with tags that tell their dates – dating methods are assumptions piled upon assumptions. Soft tissue and red blood cells continue to be found in fossils “dated” up to 100 million years old, when it instead proves they can only be at most thousands of years old.

        No, the big bang has not been proven, just another made up belief that there was some great expansion, then presto: planets, suns, moons, stars, solar systems, and so on. Please feel free to show some big bang creating a universe, not just a belief that one did.

        Until anyone shows, for example, populations of fish ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish, it’s a farce to pretend they are related.

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

        • This style ten and six

          How you have the brass face to call yourself Reason2012 when you are spouting such unreasonable drivel, I do not know. So long as you don’t get your crazy ideas anywhere near kids’ education I guess there is little problem.

      • rsdfwd

        “We did not observe the big bang but it has been mathematically proven, based on observation of what we can see now.”
        ————
        I don’t see where that claim comes from. We can’t back any closer than one billion trillionth of a second from t = 0.

    • Maltnothops

      I’ve never seen God create anything.

      • Reason2012

        Which is why I’m not calling it science. Too bad you now forget this when it comes to the fish to mankind anti-science belief system when the entire human race has never seen any such thing.

  • ButILikeCaves

    Darn those atheists I have to keep shooing off my porch, with their blank pamphlets…

  • ZappaSaid88

    The article moans about the “aggressive atheists” indoctrinating kids and ends with a quote about how the religious should indoctrinate them sooner. So indoctrination isn’t the issue, it’s who gets to do it to the kids first.

    • Azsteve53

      No, it is all about political propaganda, there is plenty of science for creation, that is a fact, God is real, why do you call the teaching of scientific fact propaganda??

      Atheism is indefensible scientifically

  • Rick Derris

    They’re teaching kids science!

    The horror!

    • Chet

      Science from the pit of Hell… In the beginning God…

      • Azsteve53

        Evolution is NOT science, never has been never will be. Science has left evolution in the dust, current science clearly shows there is a creator, a designer, atheism is indefensible scientifically

        • Rick Derris

          Please show the peer reviewed studit’s that claim this.

        • Glandu

          Source?

          • Azsteve53

            The site does not allow links so here are excerpts:

            At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012)

            Creationists have written regarding the fraudulent nature of Haeckel’s work and how a prestigious German science journal published his dubious work.[3][4]

            Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe publicly exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel’s embryos in a NY Times article.[5] It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in a manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community – namely though a high profile NY Times article.[6]

            Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells contends that the book shows that “the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked.”

            Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign.[11] It was found that he falsified dates on many “stone age” fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals.[12] The scientific fraud only came to light when he was caught attempting to sell his department’s complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.[13] An investigation later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as genuine ones.[14]

            “The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the evolutionary view was the case of Piltdown man.[15] More recently, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the Archaeoraptor was a large embarrassment to National Geographic.”

            The list goes on and on and the science for creation and design is overwhelming

    • Azsteve53

      No they are teaching the kids atheist propaganda, atheism is indefensible scientifically, this sis political science not ral science

      • Rick Derris

        “this sis political science not ral science”

        I don’t think I need to say more.

        • Azsteve53

          You say nothing you posted this as I was editing the post. Major fail.

          Now do you have a real scientific rebuttal or are you here to be dishonest

          • Rick Derris

            “You say nothing you posted this as I was editing the post. Major fail.”

            I posted my reply an hour after you made your comment. There’s no need to lie!

            That first sentence was a run-on sentence.

            “Now do you have a real scientific rebuttal or are you hear to be dishonest??”

            You had nine hours to edit that!

          • Azsteve53

            Sure you lied, I edited minutes after and left withing the hour. I see you indeed are intellectually dishonest, you have no debate, just attack, attack without meaning, using pathological lies as if your point means something except to intellectually dishonest debaters.

            I suppose that when you have no science, no evidence, and no way to defend atheism pointing out spelling errors that were edited in minutes is the best you can do.

            I understand you now, no science nothing, thanks for making my point,

          • Rick Derris

            “Sure you lied, I edited minutes after and left withing the hour.”

            You had four hours!

            And no, I don’t have to debate science with you, because there’s nothing to debate. You’re a man that prides himself on your own ignorance. When you claim that biological sciences are, “political science”, you have shown that you are completely ignorant of science.

  • Tangent002

    As I recall, the religious right was upset over ‘The Lorax’ because it taught that man should not have dominion over nature.

  • Tangent002

    Bravo! American kids lag behind other nations in STEM competency.

  • Tangent002

    I’m old enough to remember all of the children’s story books that talked about Adam and Eve and the flood of Noah. This was regular material in public schools.

    If science finally gets its day in the sun, so be it.

  • Nidalap

    Meh. It’s a theory.
    Science calls on us to PROVE a theory before we go about treating it as a fact.
    Nowadays they’ll just change the definition of theory around a bit.

    ‘We don’t have to prove this one! It’s so good, we’ll just say it’s the kind of theory you can substitute in for a fact.’…

    • Cady555

      One should Google and read the definition of a scientific theory, lest one appear ignorant.

  • Chrissy Vee

    Hoo boy, are these guys in for a surprise.

  • Alan Tan Miao Thong

    All of us here, creationists and evolutionists, are all bigoted at some point of view. So let’s take a look from a moral perspective. So, from an atheistic point of view, there’s no such thing as right and wrong as there is no “moral code of conduct” to adhere to. There are therefore no such thing as happiness, sorrow, anger, jealousy, since these are all response of hormones and synapses to differing stimuli. From a theistic point of view, it explains at the very least what atheists can never explain, why there is emotions, why there is sentience in human beings- because someone bigger with all those made them. Sometimes, we can argue about facts all the time while ignoring common truth in our faces. Of course, atheists will again say that there is no such thing as truth- therefore, their statements are also, well, statements- neither true nor false.

    • Cady555

      Say what? I am an atheist and my sense of right and wrong is chugging along just fine. I am fully capable of experiencing all human emotion. There is nothing inherently religious about emotion. The very idea is silly.

      There is certainly such a thing as truth.

      With all due respect, you might want to listen to what atheists have to say rather than making incorrect and offensive assumptions.

      • Alan Tan Miao Thong

        Hi! Thanks for responding. But can I know what is your definition of right and wrong? And why is there emotion? Now I am not denying that we all have emotions =) But I’m just curious what do atheists think about the reasons for emotions and all those things. Hope you can enlighten me

        • Cady555

          Thanks.

          Do you honestly think non Christians or non theists do not experience human emotion? This is a human quality.

          Every human culture has a moral structure. Some things are universal – don’t murder members of the group for example. Others are specific to the culture – dietary restrictions, clothing and appearance, etc. People use religion to enforce cultural rules, but that is just a tool to ensure compliance. For example, Europeans living in a cold climate wore layers of clothing. When missionaries traveled to tropical climates they accused natives of immorality for wearing such skimpy clothing. They said Christianity required European clothing styles. Now we have a completely different standard of what clothing choices are “moral”. Yet we still assign moral value to some clothing choices.

          Morality is what allows humans to live together. An honest reading of the bible would show that we ignore many of the moral rules in place when the bible was written and have other moral principals not envisioned by biblical writers. Example – I expect we agree that it would be wrong to allow a 60 year old man to marry an 11 year old child. Yet nothing in the bible condemns such a marriage.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Actually, Cady, there are two kinds of truths: Objective and subjective.

            An objective truth is that which is independently verifiable to be true, such as facts derived from physics and scientific research independent of theology.

            A subjective truth is that which cannot be independently verified, such as religious belief. One’s religious belief is most often a product of what one was taught to believe from tot-hood.

            A person born to a Christian family is taught to believe the mostly unverifiable “truths” of the Bible. A person born to a Muslim family will be taught to believe in the mostly unverifiable “truths” of Islam. And whatever religion one is taught to believe, most often he believes it just as fervently as any other person believes his religion.

            And, each will believe that all others believe “false religions.” This is precisely why religion will never bring about peace on Earth.

            There are also truths in logic. The one I gave you above is a logical truth. it is logically undeniable.

            And no one can verify anyone’s personal “religious experience.”

            Morality, or ethics, for an atheist, lies in the realm of social philosophy. In fact, Christianity was greatly influenced by secular, social philosophy during and after the Enlightenment. Before that (and in some instances after that) Christianity was largely immoral and completely anti freedom of conscience–a result, first, of Old Testament “morality” and dogmatic strictures in the Gospels.

            I, as a de facto atheist, try to follow only one, great tenet: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Most religions (including Christianity) profess that tenet, but then they’ve built high walls of exclusive dogma that crush that single, greatest tenet beneath.

            Examples of the Golden Rule:

            I will debate with civility because I want others to do the same with me.

            I will not kill you because I would not want you to kill me.

            I will not steal from you because I do not want your to steal from me.

            I will not tell you whom to marry or how you should seek happiness, because I don’t want you telling me whom to marry and how to seek happiness.

            I honor your right to publish books about your subjective religious truths because I want you to honor my right to publish books about objective scientific truths.

            What “good” god would not approve?

          • Cady555

            Yes . And in most cultures the moral principles apply to members of the group. Do not murder or steal from other members of the group. But slaughtering entire villages of outsiders and taking their land is not just fine but rewarded.

            Morality to me isn’t just “do unto others,” it is expanding the group of those entitled to society’s protection until it includes every person, be they an immigrant, or gay, or trans, or muslims

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I think most any atheist would agree that slaughtering people to take their land (as did Europeans in their conquest of the Americas) as ISIS does today is certainly against logical ethics. But ISIS isn’t representative of all Islam. They are extreme radicals. We have a few of these in Christianity–far fewer than in Islam.

            I do not agree that most cultures toss out their moral principles when they deal with other cultures. Some do, but I think that most do not. More often than not, a group will strongly resist when other cultures attempt to impose their values on them–as our culture has done in the Middle East for at last two centuries.

            Religious certitude, I think, is at the bottom of it all. Religious exclusivity and fundamentalism is at the bottom of ISIS ideology. I do not excuse it anymore than I excuse the Christian ideology of exclusivity.

            When I left de fato fundamentalism and racism during army basic training and in particular during my years in college, I realized that this religious, mental territorialism is the primary cause of conflict today.

            Religion enhances the desire for dominance (spreading itself). It is certainly inherent in Christian ideology to proselytize (convert) all others to the culture.

            But I think your idea of “expanding” your religious views of morality (enlarging the group) of Christianity is not possible because you will never incorporate the groups of which you target anymore than they will incorporate you. This leads only to conflict, peaceful and not so peaceful.

            You’ve every right to debate the issues, but when science and freedom of conscience are in conflict with biblical views, and biblical views are in conflict with other religions, you have a serious, unsolvable problem.

          • Cady555

            I think we have and we are expanding the definition of “us”. It happens with fits and starts but it happens.

            For centuries enslaving Africans was justified by Christians quoting Bible verses because “they” weren’t quite as human as “us”. Now we extend freedom from indentured servitude to everyone.

            For centuries, slaughtering Native Americans, taking their land and breaking promise after promise was justified. Now we are beginning to extend to them the projections of society.

            Are immigrants “others” to be feared or fellow humans to be afforded dignity? We are slowly moving toward fellow humans.

            We aren’t perfect, but as compared to the Europe of prior centuries we are making progress.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I can agree with all that. But by your idea of inclusion of “gay, or trans, or muslims,” are you saying you want them protected under the first Amendment of the Constitution or within the fold of Christianity where they must “adjust” to fundamentalist Christian views of morality–which would mean a conversion?

          • Cady555

            Essentially, I think society should extend respect, human rights and the protections of society to all people, without regard to label. This is the opposite of tribalism.

            My definition of humanism is moving past human tribes to see all people as people entitled to the protections of society. For example, under Jim Crow blacks in the South could be lynched and they had no recourse. The protection of society from murder did not extend to them.

            Humans form tribes. It is what we do. Christians will continue to hold christian beliefs.

            The important thing is that civilization continue to move forward in extending respect and protection across tribal lines.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Essentially, I think society should extend respect, human rights and the protections of society to all people, without regard to label. This is the opposite of tribalism.

            This is something on which we certainly agree. It is naturally written in our genetic makeup–our evolutionary heritage.

            I think humans form tribes, mainly because we are naturally gregarious and have a strong impulse to identity (tribal acceptance) and group protection, traits present in other species.

            I am here reminded of one natural human trait I should have included in my previous post: xenophobia, which causes human tribes to view most others with suspicion and gives individuals a sense of security. Humans, unlike other species, can override xenophobia with reason.

            Christians will continue to hold christian beliefs.

            And so will virtually every person of every religion. It is a mental territory and forms tribes of like-minded individuals. I feel myself fortunate to have had a level of reason that enabled me to break from that tribe when I realized that it was, indeed, territorial, amorphic, and almost entirely dependent upon happenstance of birth (into which tribe, which culture).

            By moving away from my religion tribe, I lost a good deal of my xenophobia and gained a greater understanding of the natural human condition. All religions are alike in the sense that they are all taught to children, generation after generation for millennia.

            And, BTW, Islam is the fastest growing religion of all, according to the Pew Research Center.

          • rsdfwd

            “But ISIS isn’t representative of all Islam.”
            ————–
            ISIS is comprised of the “good” and faithful muslims. Read the Koran yourself.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Yes they are. But the “good” ISIS members are far more faithful to their ancient, angry warrior god and its draconian laws than Christians and Jews–which, as I’m sure you know, is the god of all three religions before Abraham. Were Christians and Jews to be as faithful, it would be a bloody world indeed.

            Read your Bible–especially the story of the Canaan genocide in Joshua.

          • rsdfwd

            Bull pucks and a false dilemma. Anybody who thinks that the Muslim allah is the same as the Abrahamic God is woefully misinformed and non-discerning. The Koran is in serious error regarding the Bible. Don’t drink their Kool-Aid.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I didn’t expect that you were formally educated in world religions. You really should know what you are talking about before you enter into a debate. Otherwise, to the educated, you appear as a fool.

          • rsdfwd

            I am. You are what’s known in Hebrew as a LYTS, lamed-yod-tsade.

            Errors in the Koran:
            Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran.
            Abraham offered Ishmael, not Isaac, as a sacrifice.
            Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister (he lived 1000 year later).
            Abraham and Ishmael, his son, are the ones who built The Ka’ba in Mecca.
            Alexander the Great reached the place of the sunset and found it set down in a well of water and mud.
            [allah] created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood.
            When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads….
            Your guardian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days OR Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days.
            There is no Compulsion in religion. OR Fight those who do not profess the true faith until they pay the poll tax with the hand of humility.

          • rsdfwd

            “…Christianity was largely immoral and completely anti freedom of conscience–a result, first, of Old Testament “morality” and dogmatic strictures in the Gospels.”
            —————
            You are apparently are unfamiliar with the Hebrew Wisdom Literature.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            That one group can imagine a single god creating all there is instead of a group of gods born of a creator in retirement lends not a molecule of truth to what is imagined.

            Virtually all the living, organized religions have their “wisdom literature,” but that, again, lends not a whit of truth to them.

            No matter what is written in the literature, it was written by humans subject to all the prejudices and fancies the ancients had–but are today called “divine” inspiration.

            Non Christian/Hebrew sages of religion and/or philosophical thought have added greatly to today’s traditions, and some of those wise thoughts run through virtually all religions and social philosophies.

            Which do you believe to be true en mass? The one(s) you were taught to believe, of course.

            You are apparently unfamiliar with informal logic.

          • rsdfwd

            Lovely non sequitur. Where do you preach?

            You are apparently unfamiliar with logical fallacies.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Point out what you think is a non sequitur. Put it in a logical syllogism.

          • rsdfwd

            P1: You are apparently are unfamiliar with the Hebrew Wisdom Literature.
            P2: Virtually all the living, organized religions have their “wisdom literature, (non-respnsive to P1)
            P3: But that…lends not a whit of truth to them. (presented as a conclusion to P2)

            Maybe you can sort your mess out.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Forget it, fool. That post was completely unintelligible. You added your accusation to my answer to make is sound absurd. You are a liar and a cheat. Great family values you have.

          • rsdfwd

            We have a theater near us with an opening. You are great at projection. Call 333-555-1212.

            You might have the intellect required for that.

          • rsdfwd

            “Some things are universal – don’t murder members of the group for example.”
            ————
            But that is not universal. Check out the Aztecs.

      • rsdfwd

        “There is certainly such a thing as truth.”
        ————-
        Omitting math and geometry, which need no validation, all other “truth” seems to be subjective.

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    evolution-propagandizing & life according to Charles Darwin?

    So, teaching kids science is “propagandizing?” What hypocrisy! So, no books are written about the myth of Adam and Eve portrayed as fact? The myth of Noah (alias Utnapishtim)? The myth of an israelite genocide in Canaan?

    And, Darwin actually says nothing about the origin of life. It’s the origin of species.

    • rsdfwd

      Actually, it isn’t even about that. Darwin claimed that today’s processes can be extrapolated back and account for the appearance of higher groupings. By not adopting a hierarchical view, he believed that all of the gaps in the fossil record could be filled.

      As Mark Twain noted: There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment in fact.”

      • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

        By not adopting a hierarchical view, he believed that all of the gaps in the fossil record could be filled.

        And a huge number of gaps have, indeed, been filled. But religious fundamentalists completely misunderstand the process. There will always be gaps to be filled. We learn more every day through discovery and research.

        That is what science is all about. It is deductive, not inductive as is religion. It does not begin with an unquestionable conclusion as does religion. That is why a hypothesis can become a scientific theory.

        And Mark Twain was not a scientist and likely never had any formal training in the sciences. Your “quote” was an appeal to a very poorly informed authority. Today, he might think the opposite.

        • rsdfwd

          Non sequitur. Diversion. Straw man.

          I’m not making a religious argument and have no religion. You can’t pigeon-hole me into your little box so you can unload your stock tired arguments on me.

          And yes, my quote was a quote, and not a “quote”. The late award-winning biologist Richard Lewontin has update Mr. Twain:

          “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Yes you are making a religious argument, and a deceitful one at that. The quote you picked (as did Creation Ministries International) was taken out of context and completely misconstrued–a tactic that creationists (and conservatives in the political arena) are forever using–they’ve even done it to Dawkins, causing the reader to think Dawkins was having second thoughts about his de facto atheism. They’ve done it, as well, with a quote from Stephen Jay Gould.

            That’s real family values for you.

            You misread what he said and concluded that he was giveing a scaving review of science and suggesting that science should consider a “divine foot” in their research. He was not saying that at all. He was saying that science, by its very nature, often arrives at answers that are an affront to the “common sense” of the vast, uninitiated public–unschooled in science). But science cannot do otherwise, otherwise it wouldn’t be science.

            But, of course there have been scientific theories that are, today, considered absurdities. That the earth is the center of the universe was obvious to anyone. It was “common sense. Even bright people, could reason that “fact.” Such a common sense knowledge was the ptolemaic model of the universe, backed by both observation and the Bible (god’s foot in the door).

            It was the advance of secular science that proved both (Ptolemy and the Church) to be wrong. Yet, largely because of religion, humans continued to believe that model for many decades.

            What Lewontin was saying, then, is that science CANNOT allow religious belief to interfere with research. If we were to do that, then there wouldn’t be any need for science. “God did it, I believe it, that settles it.” No stupid science necessary. Disease is caused by demons conjured up by the incantations of witches. The earth is flat and the center of the universe. Secular scientists are liars.

          • rsdfwd

            Bull! You shamelessly misconstrue the article. The argument is that materialists look only for material solutions due to a priori biases, which cannot be had for things like emotions, feelings, consciousness, how one’s mind can communicate with one’s brain, mathematics, geometry, and other qualia. These are metaphysical arguments. Science can’t even demonstrate the effectiveness of the scientific method. These are NOT religious arguments. You are a one-trick pony and philosophically illiterate.

            If you want a discussion of beginnings, .i.e., the Big Bang (non-religious), I’ll be happy to engage you on logical and scientific grounds (including thermodynamics). Actually, you are hopelessly biased, so I’ll probably pass on that, too.

  • peanut butter

    These atheists won’t stop until they have taken God and the truth out of everything and everywhere. The ONLY way to counter this is for parents with the proper religious upbringing to teach their children in the way that they should go so that they never depart from it. And watch out for what books they check out at school. This crazy author will probably donate millions of them to school to teach them ‘established facts’, as he calls them. People without God will certainly go to extremes to ruin the world. But a falling away has been prophesied. They will ultimately succeed. But they don’t HAVE to SUCCEED with YOUR children or grandchildren.

  • Mark Steiner

    Ken Ham comment: “Yes, secularists know where the battle is in this culture: it’s for the hearts and minds of the next generation. And they are growing increasingly aggressive in trying to capture the next generation—starting from a younger and younger age,” wrote Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham in a review of “Grandmother Fish.” “That’s why parents and church leaders need to be active in discipling the next generation to stand on the authority of God’s Word from the very beginning.”

    But church leaders have failed miserably. Many don’t believe the Scripture or study the whole counsel of God. When approached by a student about origins, often a response is “go to your teacher. They have the answers about science and origins”.

    No, only God’s Word has the foundation to understand origins. Without this foundation, believers in Christ Jesus have nothing.

  • Chet

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

  • Azsteve53

    Evolution is degenerate science, it is NOT science and this instruction in evolution is not even valid science or current. What is being taught, I mean indoctrinated here is propaganda, nothing more

  • Azsteve53

    Can an atheist post peer reviewed science that states there is no God? Noooope, there is none, science has moved on from materialism ans science now supports creation and design, what is left for the atheists is indoctrination to maintain the orthodoxy, the atheists are just like the old Soviet Pravda media, despite facts and reality they insist that their view is the only one that matters, in other words all the atheists have is blind faith contrary to science and facts

  • Azsteve53

    Ask an atheist to offer a scientific rebuttal to this science, incidentally from an atheist:

    At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012)’

    The atheist cannot rebut this science, the peer reviewed link can be found at Tufts university.

    I can tell you how the atheist will react however, the atheist will claim there is no science for Creation or design, when evidence for creation and design is posted, the atheist denies the evidence thereby completing the circle of delusion and denial

  • Azsteve53

    Our DNA contains biological information, Information can only come from a mind. From a biologist on information:

    “The key point is that just like letters in a meaningful sentence, the sequential arrangement of nucleotide bases in DNA contains information (the assembly instructions to make proteins from amino acids) and an intelligent cause (God) is a valid explanation for the origin of this biological information’

    Information can only come from a mind, when you have 23000 pairs of protein encoded genes (DNA) with millions of processes going on in them that are NOT linear and have to be in perfect order for life the burden falls to the atheist to explain how nothing created something for no reason without information or guidance.

    Mathematics has shown without doubt random can not be the cause, so atheists how did it happen, eh??? Show us the evolution science that explains it.

  • Azsteve53

    Hey atheists, answer these questions scientifically, can you?

    1.What caused the universe to exist?

    2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

    3.Why is the universe rational?

    4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

    5.Where did the genetic code come from?

    6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

    7.How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?

    8.Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000BC?

    9.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?

    10.How do we account for self-awareness?

    11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

    12.How do we account for conscience?

    13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

    14.Why does suffering matter?

    15.Why do human beings matter?

    16.Why care about justice?

    17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?

    18.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?

    19.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

    20.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church?

    Any answers atheist, eh?

  • Azsteve53

    Avery good summation, unattributed but on target, well worth a re=post:

    “Science has caught up with the Bible in proving that the only God that could exist is the Biblical God. Only and Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Being can be responsible for the Universe and all that it contains. The Bible told us polytheism was false, and there was only one God, the Transcendent One who inhabits Eternity, and science has verified that polytheism is absurd and impossible.

    Since Time, Space and Matter are all properties of this universe, the Cause of such things must be outside of time, hence Eternal, Omnipotent and immaterial. The Logical deductions made reveal to us all the attributes of the God of the Bible.”

    On the money, science has destroyed evolution, now its adherents have to proselytize to children to make sure their orthodoxy and religion is carried on,

    Have no doubt atheism is a religion, the courts have ruled it one and atheists have their own churches and dogma

  • Azsteve53

    I saved this, a Christian apologist answer to a political atheist, well worth a re-post, it applies here:

    “ABSURD. You have no evidence God does not exist. Present your evidence. When challenged, neither Hitches, Dawkins, Harris, or the rest of the mental midgets ever presented a positive case scientifically. Neither will you.

    Since the knowledge of, and belief in Deity is in the breast of all people, in all nations, in all ages, that one internal FACT is strong evidence. People KNOW there is a God. No atheist can explain this universal fact. Atheism is an aberration. It is not natural.

    Further, there is evidence right here on youtube for the soul’s existence. Don’t be so lazy.

    Anyone that CLAIMS, like you do, when looking at a painting, that there was no Painter because you’ve never seen him–who can look at a building and deny the need for a Builder, is a KOOK. The Painting itself is PROOF there is a Painter–I don’t need to meet him!

    The Universe is obviously a fine-tuned, done to the molecular and cellular level, DESIGN. It is incredible. Those who DENY that an Effect HAD NO CAUSE has quite the burden of proof. We all no there are NO CAUSELESS EFFECTS. None can be demonstrated ANYWHERE.

    You posit something so fantastic, so counter-intuitive, so contrary to all we see and experience, so contrary to all science, that you had better have powerful evidence.

    Atheists HAVE NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE for their position. So they lie, mock, denigrate, lie some more, lampoon, etc. I see right through them all. All the clown, apparently, aren’t in the Circus

  • Azsteve53

    An answer to the political atheists that haunt these threads and insist on attacking Christians because they cannot defend their atheism scientifically;

    From a Christian apologist and it applies to evolution:

    “Now lookie–I’m not the one who posits an effect without a cause–YOU DO! The burden is on you. I don’t look at a painting and exclaim “there was no painter” because I have never seen him! YOU DO. I don’t look at it, and see OBVIOUS EVIDENCE of design and intelligence in such an object and then deny the obvious–but you do.

    We don’t posit Santa Claus to explain the origin of a painting, or a building. So why would Santa be brought up when trying to explain something far more serious and colossal–the universe itself and all life as we know it?? We posit a transcendant, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Being as sufficient to account for the universe and all its features. To bring up Santa Claus is to be either:

    a-totally stupid and beyond rational help

    b-more likely, the manifestation is sin by being utterly deceitful by inserting such folly into the most serious discussion anyone can ever have.

    So which is it? No serious person can respect the fool that brings up Santa Claus into this debate. If you want Santa–vote democrat. They lyingly promise people everything for “free”, like magic, and the fat, lazy dupes vote these Marxists into power, who then proceed to debase and destroy the nation;

    Destroying traditional values is the goal of the atheists according to the quotes of Vladimir Lenin.

  • rsdfwd

    ““In a little corner, on a tiny blue dot, deep under the ocean, in a very special spot…An itty bitty thing woke up anew, and came alive. I tell you, it’s true!” the owl says.”
    ————
    This is science? A corner? Blue dot? How can something never alive “wake up anew?” Who writes this crap and calls it science? Maybe it was the old Sylvania BlueDot ™ idea flashbulb set off by the electric eel that didn’t exist yet.

  • Robert

    This is the best reason to let parent have school choise so that instead they can send their children to chritian schools.