‘Junk Science’? Biblical Creation Group Included on List of Disreputable Websites

A prominent Creation science group is pushing back after their website was included on a widely-shared list of allegedly untrustworthy sources and described as “junk science.”

After “fake news” became a subject of national discussion during the 2016 presidential election, Melissa Zimdars, an assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College, compiled an online document that lists disreputable websites and news sources.

Originally created as a resource for her students, Zimdars’s document lists hundreds of “false, misleading, clickbait-y, and satirical” websites.

“Obviously, fake news is a major problem,” Zimdars wrote in a column for The Washington Post. “We need to make sure people have the tools to detect it, and we need to understand why people may purposefully share news they know to be fake—maybe they’re being malicious, they think it’s funny or it aligns with what they want to be true. And we definitely need to find ways to discourage the production of non-comedy, non-satire fake news.”

Zimdars’s document has since been widely shared on social media sites and spotlighted by numerous news outlets. Harvard University published a link to the list on their library’s “Fake News, Misinformation, and Propoganda” page, along with an infographic warning students not to get “taken in” by fake news.

Although Zimdars noted that not all of the sources in her list are “inherently problematic,” they do tend to distort headlines, publish dubious information and mislead readers.

One of the sites included on the professor’s document is ICR.org, the website of the Institute for Creation Research. Zimdar tagged the group’s website as “junk science,” which she defines as “sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims.”

  • Connect with Christian News

In a blog post published on Monday, Brian Thomas of ICR contested the “junk science” label and defended the organization’s reputability.

“Junk science describes conclusive-sounding statements with no support from experiment or observation,” Thomas argued. “Examples of junk science include flat earth theories, manipulated climate reports, and a variety of unproven health-related claims. It should also include areas like astrobiology—meaning ‘space life’—that have zero study samples.”

Not only does ICR’s team try to expose junk science, Thomas said, but research on their website has been published by secular sources.

“ICR.org contains thousands of science articles that painstakingly reference original technical science sources,” he wrote. “For example, our report of an enzyme that locates DNA damage sites using an ingenious electrical current detector was not just junk. The journal Theoretical Biology & Medical Modeling published those research results.”

“Our report on a Psittacosaurus fossil from China with original skin, including its original skin shade patterns, was not just junk. The source research was published in Current Biology,” Thomas added.

The ICR team’s belief in the biblical worldview is what sets them apart from other science groups, Thomas noted.

“When we report on the good science behind stunning ingenuity in DNA repair enzymes, for example, we feel free to credit the Creator,” he stated. “When we report on the good science behind preservation of short-lived tissues still persisting in dinosaur and other fossils, we feel free to include the Bible’s recent Flood as a reasonable explanation. Today’s anti-Creator, anti-Bible attitudes clearly clash with this biblical history.”

“Many find it easier to simply label the Bible as ‘junk’ than to actually investigate it. If they peered inside, they would find that the Bible is painfully true, to the point that it exposes the junk that inhabits every human heart,” he continued. “We challenge readers to search for legitimate junk on ICR.org, having confidence that peering into ICR.org’s nearly half-century worth of content similarly reveals a long trend of good science—conclusions based on experimental results and reliable eyewitnesses.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Secular people no longer seek the objective truth because science continues to point towards the Creator God. Immorality makes people hateful against the truth. Christians alone seek the truth unconditionally and possess it, the life-saving one at that.

    • why not what

      … yay, look what happens when we shut off mental health funding…

      • Jason Todd

        Yeah. We have homeless people, the “antifa,” “Black Lives Matter,” transgendered…I understand completely.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        No, secular West and all its mental slaves need Judeo-Christian teachings to be sane and sober again. Men get mental illness when they have no purpose of living in a Sodom-like society. Secular West prohibits truth and purity; no wonder the society is so broken. Man should seek the truth and live for the glory of God and protection of women and children to be honorable and meaningful. You must repent of your sin to get saved. Read the Gospel of John chapter 3 to discover how to get saved.

        • Arthur Belling

          No one is a mental slave. Free thinking is that scary to you?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            USA imprisons and fines those who oppose the sins of homosexuality and transgenderism. It thirsts after slavery again; this time by immorality instead of racism. Westerners need Christianity for a proper conscience.

          • Harry Weaver

            And the truth is this “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all nations that forget God. I believe the next four years will tell if our nation recovers under this president or we will come under the judgement of God.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes. Please resist the Nazi Sodomism in your land and never submit to the Sodomites. America determines all free world.

          • Harry Weaver

            Thank you for the support. Blessings.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you. We Christians are always together. Always greatly thankful to all American Christians.

          • Arthur Belling

            No Grace. It is not illegal to oppose homosexuality and transgenderism. If you lived here, you’d know that.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Christians in North America are testifying it. Secular Western whites are trying to enslave mankind with homosexuality and all kinds of sexual perversions by ranting equality. They’d have sex with anything and everything and are destroying the children including their own. You guys are returning to public nudism and Roman/Greek porns after losing Christianity because those stupid porns are your only originals.

            Only greedy fools become Western white pervs’ slaves by being submissive to them and mimicking them. No thanks. American whites need the Holy Bible for freedom just as American blacks needed it for freedom. No slavery to Western white pervs. Never again. You guys are normal only when you follow the Holy Bible. Don’t be so suicidal when the nations are going extinct with childlessness.

          • Arthur Belling

            Homosexuality isn’t a perversion. It’s a normal variation within human sexuality. You’ve been taught by some religious fanatics that it’s basically a one-way trip to hell. Those people are corroded with hate, and you should not pay attention to them.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Homosexuality is a sin like pedophilia, incest, and animal-raping. If one has lust over the same-sex member, he’d have sex with anything. Read Leviticus chapter 18-20 and Romans 1. The West is too well-fed and being bored. And the culture has become destructive-stupid by scorning Christianity and truth and morality. Rich people do some sickest things when they suffer mental illness. Today’s Western culture is typical of warped rich pervs. Read Psalm 14 as well. The West needs Christianity to get some sanity again.

          • Arthur Belling

            You appear to have little to no understanding of mutual consent. That is a problem, Grace. Have your English teacher explain it to you so you can know the difference between mutual consent and abuse.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Most homosexuals were raped in their childhood and transgenders have been falsely educated. Drug-taking and prostitution and suicide and cannibalism are done with mutual consent, too, or so claimed, but those are never right. Sin is sin. Western culture is crazy to treat abhorrent sins and natural things like birth gender and skin colors together. The West thirsts after slavery by bending the truth and human conscience. Secular Americans are stupid to fall into the same pit of Nazi Germany. Maybe too many addicts in the land and too many are thinking humans. In any case, wrong is wrong. You guys have been controlled by evil activist judges. Don’t cling to immorality; cling to God’s truth and be free. Sin is slavery.

          • Arthur Belling

            No, most homosexuals were not raped. Where are you getting your information from?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            From Christian news sites. Ex-homosexuals testify. A culture that endorses homosexuality endorses sex with anything; that’s not a human society and will be destroyed. Such chaos must be stopped by normal people. The Western whites pretend to be remourseful over the past’s racism too much. Who imagined that the well-fed bored insane West would apply racial equality upon sexual depravity and bully mankind? Shame on the West’s playboys and playgirls. The West is thirsty after the slavery of humanity and it must be stopped. You guys have been drugged by the liberals for decades, and that’s why you lost most senses of right and wrong. The West should stop prohibiting morality and hurting the children. You need the Holy Bible for the truth and freedom.

          • Arthur Belling

            Wherever your information comes from, it’s wrong. Being sexually abused does nothing to change a person’s sexual orientation, which we know from science is either formed before birth or in the early stages of infancy. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. It is strictly biology.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, most are learned inclinations and cultural defects. There are many other factors such as too many blasphemies, break-ups of family unit (divorce), absense of virgin women to marry, public nudism, legalized abortion, liberalism’s indoctrinations at schools, porn entertainment, addictions, and demon-possession. Science says homosexuality is harmful.

          • Arthur Belling

            That is simply untrue, Grace. You’re attempting to tie this simple biological matter into your faith/belief system/revenge fantasy. Homosexuality cannot be cured because it is not a disease.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Secular West is trying to enslave mankind by denying God’s truth and bending the human conscience. Homosexuality is a willful sin; that’s why the Holy Bible prohibits it. Rapists and pedophiles claim they cannot be helped, either, but they are lying. Men should be shameful about their sins, never boast or use the state to force others bend the truth and conscience. Western liberals are enjoying making Christians suffer. They are the bullies and well-dressed savages. Cowards and fools and money-worshippers become their slaves. Today’s Western whites and their mental slaves need the Holy Bible for freedom and civility.

          • Harry Weaver

            It was said by Ruth Graham: “When God judges America, He will first have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God never makes apology; so we know what will happen to the nations that forsake the Lord. It’s so strange this century that the freedom-loving Americans, among all peoples on earth, would demand others to serve or accommodate the pervs. Those activist judges and politicians must be some aliens from the outer space who desire to destroy the USA, so it seems. This is sarcasm because we know there are no aliens, and even if they are, we Earthlings will not be allowed to meet them.

            I also told unbelieving Americans to be thankful about the Christian Americans because Christian Americans are the only reason the nation is not nuked yet. Other rich secular nations are the same, for the matter. Of course we plead our Lord mercy for all our children, but I do wish Jesus would return very soon. Our world has become too evil. The Muslims’ conversion to Jesus Christ is the only good news in the world. Thank God for His mercy for the Muslims! His holy will be done.

          • Harry Weaver

            Hopefully the changes will come about through Trump.
            I caught two threads that threatened his life. I did advise them that Homeland Security keeps watch with special software. Went back later and the whole page was gone!!!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Good! It’s so unbelievably fierce how the liberals talk about even President Trump’s assasination. Their true colors are shown. Americans need Christian education. Even if the foreign terrorists become quiet, the bored domestic kids would do senseless killing. People need Christian teachings to value life.

          • Harry Weaver

            How did aids start? When some pervert had sex with a monkey. Then the aids virus started in epidemic levels through the gays, through gay sex, and then to others of the hetersexuals. It was predicted this would happen. And it did.
            So it is not correct to say us people are corroded with hate for the persons, but for the hatred against something abnormal and has been an abomination in the sight of God almighty. From ancient times, and also sex with animals.
            I heard this joke: “I voted democratic so I could marry my German Shepherd!”

          • Arthur Belling

            AIDS didn’t start with someone having sex with a monkey. That’s a hilariously ridiculous old rumour that was debunked decades ago. AIDS affects everyone, not just gay men, that’s a tired old stereotype and we aren’t in the 1980s anymore when it was “the gay disease”.

            Your problem is similar to Grace’s, you’re taking a biological issue, ignoring the science, and using it as a religious hatred issue.

          • Harry Weaver

            If it was debunked then when and how? You need to provide the right proof of that. It was likely “debunked” by a bunch of gays. Post the truth in the matter and information and proof it was debunked. People are still having sex with animals in this century as well as in ancient history.

          • Harry Weaver

            Gotcha. Another gay. Gay is GOT AIDS YET. And it was passed from a monkey and the gays propagated it and then it became epidemic.

          • Arthur Belling

            Right. Present your proof and we will determine just how sane this story is.

          • Harry Weaver

            China I heard from the news years ago wanted to block porn from the internet from entering its country. There are ways to do that with software.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The communists have a few nice things with them, but blocking porn would be not really possible just as drugs and alcohol and smoking and prostitutions and child-abuses are not. Our world is too sinful. Christian education continues to battle in the maddest dirt. Men sinning is one thing, but to be forced by the former Christian state to serve other men’s sick sins (such as baking cakes for gay weddings) is entirely another. We must fight together toi the end, till our King Jesus returns.

            The Western culture is using the term “equality” wrongly. I remember the era of the unthinkable for many – where white people were forced by the state to accept the colored people as the real equal entity, but applying that same principle to sexual pervs is altogether wrong. The former change is good but the latter is evil. I feel like American Christians are being punished for pushing equality for the colored people last century. People should have rights to morality in the Western nations. If America loses the rights to morality, the entire world’s grief would be too great because homosexuality leads to pedophilia.

          • Harry Weaver

            And correct on all points. I noted that even the communists didn’t want porn to enter their country. Just as the evil Muslim element makes it a death penalty. But evil is evil. And sin is sin.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes. Reverend, I noticed that, when followed accurately, Non-christian religions and ideologies and all cultures contain plenty abusive errors but do not overlap in evils, and that Christianity alone is right and pure and protects everyone. For example, the communist atheists persecute the religious people but do not push abnormal immorality like the Western secularism does; they know immorality is bad to nationhood.

            Secularism corrupts humanity but does not seize and massacre the religious people yet. Islam gives Non-Muslims the hardest time but opposes nudism and homosexuality. Eastern religions do not provide equality or justice though they teach respect. When any Non-christian entity including the Western secularism rules, it means massacre or serious human rights abuses against one group or another. Mankind need Christianity for salvation and human rights.

          • Harry Weaver

            I seemed to think that God may already be dividing the sheep from the goats with all the churches that are allowing same sex marriage. Now they are out in the open and exposed. And for a purpose! “We know who you are and we know what you do!!!” From an old movie.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, exactly! Thank God for His eternal Word. What a world we are living in!

          • Harry Weaver

            Have you read the Communist Manifesto? It states that immorality is one of the ways they planned to take over America. Homosexuality was one on the list.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, I haven’t, but I know what the communist atheists do to humans. Too many horrible records and testimonies. I don’t think the communists would plan to take over America by imposing homosexuality. I think the Westerners and their mimickers got into an error by putting the homosexuals and the colored in the same basket. Sexual immorality is sin, but skin colors are God’s creation.

            The homosexuals and transgenderers should be grouped together with the pedophiles and incest-practioners and cannibals. It is wrong to lust over the same-sex member just as it is wrong to lust over kids and kins and animals or to have appetitie for human flesh or dog meat. Unnatural and abnormal altogether. Leviticus 18-20 and Romans 1 and Jude 1.

            It is so evil of the Western culture today to force people to endorse homosexuality as if it is same as forcing yesteryears’ white people to treat the colored people with equality. Abolishing of racism was good, but imposing homosexuality is destructive evil. We must continue to battle against this tyranny by immorality by all means.

          • Harry Weaver

            I blocked one of the meddlers and I no longer see him.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            That’s wise. Some atheistic individuals are so unhuman and unbelievably horrible even coming into these Christian sites, but so many Western authorities and US companies are against Christianity and militant pro homosexual depravity that I thought all-frontal engagement is the only way to combat them all. True freedom this century is refusing to submit to rich American pervs on face. I hope many Christian Americans will follow the example of Rev. Franklin Graham instead of other unhurt leaders.

    • Copyleft

      One could argue that secular people are the ONLY ones who can seek objective truth. (Not quite correct, but valid to a first approximation.)

      Truth, you see, is that which verifiably comports with reality. Science–a 100% non-religious discipline–is one of our best tools for finding truth, because its findings are constantly tested against reality. “Religious truth” is an oxymoron.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. There is no truth apart from the Holy Bible. Secular West only seeks blasphemy and infanticide and suicide and immorality.

        • Copyleft

          Wow. Keep foaming, it’s great entertainment.

      • cadcoke5

        Yet, the secular scientists are constantly changing their opinion of how things work. “That is how science is supposed to work” is the stock reply. But, that doesn’t stop the secular scientists from declaring their truth to be absolute, when the view is popular amount their friends, and declaring anyone opposed to it, as anti-science.

        • Chris

          “But, that doesn’t stop the secular scientists from declaring their truth to be absolute, when the view is popular amount their friends, and declaring anyone opposed to it, as anti-science.”

          If any scientist does say that they are flat out wrong. Science doesn’t deal in absolute truth it deals in probability. Probability can get higher and higher with the evidence but NEVER amount to absolute truth. See the PDF ‘Role of probability theory in science – Assets’ for more info.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Funny thing is that Truth is an absolute and a Person Who IS absolute. Science is stumbling around trying to understand Him without acknowledging Him.

          • Chris

            “Funny thing is that Truth is an absolute and a Person Who IS absolute.”

            I know you believe that, and it may indeed be true, but until you can produce evidence in support it remains just a belief.

            “Science is stumbling around trying to understand Him without
            acknowledging Him.”

            Actually science isn’t trying to understand God and never was. It is trying to understand the nature of the universe. Unless you’re a pantheist that’s not exactly the same thing as God.

      • sandraleesmith46

        There aren’t “kinds” of truth; there is Truth and there are myriad lies. Oh, and Truth is a Person.

    • Harry Weaver

      DNA was one of the discoveries that caused some atheists to come to believe in God because it was too complex to have happened by evolution.
      Antony flew after reading the DNA research wrote his book “There is a God.” I have the book and read it. And another person skirts the idea on this discussion that he was a theist and skirts the idea against god of Christianity but is proven opposite by the people who are claiming “Intelligent design” which points directly to Genesis.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Yes, thank God! Science has been on Christians’ side all along. The existence of the Holy Bible also is the proof that God is.

        • Harry Weaver

          Today is Palm Sunday. Rejoice. The entry of King Jesus into The Holy City!
          They wanted the Lord to quiet down the people. Do you remember what He said? I know. Just wanted to hear from you.!!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Amen! Our King Jesus reigns! Yes, I remember. “The stones will cry out.” The entire creation is screaming at mankind that God is and He created everything. I decorated my church’s sanctuary with “Hosanna!” banner. It’s been a joy to anticipate the Lord’s return!

          • Harry Weaver

            And we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim His truth.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Amen.

          • Harry Weaver

            Psalm 19.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Amen. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.” ( Psalm 19:1-4)

  • Trilemma

    If icr dot org made the list, shouldn’t answersingenesis dot org be on the list too?

    • Johndoe

      Absolutely

  • balloonknot9

    I do not know ICR or any of the work they have done. However, I am not sure if I understand exactly what they are doing. Are they trying to prove scientifically biblical events or the existence of God? There are numerous scientific fields that already dabble in this area, such as archeology. I am skeptical of using the physical sciences like biology/chemistry to prove something biblical when there is little to no biblical reference to be found thereby coming to conclusions that are more of a leap of faith than actual fact.

    • Trilemma

      They’re trying to scientifically prove the universe is 6400 years old and that there was a global flood as recorded in the Bible.

      • Amos Moses

        they dont need to prove it ….. they are correcting the ideas put forth by pseudo-science and their inaccurate ideas of what the evidence shows ………..

        • Trilemma

          Yes, they do need to prove it. If they’re going to claim the universe is 6400 years old they need to prove it scientifically just as much as those who claim the universe is 13.79 ± 0.06 billion years old.

          • Amos Moses

            No …. scripture is either accepted as truth or rejected …… and what ICR is doing is correcting the lies about “the universe is 13.79 ± 0.06 billion years old” …. the evidence is the evidence and it is the same for all ….. the problem is what does the evidence show …. and that is determined by a persons worldview …… if you accept the scriptures …. then you will come to a conclusion in line with scripture …. if you reject the scriptures …. you will come up with “the universe is 13.79 ± 0.06 billion years old” …. and that is in error ……..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why is it an error?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Don’t feed the trolls.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay I guess you don’t actually want to have a discussion about this topic then. Silly me, I thought this was a discussion board. Where people discuss things.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes, silly you. And we all know you and the other trolls aren’t here to discuss. You’ve proven that time and again.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, what would I do differently if I WERE “here to discuss?”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Don’t feed the trolls. Oink Oink Matt. 7:6

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I give you an opportunity to teach me something, and all I get in return is insults and derision. Very mature.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’m rubber and your glue…

          • Chris

            how mature.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Don’t feed the trolls. Oink Oink Matt. 7:6

            You’re not fooling anyone. You’ve been trolling this site for months now with nothing more than the same drivel over and over. You have no desire to be taught anything because you’re too full of yourself and enjoy getting your jollies with the same regurgitated pablum over and over and over again.

            One again proving you are a fitting description of:

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Balerion

            Good idea. I will stop feeding you at once.

            (cue long winded response that I’m not even going to bother to read)

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for publicly displaying your ignorance and continued examples of a troll and psychological disorder. This is a CHRISTIAN site. I am a Christian. You are a God-hater. So who is the troll is readily apparent.

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Arthur Belling

            There is no such thing as a “God hater”. You merely use the phrase as a form of attack.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Yeah right. You’re living proof and your very continued presence on his is proof. Not to mention Facebook.

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Arthur Belling

            If you disbelieve in a God, you are not a God hater. That’s logic 101, Royce.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually that statement has NOTHING to do with “Logic 101”.

            And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things Hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
            (Joh 3:19-20)

            Jesus is Light. Jesus is God. Therefore those who hate the Light hate Jesus. See how that works? THAT is Logic 101.

            as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
            (Rom 3:10-18)

            Any thinking man with an ounce of gray matter between His ears can understand that one can hate something they disbelieve in. You not only hate God, you hate the very idea of God.

          • Arthur Belling

            “Any thinking man with an ounce of gray matter between His ears can
            understand that one can hate something they disbelieve in. You not only
            hate God, you hate the very idea of God.”

            Tell me something Royce, if you think something’s not there, how can you hate it? Take your time on this one.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Don’t need to take my time.

            Hate: feel intense or passionate dislike for someone or something

            Hatred or hate is a deep and extreme emotional dislike. It can be directed against individuals, groups, entities, objects, behaviors, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards hostility.

            And you demonstrate that repeatedly toward God on here.

            See? That wasn’t hard at all.

          • Arthur Belling

            Firstly you don’t know what I believe about God, so how can you possibly think I am hostile to God?

            You’re mistaking the hatred people do in the name of God which I DO passionately dislike for hating God’s existence, which I don’t. I happen to be agnostic, so if there’s a God I’d have no reason to hate Him. And if there isn’t, there’s still no reason to hate what isn’t there. Your definition of hatred was just fine above. But you didn’t answer my question which is, if I don’t think something is there, how can I hate it?

            So I’ll just keep repeating that question until you feel ready to answer it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, but I do.

            “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.” (Mat 15:18)

            “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Luk 6:45)

            “Thus every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces evil fruit…Consequently, by their fruits you shall know them.”
            (Mat 7:17-20)

            ” I happen to be agnostic”

            See above Scripture references as well as the previous John 3:19-20. Ergo, you are a God-hater. Perhaps this will help. With God there is only Love or Hate, Obedience or Disobedience, Surrender or Rebellion.

            You also don’t get the fact that it doesn’t matter if you think you have a reason to hate God or not. God says if you don’t love Him you hate Him and God WILL BE the ultimate Judge.

            And now, alas, I see you’re flooding my Inbox with more of little doubt nonsense so I will move on to the next bunch of blather you’ve sent my way.

          • Chris

            I think I should as well. Royce has shown himself not only dishonest but a hypocrite as well – demanding non-god hating sources while asking why I should demand a source outside creationist sites for a science claim.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Say “Buh bye!” I’ve shown myself as no such thing but it’s NO surprise that your false accusations would be forthcoming. That’s all you’ve got. And you also misrepresented my “demand”. But that’s no surprise either.

            It’s ok though. I don’t hold it against you. I understand you are just doing what comes natural and can’t do anything else.

            And you are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3)

          • Trilemma

            Before the Bible can be accepted as scientific evidence you have to prove it is indeed inspired by God and that it is to be interpreted as literal historical facts rather than allegory.

          • Amos Moses

            “Before the Bible can be accepted as scientific evidence you have to prove it is indeed inspired by God”

            nope ….. you either accept that or you do not ……… plain and simple …… God chooses us …. we do not choose Him …… if you do not accept scripture …. then you were not chosen …. it makes any observation of science or scripture invalid if you were not chosen …….

            end of story ……..

          • why not what

            I usually don’t say things like this and you should feel free to report me, but.

            You’re an idiot.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not “report” …… but it is a TOS violation ……. and all you have is an ad hominem attack ….. and no discernible facts ……….

          • Trilemma

            Accepting the Bible as inspired by God does not make it scientific evidence. Accepting the story of Santa Claus is not scientific proof that he delivers toys on Christmas Eve. Faith is not scientific evidence.

          • Amos Moses

            “Accepting the Bible as inspired by God does not make it scientific evidence.”

            you are in error ……….

          • Amos Moses

            i did not say it was …… but there is scientific fact in the bible ….. THOUSANDS of years ago …. before man had any idea ….. where did it come from ……….

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That is true. but all the Manuscript evidence, Archeological evidence, Prophetic evidence, and Statistical mathematical evidence does. Folks like you have been trying for 2000yrs or more to prove Scripture flawed and you haven’t done it yet. There’s never been a book anymore scrutinized than the Bible, never been a book anymore attacked, never been a book anymore sought after to discredit and find even just one error – but it’s NEVER been done.

            Oh btw, that’s more evidence.

          • Chris

            “There’s never been a book anymore scrutinized than the Bible, never
            been a book anymore attacked, never been a book anymore sought after to
            discredit and find even just one error – but it’s NEVER been done.”

            Correction. No fundie has ever ADMITTED there is an error in the bible. In addition there is a mass of archaeological evidence which goes against the literal interpretation. Let’s take just Exodus.

            According to Exodus Egypt went through the plagues before the Egyptian king agreed to let the Hebrew slaves depart. Problems:
            1) The plagues would have destroyed the economy of Egypt. Yet under the king of Egypt Ramses II Egypt was incredibly prosperous. How do we know? Because Ramses II went on a building program which lasted decades. To point out the obvious you can’t afford to build whole cities if you’re broke.

            2) The Hittites [the enemies of Egypt] had numerous spies in Egypt and not a single one mentioned mentioned the destruction of the entire Egyptian army. How do we know there were spies there? Because their reports have survived in the ruins of Hattusa.

            3) At the time that the Hebrews were supposed to be fleeing to Canaan. that area was under the control of Egypt so they would have been fleeing one Egyptian controlled country for another. How do we know? Records from that era speaks of their Egyptian overlords.

            4) Palestinians are the descendants of Canaanites. Why is that important? Because Palestinian DNA and Jewish DNA have been tested and found to be the same. Jews are Canaanites.

            Would you like more evidence? There’s a LOT!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Bravo. Well done.

          • Chris

            Thank you.

          • Balerion

            An excellent post. Unfortunately, Royce possesses the special powers of complete immunity to facts and logic.

          • Chris

            Thank you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No evidence there at all. None whatsoever. When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

            Thanks for providing more evidence that God’s Word is true.

          • Chris

            “No evidence there at all.”

            That’s your third lie Royce. We’re done.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. No lie at all. But you did. That’s the umpteenth time you’ve lied and your standard response is making a false accusation and ad hominem.

            We’re done? Woo Hoo!! Hallelujah!!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Problems:”

            1) “The plagues would have destroyed the economy of Egypt.” That’s speculation on your part. That is starting with a conclusion. Thanks for proving my point. “How do we know? Because Ramses II went on a building program which lasted decades.” More speculation. Prove it. You made the positive claim. Now prove it. And when you go about it, don’t forget that slave labor was pretty cheap.

            2) “The Hittites [the enemies of Egypt]…” More speculation. You’re assuming that all the writings of the Hittites have been found and I assume you are referring to the 382 Amarna Letters. Ironically, the Amarna “letters” give more evidence to Biblical accuracy than questions. In fact, the Amarna Tablets are an incredible second witness to the conquest of the Promised Land under the command of Joshua. So it’s not unusual at all that the “letters” would make no mention of the Exodus from Egypt. Just as if I am writing today about the events that have occurred this year, I’m not gonna mention what happened when I was 5. Duh!

            3) That’s exactly what the Bible says! How’d ya miss that one???

            4) Duh! Given that ALL humans came from Adam & Eve why would you even mention that? As to the rest, no it doesn’t mean that at all. That is YOUR conclusion because it fits your Worldview and what you want it to.

            That’s just like when Chris asked me what falsifiable evidence I would accept that the Bible wasn’t true and when I came back and told him he answered with:

            “”One evidence that macro-evolution has ever happened by Evolution.”

            Genetic similarities with other forms of life. Most especially other apes.

            “In fact, I’ll give you another. One piece of Evidence that shows where the energy to create the Big Bang came from.”

            The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with the biological theory of evolution. Evolution is a theory in biology. The big bang is a theory in cosmology.”

            He deleted the comment, however, evidently knowing the ease in answering that ridiculous “scientific” claim. LOL Btw, there’s a great video on ICR (I think) that shows the falseness in that claim and that a BANANA shares 50% of the same DNA as humans.

            So AGAIN, nice try but no cigar.

            The Amarna letters are, however, a fascinating read and I encourage folks to check it out if they have the time.

          • Trilemma

            How do you reconcile this? In Genesis chapter 1, Adam and Eve are created on day 6 of creation. In chapter 2, Adam is created on day 3 and Eve on day 6.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Easy. Chapter 2 says no such thing,. That’s a lie.

          • Trilemma

            Chapter 2 says Adam was created before there was any plant life on the Earth. That means he was created on day three.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, that’s not what it says. Nice try though. I appreciate your obvious attempt to confuse and deceive. Unfortunately, there is a thing called Google for anyone who doesn’t know their Bible and your claim is EASILY shown to be a lie. Thank you! I thank you because every single time you and your ilk employ such tactics it only serves to plant the question in the minds of others as to why there is such an effort to refute God’s INERRANT, INFALLIBLE, AND TIMELESS Word.

            So those who are being drawn to Christ by the Father will be moved to answer that question and perhaps learn what is spiritually going on.

            When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

          • Trilemma

            Chapter 2 also says that after Adam was created God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone. So God created birds and other animals. Chapter 1 says birds were created on day 5 of creation. That means Adam was created before day 5 and not on day 6 as chapter 1 says.

            Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2:18-19 – NASB

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Evidently you missed it the first time so I’ll repeat it again.

            No, that’s not what it says. Nice try though. I appreciate your obvious attempt to confuse and deceive. Unfortunately, there is a thing called Google for anyone who doesn’t know their Bible and your claim is EASILY shown to be a lie. Thank you! I thank you because every single time you and your ilk employ such tactics it only serves to plant the question in the minds of others as to why there is such an effort to refute God’s INERRANT, INFALLIBLE, AND TIMELESS Word.

            When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

          • Trilemma

            Then what does it say?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Just what it says. And when you surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and beg Him to save you so that you can serve Him, live for Him, and glorify Him, you’ll be Born Again and will be a new creation in Christ with the ability then to actually understand.

          • Jason Todd

            To compare God to Santa Claus is absurd. You won’t be standing before Santa on Judgement Day.

          • Trilemma

            What evidence to have that there will be a judgment day?

          • Jason Todd

            You’ll know when you are pulled from hell to stand before God.

          • Chris

            “You’ll know when you are pulled from hell to stand before God.”

            First you’re assuming that there will be an afterlife. Second you’re assuming that the God who is doing the judging is the one Jason Todd believes in.

            Merely repeating ‘you’ll see’ does NOT support your assertion it is merely a sign of a revenge fantasy.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            If you don’t believe there is a Judgment Day the what are you doing arguing about the origins of everything?

            If there is no God, and you really, truly do not believe in an eternal everlasting after-life then get off of here and go eke out your pathetic existence doing whatever you want to do and stop worrying about whether I’m treading on or trumping the rights of someone else, or speaking lies, or influencing someone else to be deluded, or blah blah blah.

            Just go live your life and don’t worry about how ANYONE else lives – Christian or not – because it just doesn’t matter. You go eat, drink, and be merry. Do whatever you wanna do and don’t worry about ANYBODY else because it just doesn’t matter. How we live in this life makes NO difference whatsoever because ya die, become worm food, and that’s it.

            There’s NO reason to care about anyone but yourself. None. There NO reason to care about others, the planet, what is done or not done. There is ONLY YOU.

            So get on with it. Stop being a hypocrite and acting like Truth matters because if there is no Judgment and no After-life then it doesn’t.

          • ShemSilber

            One does not have to accept the Bible at all, because accepting it or rejecting it does not change the truth that is in it. Truth exists independent of people’s opinions. We cannot either make truth a lie nor can we change lies into truth. The fact remains that what the Bible says is according to the highest science (which means “knowledge”), namely, the truth of Almighty Yahuwah, in the Name of the Master Yahushua (Jesus), omein.

          • Chris

            Now all you have to do is prove that is correct.

          • ShemSilber

            The onus is on each and every one of us to prove whether the Scriptures are correct, Hebrews 11:6: First of all we have to believe that Yahuwah exists from eternity to eternity, and that He rewards those who diligently SEEK Him. We need to be like those of the Jewish synagogue in Berea, per Acts 17:11, when Paul went there preaching, and they searched the Scriptures daily to check out if what he said was the truth. We each have to follow Paul’s admonition of 1Thessalonians 5:21, to prove all things and hold fast what’s right and good and proper.

            Even if I were to write the volumes of proof that there are available to convince you, that would not do the job if you refuse to believe the proof, for:
            A man convinced against his will
            Is of the same opinion still.

            The onus is on you, Brother Chris, to prove WHETHER what anyone says here is true, and there are TONS of evidence for you to look through in order for you to fulfill your responsibility, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, the one who formed you in your mother’s womb and gives you breath and the means by which to prove it one way or the other, omein.

          • Chris

            First let me say thank you for your kind and gracious reply. It was much appreciated.

            “The onus is on you, Brother Chris, to prove WHETHER what anyone says
            here is true, and there are TONS of evidence for you to look through in
            order for you to fulfill your responsibility, in the Name of the Master
            Yahushua, the one who formed you in your mother’s womb and gives you
            breath and the means by which to prove it one way or the other, omein.”

            I don’t think I agree. The onus to show a claim has validity is on the one who made the claim in the first place. Otherwise I’d have to check out every single claim in the entire world.

            That being said I agree with you that anyone checking evidence of any kind has to be open to be convinced or what’s the point in checking the evidence in the first place?

            I must mention this. I had to smile when you wrote “A man convinced against his will
            Is of the same opinion still.” That was the favourite saying of my mother. Thank you for bringing back those happy memories. God bless.

          • ShemSilber

            Shalom, Brother Chris. Part of the proof that is literally tons is the creation itself. The evolutionist actually has more blind faith than the creationist, for he believes that something came accidentally from nothing, which is quite a joke on the evolutionist and a slur on his rationality.

            Another great help for me has been fulfilled prophecy, and once you see that which has been fulfilled, then one’s eyes will be opened to see other things come to pass that were announced long ago. The desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, for example, was fulfilled under Antiochus Epiphanes, and another fulfillment is coming when the rising beast of Revelation 13, Islam, that was crushed before our time, about 1922, comes up again, only to be destroyed once and for all at the return of the Master Yahushua (Jesus), who will come judging and making war in righteousness, per Revelation 19:11, until, as 11:15 says, He makes the kingdoms of this world the Kingdom of Yahuwah and of His Messiah.

            Just as we know the Master entered this world through the honored virgin whose womb He used to come among men in order to do the work of redemption, so we know He’s coming again to rule.

            That’s only a small amount, but you can build on that and so build on your faith, and so be ready when the Master comes to end these Dark Ages and begin the real “New World Order,” which will replace the current chaos with a world living in peace and productivity, In Yahushua’s Name, omein.

          • Chris

            “Shalom, Brother Chris.”

            Thank you. And thank you too for your detailed reply.

            “Part of the proof that is literally tons is the creation itself. The evolutionist actually has more blind faith than the creationist, for he believes that something came accidentally from nothing, which is quite a joke on the evolutionist and a slur on his rationality.”

            Not quite. First what you’re referring to is known as abiogenesis. That has NOTHING to do with evolution. Let’s say that God created the first forms of life. Evolution would still be true and creationism false. Evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis.

            “Another great help for me has been fulfilled prophecy, and once you see that which has been fulfilled, then one’s eyes will be opened to see other things come to pass that were announced long ago.”

            Interesting. I once considered fulfilled prophecy one of the strongest pieces of evidence for Christianity as well.

            “The desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, for example, was fulfilled under Antiochus Epiphanes, …”

            There is some controversy however that the prophecy was written AFTER Antiochus desecrated the temple with his pig sacrifices.

            “…and another fulfillment is coming when the rising beast of Revelation 13, Islam, that was crushed before our time, about 1922, comes up again, only to be destroyed once and for all at the return of the Master Yahushua (Jesus), who will come judging
            and making war in righteousness, per Revelation 19:11, until, as 11:15 says, He makes the kingdoms of this world the Kingdom of Yahuwah and of His Messiah.”

            I’ve not heard that particular interpretation of revelation before. I will agree however that if Jesus returns then it will be undeniable proof.

            “Just as we know the Master entered this world through the honored virgin whose womb He used to come among men in order to do the work of redemption, so we know He’s coming again to rule.”

            I am usually loath to intrude upon belief but I feel I must point out that the claims in the bible are just that – claims. They do NOT impart knowledge. That’s not saying that they aren’t true. I’ve no evidence that they are or not. But they remain claims to knowledge, not knowledge itself.

            That’s only a small amount, but you can build on that and so build on your faith, …”

            I should explain that I share the same faith as that of Cyrus and the Magi.

            “…and so be ready when the Master comes to end these Dark Ages and begin the real “New World Order,” which will replace the current chaos with a world living in peace and productivity, In Yahushua’s Name, omein.”

            Then may you live to see your dream become reality.

          • ShemSilber

            Evolution is all tied up with abiogenesis. Has anyone shown how life can come from lifeless matter?

            There will always be controversies about the Scripture, as long as there are doubters and as long as there are abject slaves of Azazel, the devil, alias “Allah”–the false elohim of Islam. Daniel, the writer of the prophecy bearing his name, was among the first of the captives of the Exile to Babylon, which is a while before any of the prophecies that the Master Yahushua gave him, especially those that are not yet fulfilled, such as Daniel 12:1, where the Master has his servant Michael “stand still” (one of the meanings possible) to allow the Great Tribulation to proceed, to which Paul refers in 2Thessalonians 2:7. Michael is the defender of Israel, but he will be taken out of the way, as Paul says.

            None of us have come close to understanding all prophecy, but the Master Yahushua is our guide. If we are following Him, well and good. If we have found a leader, a mentor who is following Him, that is how He operates. He showed me a mentor in Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky, a true servant of the Master for over a third of a century.

            Here’s how to have 20/20 vision, per 2Chronicles 20:20: “…Believe in Yahuwah your Elohim, so shall you be established; believe His neviim (prophets), so shall you prosper.”

            One has to ask Him, however, for the discernment to see and to know who He is, and who His prophets are.

            May we all find shalom in the Master Yahushua, omein.

          • Chris

            “Evolution is all tied up with abiogenesis.”

            Um, no. Evolution is an explanation for how life diversified AFTER it had begun. Abiogenesis is one attempt [there are others] at explaining how life began. As I wrote before if God started off the first cells evolution would still be true since evolution would explain how we get from the first cells to humans.

            “Has anyone shown how life can come from lifeless matter?”

            Organic material not lifeless matter & yes they have. Google ‘Miller-Urey experiment’. That’s the first step of the process.

            There will always be controversies about the Scripture, as long as there are doubters …”

            Christians have raised doubts about certain aspects of scripture. For example the book of Danial is written in two different languages. The first half is written in flawless Hebrew. The second half is written in very low class Aramaic. One person would have no reason to write that way but two people would. So Danial was added to after the first half was written. Most probably after the incident by Antiochus.

            “…and as long as there are abject slaves of Azazel, the devil, alias “Allah”–the false elohim of Islam.”

            Allah is merely the Arabic word for God.

            You then give your interpretation of Danial. I agree Danial was most probably one of the Hebrews held during the Babylonian exile. For the rest I will believe it upon seeing it.

            The number of people who have claimed to have the real interpretation of Danial would number in the tens of thousands.

            “None of us have come close to understanding all prophecy, but the Master Yahushua is our guide.”

            I agree with your first statement. Christians have been predicting the return of Jesus since the late first century. The only lesson I can gain from that is that, even if the prophecies are accurate they are incredibly difficult to understand.

            “Here’s how to have 20/20 vision, per 2Chronicles 20:20: “…Believe in Yahuwah your Elohim, so shall you be established; believe His neviim (prophets), so shall you prosper.”

            Thank you for your wish that I prosper but I was a born again Christian who accepted Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. I was covered in the blood, saved by grace through faith, etc. Until, that is, I ran into several problems..

            “May we all find shalom in the Master Yahushua, omein.”
            I truly hope all people find peace.

          • ShemSilber

            Without abiogenesis you don’t have evolution. Since that is an impossibility for life to come from the lifeless, that also renders evolution impossible.

            Sure, “Allah” is the Arabic word for “God,” and just as there are many false gods that people worship in the other languages, including English, likewise Islam worships the fallen one, AS IF he were true, the same one that the Master Yahushua calls the father of lies and murder. Per Matthew 5:15-20, you can know false prophets by their fruits, and what is the fruit of Islam but lies (permitted and even commanded to further Islam) and murder by the millions?

            Christians and anyone else can raise all the doubts they want about Scriptures, but doubts and whatnot do not change the truth. Human opinions have absolutely no effect on what is truth. The Master Yahushua is “…the Way, the Truth, and the Life…” (John 14:6) who will make us free from all the lies of Azazel (John 8:32). If we don’t follow His lead, we are just blind fools groping for the wall (Isaiah 59:10).

            Turn your eyes to the Master Yahushua, and you will come to have vision; hold out your hand to Him and He will hold you up. Without the Master Yahushua, we have no guide through these Dark Ages and no entry into our Father’s Kingdom, which is what matters above all, in Yahushua’s Name, omein.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, but everybody has to have a Starting Point. The Manuscript evidence, Archeological evidence, Prophetic evidence, and Statistical mathematical evidence is overwhelming that the Bible IS the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.

            Now, let’s contrast that with what? Scientific writings that are continually being proved wrong? How about the scientists themselves who knowingly continue to put forth lies even though it’s been proven false? How about the school textbooks that knowingly continue to teach lies?

            Oh yeah, y’all got a real strong history of evidence and honesty on your side. LOL

            You are correct in that Faith is not scientific evidence. Now be intellectually honest enough to admit that you operate from faith too?

            BOTH sides operate from a Starting Point of Faith.

          • Amos Moses

            FOUNTAINS OF THE DEEP ………

            Ge 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were ##### all the fountains of the great deep broken up, ##### and the windows of heaven were opened.

            Ge 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

            Massive ‘ocean’ discovered towards Earth’s core | New Scientist
            12 Jun 2014 … A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help …

            An ocean of water is found 620 miles below Earth’s surface – Daily Mail
            25 Nov 2016 … Two studies from Florida State University and Northwestern University suggest that this deep water is vital for geodynamic activity which is …

            Huge Underground “Ocean” Discovered Towards Earth’s Core …
            Many scientists have assumed that the transition zone between the upper and lower mantle (250-410 miles beneath the surface) contained water, though this …

            it is either ACCEPTED OR REJECTED ….. Proven …… not allegory …….. CONFIRMED IN SCRIPTURE …………..

          • Trilemma

            That’s certainly enough water to submerge the entire planet. What proof do you have that all that water was on the surface 4300 years ago? If it had, the evidence that Jericho had been inhabited 11,000 years ago would have been obliterated.

          • Amos Moses

            why do you have faith in 6400 ………. why do you have faith in 11,000 years ago ….. why do you have faith in any of the numbers you just quoted ………

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “If it had, the evidence that Jericho had been inhabited 11,000 years ago would have been obliterated.”

            Ya see folks how gullible these spiritually-dead folks are? If he were remotely intellectually honest he would have to admit that there is NO “evidence” that Jericho had been inhabited 11,000yrs ago. But he swallows the Evolutionist lies like a good little boy drinking the Kool-Aid and then regurgitates the lie as often as he can all the while thinking it’s the truth.

            Ironic and laughable as it is, what he doesn’t know is that he is confirming the Biblical account that there was a Jericho! LOL

          • Chris

            “Ironic and laughable as it is, what he doesn’t know is that he is confirming the Biblical account that there was a Jericho! LOL”

            Yep. And pictures of New York confirm the Spiderman account that there is a New york. So what?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Chris

            You forgot the part where it shows your picture as an illustration of a troll. 🙂

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. And this directly on the heels of “We’re done here.” Another lie. Who wudda thunk!

          • Trilemma

            Yes, there is evidence. Artifacts found at Jericho have been dated as 11,000 years old by carbon 14 dating.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Already told you, Carbon 14 Dating has been proven flawed. Tell you lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough and you may get others to believe you but not me.

          • Chris

            Already told ya. Carbon 14 dating has been shown to be accurate. And the study you cite has been debunked. Tell your lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough and you may get others to believe you but not me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yeah, yeah, I know you have. And you still believe that a lie told long enough, loud enough, and often enough will be believed.

            Sorry, but it won’t. Maybe by some but NOT those who are indwelt with the Spirit of the Living God who guides us into all Truth.

            “And the study you cite has been debunked.”

            Another lie.

            Carbon 14 dating, much like The Big Bang, is old school falsehoods that have been shown to be false based on new scientific evidence.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That’s not how Science works.

          • Chris

            True. Science works by starting with the evidence and going to a conclusion. Creationism starts from a conclusion and goes to the evidence. The exact opposite.

            Science formulates a theory in such a way that it can be falsified. Point out one bit of positive evidence which, if found, would falsify creationism. I’m not talking about something like ‘proof that god doesn’t exist’ but evidence which you could point to and say ‘that would disprove it.’

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Just keep telling yourself that. That’s called Denial and Delusion. If what you said is true, then there is NO “true science”.

            At least we can be intellectually honest. But you see, that proves the Bible is true again because you follow your father, Satan, and he is the father of all lies. Therefore dishonesty is the place where you must start from. We get it. It’s understandable.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            One evidence that macro-evolution has ever happened by Evolution. In fact, I’ll give you another. One piece of Evidence that shows where the energy to create the Big Bang came from.

          • Chris

            “One evidence that macro-evolution has ever happened by Evolution.”

            Genetic similarities with other forms of life. Most especially other apes.

            “In
            fact, I’ll give you another. One piece of Evidence that shows where the
            energy to create the Big Bang came from.”

            The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with the biological theory of evolution. Evolution is a theory in biology. The big bang is a theory in cosmology.

          • Trilemma

            Evidence has to be validated before it can be accepted as scientific evidence whether it’s a piece of bone dug up or the creation account in Genesis.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Then there is no evidence for The Big Bust or Macro-Evolution or any other such nonsense. Thank you.

            The FACT is those who are intellectually honest KNOW that Science can NOT prove any of those things because they KNOW what Scientists are teaching today are NOT facts. They are interpretations of observations!!
            .
            Don’t miss that!! Scientists are NOT teaching facts but rather nterpretations of observations. And those interpretations come from a Starting Point based on their Worldview. It is absolutely imperative to understand this in order to use critical thinking when evaluating what they are saying.

            Most folks are familiar with Richard Dawkins as the antagonistic outspoken atheist that he is. Here’s a quote of his that was shown at tonight’s seminar and that I’ve verified is true:

            “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.” (December 2004 Interview Bill Moyers “Now”. You can Google for the actual transcript)

            Ya can’t make this stuff up folks! THAT is what you are dealing with. Try arguing with logic and reason with THAT!! Only God’s Word and the power of the Holy Spirit can cut thru that idiocy, blindness, and hardness of heart.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually we don’t. No more than you have to prove the Big Bang happened. You operate on your faith and we’ll operate on ours. And we’ll see whose stands at the end.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “and that is determined by a persons worldview”

            THAT is an absolutely spot on fact. Those who are intellectually honest KNOW that Science can NOT prove the age of the Earth or anything else for that matter because they KNOW what Scientists are teaching today are NOT facts. They are interpretations of observations!!
            .
            Don’t miss that!! Scientists are NOT teaching facts but rather interpretations of observations. And those interpretations come from a Starting Point based on their Worldview.

            And, for the record, the same is true for Christians. We just have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit it.

          • Chris

            “Scientists are NOT teaching facts but rather interpretations of observations. And those interpretations come from a Starting Point based on their Worldview.”

            Two points:
            1) Theories are explanations of evidence NOT interpretations.
            2) Scientists do NOT have a unified world view. For example many scientists are Christians, many are Jewish, Many are Moslems, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and so on. They come from different cultures and countries. The idea that they all share some world view is nonsense.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            1) Wrong. They ARE interpretations. Don’t be so ignorant as to try and play semantics. It only shows your desperation.
            2) Yup. BUT you ONLY accept those who have your Worldview and that is evidenced by every time you dismiss anyone who has a Creationist YEC POV.

          • Chris

            1) Wrong. They ARE interpretations. Don’t be so ignorant as to try and play semantics. It only shows your desperation.

            From dictionary dot com a theory is “a proposed EXPLANATION whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”

            From wikipedia “A scientific theory is an EXPLANATION of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.”

            It’s only creationists which define theories as interpretations because they want their own wack ideas to be seen on the same level.

            “2) Yup. BUT you ONLY accept those who have your Worldview and that is
            evidenced by every time you dismiss anyone who has a Creationist YEC
            POV.”

            Except 1) I’m NOT a scientist. and 2) I WAS a creationist.

            But I will admit to a viewpoint which is the search for the truth. One you do NOT share.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            From dictionary dot com an INTERPRETATION is: “the action of explaining the meaning of something. “the interpretation of data”; an explanation or way of explaining; a stylistic representation of a creative work or dramatic role.

            From wikipedia an INTERPRETATION is “a technical notion that approximates the idea of representing a logical structure inside another structure”

            So, no, it’s NOT only creationists who define theories as interpretation. You just got caught in another lie. You’re batting a thousand.

            Much appreciated!! Always appreciate when you folks completely discredit yourself, make yourselves look like fools, and try to turn something that any person can understand with a 3rd Grade education into something it’s not.

          • Jason Todd

            The proof is already there. You simply choose to ignore it.

          • Trilemma

            What proof? Where has this proof been published?

          • Jason Todd

            Dude, shut it. I am not going to argue over how stupid you are with you.

          • Trilemma

            Carbon 14 dating shows that Jericho was inhabited 11,000 years ago, thousands of years before the alleged creation of the universe 6400 years ago.

          • Jason Todd

            And where did you read that fiction? 11,000 years LOLOLOLOL

          • Trilemma

            Encyclopædia Britannica.

          • Jason Todd

            You mean Encyclopedia Bullhockeya.

            If you intend to waste our time and bandwidth chasing your hope there’s no God, be advised I couldn’t care less what you think. In fact, if you seriously believe you are going to get Christians to buy into your pursuit of eternal damnation, you are even more stupid than I actually thought you were.

            Shut up or get blocked. Your choice.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. And Carbon Dating has been proven to be flawed.

          • Chris

            That’s only taught by creationists sorry. When carbon 14 dating is tested against organic objects of a known age it comes out accurately. What you are most likely referring to is the dating of organic objects which lived in water. They are subject to the reservoir effect. That’s been known for decades.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You’re sorry alright. Truth is not dependant on who teaches it but thank you for publicly displaying your open bias and bigotry and stubborn willingness to refuse to accept the truth if it happens to come from somebody you don’t accept.

            No, I wasn’t referring to the reservoir effect. Google “Vardiman+RATE”. No reservoir effect there at all. It’s been out for years.

          • Chris

            Indeed it has, and debunked for years.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. And your delusion doesn’t make it so either.

            Because I’m not wasting my time. Already told you. See Matt. 7:6. You’ve already admitted you aren’t gonna accept anything because you WERE (not true) a Creationist and now are vehemently opposed to “their lies”

            You’re on a mission from God only knows where to discredit Creationists all you can and to lead as many people to Hell with you as possible. We get it.

            I also noticed that you didn’t explain how organic material of a supposed millions and billions of years in age managed to survive.

            The answer to your question is because I already answered it. You’re lying when you claim that anything can “accurately” be dated by carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been PROVEN to be flawed.

          • Trilemma

            By who?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Larry Vardiman and a team of scientists, for one. Others in different experiments. Google it, then open your mind and be willing to accept the science for what it is. Not who brought it.

          • Trilemma

            Larry Vardiman has an unproven hypothesis that rapid radioactive decay during the first three days of creation and during the flood makes radioactive dating flawed. He still has to account for all the heat such rapid decay would have produced before you can he has proven anything.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Of course it’s unproven. So what? You think even one of the claims about the beginnings of the earth or life by the secularists and/or Non-Creationists are anything more than an “unproven hypothesis”????

            Please don’t be so ignorant as to come back and say you do.

            Vardiman did what every other scientist does. He made an interpretation based on observations.

            What Vardiman has PROVEN is that the current thought and conclusions drawn from Carbon 14 dating is flawed.

            You people yourselves keep talking about how scientific conclusions can stand only under the test of whether they can be falsified. Well, live with it now. Vardiman did that.

          • Trilemma

            “Of course it’s unproven. So what?”

            It means he hasn’t proven carbon 14 dating is flawed as you claimed.

            “You think even one of the claims about the beginnings of the earth or
            life by the secularists and/or Non-Creationists are anything more than
            an “unproven hypothesis”????”

            Evolution is an unproven hypothesis. Abiogenesis is thermodynamically and statistically impossible.

            Vardiman hasn’t proven carbon 14 dating is flawed until he addresses the heat issue. Vardiman has acknowledged that he needs to do that.

          • Chris

            Could you please explain what you mean by “Evolution is an unproven hypothesis. Abiogenesis is thermodynamically and statistically impossible.”

          • Trilemma

            Evolution can’t be proven because direct observations and measurements can’t be made on things that happened millions or billions of years ago. the best evolutionists can do is come up with a scientifically plausible explanation of what might have happened.

            Getting a strand of DNA and hundreds of proteins to randomly assemble from monomers, all located at the same microscopic location at the same time, surrounded by a cell membrane is statistically impossible and against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So I believe a creator being had to be involved in some way.

          • Chris

            “Evolution can’t be proven …”

            Well first I should point out that science doesn’t deal in ‘proof’, it deals in probability. After over 150 years of research the theory of evolution has a pretty high level of probability.

            “…because direct observations and measurements can’t be made on things that happened millions or billions of years ago. The best evolutionists can do is come up with a scientifically plausible explanation of what might have happened.”

            Science doesn’t need to have direct observation. If no fossils ever existed we would still have things like the similarity of our DNA to that of the other apes. We can also observe evolution happening at the microscopic level right now now. True these are small changes but over time those small changes accumulate. Just like I can save pennies over time until I have dollars.

            Additionally direct observation isn’t necessary if evidence remains. Allow me to illustrate my point. A murder is committed. No one was seen committing the murder [no direct observation] but we have the victims body with several stab wounds on the victim’s back. The bloody knife is found next to the victim. There are fingerprints on the knife, and traces of DNA on the knife both match a suspect named Fred. Additionally bloody footprints lead from the scene of the crime to Fred’s home. The footprints are of a shoe size matching that of Fred’s shoes and additionally blood covered shoes were found in Fred’s house.

            Can we say that Fred committed the murder? No one saw him do it but there is all this evidence.

            “Getting a strand of DNA and hundreds of proteins to randomly assemble from monomers, all located at the same microscopic location at the same time,
            surrounded by a cell membrane is statistically impossible and against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So I believe a creator being had to be involved in some way.”

            Two points:
            First abiogenesis is suggesting that what was at the beginning wasn’t DNA but RNA.

            Secondly the beginning of this sequences has already been shown by the Urey-miller experiment. Now I grant you abiogenesis is nowhere near as solid as evolution. Give it time.

          • Trilemma

            I know evolution has been going on and that there is plenty of evidence for it. I know that humans and chimpanzees have a common evolutionary ancestor. But it can’t be proven that only random natural processes are responsible for evolution. Also, to be a true scientific theory, the theory of evolution must be falsifiable. How would the theory be falsified? Also, the theory can’t tell us where evolution is headed in the future like Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation can predict where a celestial body will be in the future.

            In your Fred analogy, I have no problem saying Fred did it. But can you prove he didn’t have any help?

            Demonstrating that natural processes could produce some essential monomers doesn’t make abiogenesis possible. The Miller-Urey Experiment helped demonstrate that abiogenesis is impossible. Even though they got some amino acids, the vast majority of what they got was sludge. It showed that nature prefers sludge over life. When an animal dies, its body turns to sludge. It doesn’t break down into building blocks that reassemble into bacteria. Take a gallon bottle of bacteria and heat it up until all the bacteria break down into all the building blocks of life. In the bottle, you have everything you need to assemble a living cell without any other molecules that could mess things up. No matter how long that bottle sits, a living cell will never form because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          • Harry Weaver

            That is why some scientists came to believe in God since they believed the life codes in DNA were to complex to have been created by evolution.
            And the major discovery that caused Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist to believe in God, and wrote the book “There Is A God.”

          • Trilemma

            He became a deist and rejected the god of Christianity and Islam. So, seeing that there has to be a god doesn’t automatically point someone to Christianity or any other religion.

          • Harry Weaver

            Have you read his book? Or are you just guessing? A lot of mindless guessing is going on in these discussions and there are too many guesses. And not enough facts. A good solid lead into the belief in God as Creator is not a religion. It is a belief and before any known religion. “In the beginning, God.”

          • Trilemma

            I read his bio on Wikipedia and an article about him on Christianity Today’s website.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Uh no. What it means is that a HYPOTHESIS is just that. If it was proven it wouldn’t be a hypothesis. Duh!

            So no. It doesn’t mean he hasn’t proven carbon 14 dating is flawed. He has. He proved carbon 14 dating can be and has been falsified. THAT is science.

          • Trilemma

            All I’ve found is his RATE Project which does not prove carbon 14 dating is flawed. Can you show me where he specifically proves carbon 14 dating is false?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Given all you’ve said thus far, I doubt it.

          • Trilemma

            This seems to be Larry Vardiman’s proof. Carbon 14 dating indicates the Earth is at least 50,000 years old. The Bible says the Earth is 6400 years old. The Bible proves carbon 14 dating is flawed.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. That would be your proof. Not Larry’s.

          • Trilemma

            Then what is Larry Vardiman’s proof? Where is it? Copy paste some sentences from it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why? You’re the one who said you’ve already read it all and didn’t see it. Tell ya what, Larry will be here in a couple of weeks to give another seminar. Why don’t ya just show up and talk with him to his face?

          • Trilemma

            Why not show the proof you claim exists so everyone can see it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice diversion. Didn’t think you’d wanna face Vardiman to his face and take him on.

          • Harry Weaver

            If you are going to claim arrogance, then I tell you “Cool it.” I have not seen where he said anything arrogant. Thank you in advance.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, since there is NO claim of arrogance, I guess you either have a problem with your eyesight or just for some reason that only God knows decided to come in the conversation and make a false accusation. Hmm, got any idea what God would tell you about that?

            Should I thank you in advance for your confession and apology? Nah, I’ll wait.

          • Harry Weaver

            I have nothing to apologize for. And it was the other user it was about and not me, even so be nice is the mode, otherwise I will award you with flags.
            I have nothing to confess.
            Your comment was to a guest. Back a ways.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Okie Dokie. I have no idea whether you profess to be a Christian or not so I don’t know if Matt. 5:23-24 has any meaning to you or not.

            I would also suggest that if you are gonna make a complaint about by comment to someone then do it in the place where it applies. I have NO clue how many comments are on this one thread now but I certainly ain’t gonna scroll thru them all to try and figure out where you think I erroneously called someone or something “arrogant”.

            And btw, if your claim was so righteous, why’s it gone now?

            Oh, and one more thing, on the chance that you are a Christian, would you be flagging Jesus for saying, “You wicked generation of vipers”?

            Or when He said, “You’re like white-washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones”?

            Or when He turned over the tables and took a whip to the Moneychangers?

            Or when He said to Peter, “Get behind me Satan!”?

            You wanna flag me because I don’t fit your definition of “nice”, go right ahead. I’ll let God decide whether it was Just or whether you’re throwing fiery darts from the Enemy.

          • Harry Weaver

            I probably know the scriptures better than you and you due have a level of arrogance. So you need clear that up or you may find it difficult to converse with anyone.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh yeah. And you were the one to talk about arrogance. LOL

          • Harry Weaver

            There is no reason to confess and apologize. The mention arrogance was about another user you apparently got tight with. I mentioned to cool it and that is so I am not hit in the face with all the negatives that exist especially on the religious channels. So when I mentioned to cool it, and removed the post but I changed my mind and decided it should not have happened that I did remove a comment I made. Hopefully this one will stay.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Maybe if you’d have stopped and considered why it was deleted you would see differently.

            I still with what I just said previously,.

          • Harry Weaver

            In that case, you are blocked, good bye.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I think that’s best. Maybe the sermon on Sunday will be on Matt. 5:23-24.

            Buh bye.

          • Harry Weaver

            All I can see now are the posts you have already made and I will not see you any more

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Okie dokie.

          • Ann Kah

            That’s why carbon dating is only one of the ways that ancient things can be dated. Other radioactive elements decay at different rates. Carbon dating works just fine for one range of ages.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            True. And none of them are flawless. Moreover, when taken in combination NONE of them can even remotely prove something happened “billions and billions of years ago”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Carbon 14 dating shows that Jericho was inhabited…”

            Jericho? Anyone who disagrees with that….well, you just made the list! Drink it in, baby!

            Excuse me, I’m just being silly, and making references to Y2J, aka Chris Jericho, aka one of the best ever pro wrestlers.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I have to add…if you don’t like the Chris Jericho vs Shawn Michaels match from Wrestlemania XIX, you just don’t like wrestling.

          • Harry Weaver

            I am one evangelical, non denominational, fundamentalist that does NOT hold with the 6000 + year old earth. Likely millions of years old. And the days in Genesis are much longer than 24 hours. They could very well be thousands or even millions of years. Day four is the clue.

          • Trilemma

            According to chapter 1 of Genesis, plants were created on day 3 and the Sun on day 4. How did the plants survive thousands or even millions of years without sunlight?

          • Harry Weaver

            I am not a 6000 year old earth person, but I do believe in the Bible, and the event of the Creation. There is ample proof in the Bible that it can be interpreted in such a way it does not interfere with the millions of years old the earth may be. We don’t really know. And I do believe that other methods ones other than carbon dating can be found to prove more accurately how old the earth is.

          • Trilemma

            Carbon 14 is only good for dating once living things less that 50,000 years old. There are other methods that are used to date the age of Earth.

          • Amos Moses

            scripture ………

          • Trilemma

            What proof do you have that the Bible accurately dates the creation of the universe at 6400 years ago?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            2nd Tim. 3:16

          • Chris

            Quoting the bible doesn’t prove that the bible was accurate. For that you have to go to evidence outside the bible.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Try proving 2nd Tim. 3:16 wrong and then get back to me.

          • Trilemma

            Napkin religion.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Chris

            You certainly do match that profile Royce. 🙂

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Thank you for discrediting yourself again. Thank you for showing you don’t even understand the basic concept of the terms outlined for “Internet Troll”.

            NEWSFLASH: This is a CHRISTIAN site.

          • Arthur Belling

            What brand?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            CHRISTIAN. I had it capitalized before for emphasis. Not sure how you missed it.

          • Arthur Belling

            What brand of Christian? You know there are several.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, there is NOT. Already stated that. You’re boring me here…

          • Arthur Belling

            Over 30 thousand denominations Royce. Some say it’s over 40 thousand now. May I ask what planet you live on?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            So? What’s your point? Earth.

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Arthur Belling

            Royce, do you seriously believe that there is only one denomination of Christianity? You are starting to worry me a little.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. NEVER said any such thing. In FACT, just a few posts up I said just the opposite. Try slowing down and actually reading what is said instead of being so quick to spout off at the mouth and wind up showing your ignorance.

            Thank you for once again proving yourself a Troll. Can’t you find a bridge somewhere to hide under?

          • Arthur Belling

            It’s not trolling to point out that the differences in the denominations within Christianity can be completely huge. Unless you want to say that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs are similar to yours. You’re of course entirely welcome to say that, Royce.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Another complete Distraction and off topic comment. Why don’t you just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about and you can’t come up with a way to prove what I said wrong.

          • Arthur Belling

            It’s absolutely on topic. You’re the one claiming there’s only one kind of Christian. I can prove that wrong by looking out my window where I can see a Catholic church as well as a Lutheran one.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Correct. Absolutely right. I am claiming there is only one kind of Christian. Never said any differently.

            And no, your looking out the window and seeing that doesn’t prove otherwise. None whatsoever.

          • Arthur Belling

            Despite the fact that it does.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. Your ignorance of what a Christian is and regurgitating pablum doesn’t change that.

          • Arthur Belling

            I work in a church. I know what a Christian is.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for once AGAIN publicly displaying your ignorance, your thought processes and your reasoning abilities.

            I might work at NASA. Doesn’t mean I know what an Alien is. Sheesh!!

            Your saying that is NO different than the Matt. 7:13-23 Posers who think because they go to church they’re Christians.

            I can go to McDonald’s every Sunday, read their menu every day, and even recite their jingle. Doesn’t make me a Big Mac! Sheesh. Smh….

          • Arthur Belling

            I can easily know what a Christian is by looking the word up in the dictionary, thanks. A person who follows the teachings of Christ. Not according to you, though, is it? I’m sure you don’t want to consider homosexuals as Christians. Or Catholics. Or any other group you dislike.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That would all depend on which dictionary you use. Several don’t get it right. That said, even if you picked the right one that gets it correct, you still wouldn’t understand what you’re reading. You have to be Born Again to “know”. For example, the definition you give is not necessarily correct. One can follow the teachings of Christ and not be a Christian.

            Your assurance would be dependant on how you define “homosexual”. If you define “homosexual” as one having a SSA but not acting on it, confessing it as sin, repenting of it, being Born Again, denying themselves, submitting to Christ as a slave to their new Master, picking up their cross, and following Him – then you’d be wrong.

            If you define “homosexual” as one who lives and practices Homosexuality wherein they engage in the sexual behavior of Homosexuality – then you’d be correct.

            As for Catholics, it all depends on whether they accept the doctrines of the Catholic dogma.

            As for other groups, the same is true and it has NOTHING to do with me and likes or dislikes. If you were a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ you would know that too.

          • Arthur Belling

            There is nothing written anywhere except possibly Jack Chick comic books that states being “born again” is a prequisite for being a Christian.

            ” One can follow the teachings of Christ and not be a Christian.”

            So you are saying the dictionary is incorrect. Got it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “There is nothing written anywhere except possibly Jack Chick comic books that states being “born again” is a prequisite for being a Christian.”

            Another lie.

            “So you are saying the dictionary is incorrect. Got it.”

            No, what I said is what I said. And you haven’t gotten squat yet so why start now.

          • Arthur Belling

            Being “Born again” is specific to Christian Fundamentalists. That’s all. Most Christians don’t play your “born again” game and guess what? They are still Christians.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. Thank you for showing your Biblical ignorance and just plain lack of thinking before you speak. Christian Fundamentalist contrary to what you think is not a pejorative or a bad thing in any way whatsoever. It is in fact one in the same. Can’t be a Christian if you don’t have the fundamentals. Duh!

            And no, one who hasn’t been Born Again is NOT a Christian. Thank you, once again, for showing your Biblical ignorance and that, just as I said, you have NO clue what a Christian is.

            You really should learn not to speak about things which you know nothing about. It just shows you’re being argumentative and exhibiting more trolling behavior.

          • Arthur Belling

            I never said it was a pejorative to say “Christian Fundamentalist”. That’s what they are, after all. Some of the behavior practiced by them, however, I have nothing good to say about.

            Please stop thanking me for things I didn’t do. The definition of a Christian doesn’t include the words “born again”. Your denomination may feel that way, but it’s NOT a prerequisite. Thank you for showing how little you know about your own faith.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. The definition of Christian most certainly DOES include the words “Born Again”. Thank you for showing a complete ignorance, once AGAIN, of what a Christian is.

            And AGAIN, you really should stop and think before you speak. If you had done that you would not look like a fool AGAIN. It’s NOT a “denomination” that gets to define CHRISTIAN. It’s CHRIST!! Duh!! Sheesh.

          • Arthur Belling

            Thank you for admitting you have no idea what a Christian is, and showing that your definition doesn’t conform to the accepted one used by, among others, the dictionary.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for admitting you have no idea what a Christian is, and showing that your definition doesn’t conform to the accepted one used by, among others – God’s Word!

          • Arthur Belling

            Thank you for your admission you yourself are not a Christian.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!

            As well as a Liar. Thank you for showing once again you have NO clue what a Christian is.

          • Arthur Belling

            I notice you call everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Why?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You notice incorrectly.

            I notice you keep getting your comments deleted. I don’t wonder why.

          • Arthur Belling

            Because you keep flagging them. You are threatened by people who call you out.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, once again you prefer to look outward rather than inward. They don’t delete flagged comments that didn’t violate their policy. But better to blame others than look at yourself evidently.

            I’m not threatened by you or anyone else. I’m easy to find. But thanks again for demonstrating more Troll behavior.

            You have done NOTHING but spew ad hominem and lies and haven’t been on topic in days.

            “Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Arthur Belling

            No, Royce, I have just said inconvenient truths that you don’t happen to like. I have not trolled. I have just pointed out your hypocrisy. So have others.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You wouldn’t know the Truth if He was standing right in front of you.

            You’re deluded and delusional. I wasn’t the one who removed your posts. So it wasn’t about me not liking them.

            What others? You mean the other God-hating trolls that did the same thing you’re doing? I’ll take that under consideration when evaluation your characterization of me and my supposed hypocrisy. LOL

          • Arthur Belling

            I want nothing to do with your tyrannical and hateful God, Royce.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That “I want nothing to do with your tyrannical and hateful God” probably just earned you a ban.

            Of course, no doubt you’ll blame that on me or the owners of the site.

          • Arthur Belling

            The definition of being a Christian in no sense contains the words “be again”.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Never said it did. I said “Born Again”. Thanks for showing Troll behavior yet AGAIN.

          • Arthur Belling

            It was an autocorrect error. I meant to say “born again” and I think you know that.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. I don’t pretend to be omniscient like you. Figured at best it was a Typo but at worst just your desire to spew back some nonsense as quickly as possible to provoke some response.

            “Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Arthur Belling

            It was a typo. Suck it up and put on a helmet, princess.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!

            “Suck it up and put on a helmet, princess.”

            and just a very few posts ago you said:

            “No, sir. Everything I’ve said was sincere and delivered in a calm and respectful manner. You on the other hand flip out and not just with me, but everyone you talk to.”

            “I’m speaking calmly to you and you’re the one getting into a blind screaming rage. I’m behaving nothing like a troll, and my posts speak for themselves”

            And that’s just a couple. And then most recently you said:

            “No, Royce, I have just said inconvenient truths that you don’t happen to like. I have not trolled. I have just pointed out your hypocrisy. So have others.”

            I guess you don’t understand “hypocrisy” any better than you do “Christian”. LOL

            Thank you. Lovely little exercise you’re putting on here for everyone to get to see what the spiritually-dead are like.

          • Arthur Belling

            I think your severe mental retardation is really kicking in big time, now, Royce. Thank you for showing that my statements are all valid and yours are the result of brain damaged, shrieking hate and fraud.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            This from the man who just a few posts ago said:

            “I’m speaking calmly to you and you’re the one getting into a blind screaming rage. I’m behaving nothing like a troll, and my posts speak for themselves”

            LOLOLOLOLOLOL

            Now THAT is truly hilarious!!!! Oh yeah, we can all see how your statements are “all valid”!!!! And mine are the “result of brain damaged, shrieking hate and fraud”. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

            Thank you for epitomizing Matt. 7:1-5 and what it looks like to have a Giant Sequoia Tree stickin’ outta your eye socket.

            What a lesson in Biblical truth!!

          • Trilemma

            2Tim 3:16 is a sentence fragment. It doesn’t have a subject or any verbs so it doesn’t actually say anything. Even if it did assert the whole Bible was inspired by God it doesn’t rule out that Genesis is inspired allegory.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Go back to the 2nd or 3rd Grade of Elementary School. Or at least maybe Middle School.

            Thanks you again. As I’ve said a 100x on here. It’s always appreciated when you fools open your mouth and discredit yourself. Anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of basic English knows it does have a Subject and a Verb.

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

          • Trilemma

            This is a word for word translation of 2Tim 3:16.

            all god-breathed writing and profitable towards teaching towards reproof towards correction towards the training in righteousness.

            In the Greek, there is no subject and no verbs. Translators added verb(s) and created a subject, thus adding to the scriptures.

            Does the Bible contain inspired allegory?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I looked at the two dozen plus Bibles that I have and use and don’t see that in any of them. But it’s close enough. If you don’t see the Subject & Verb in that, the refer back to my original suggestion

            To your question – yes. Jesus often used them. They’re called parables.

          • Trilemma

            What is the verb?

            If the Bible uses allegory then why can’t the creation accounts be allegory?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, golly gee Wally, how about “is inspired” (God-breathed). I’d refer you to several commentaries on the verse but something tells me you’re really not interested in knowing the truth.

          • Trilemma

            The Greek word for “is” is not in this verse and “God-breathed” is an adjective and not a verb.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Are you looking at the Textus Receptus?

          • Trilemma

            Yes, I’m looking at the Textus Receptus as well as the Morphological GNT Greek that blueletterbible dot org uses and the Nestle 1904 Greek that biblehub dot com uses. All three are identical for this verse.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Good. That’s real good. Now, why do you suppose every single translation in the 2dz+ that I looked at shows “is” in the verse? Some italicized some not? Have you looked into that?

          • Trilemma

            Some Bibles, such as the KJV, will print words in italics to show that they have added a word that is not there in the Greek. The fact that “is” appears in italics indicates that the Greek word for “is” is not present in the Greek.

            Does it bother you that a translation will take three Greek words (two adjectives and a noun) that literally mean, “all God-breathed writing,” and turn them into a sentence with eight words that say “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” as the KJV does?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I already knew that. That is why I mentioned it. You didn’t answer the question.

            No. None whatsoever. At all.

            Does it bother you that the previous sentences doesn’t have the word “bother” or “me” in them?

          • Trilemma

            Whyare so many Bibles intentionally mistranslated? Tradition and money. If a Bible publisher wants to make money, they have to make translations that Christians like.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Uh, well golly gee Wally, could it be because they don’t? Yup, that would be it.

            But thank you for publicly displaying the dishonest tactics of the Liars who make a false supposition from the start in the form of a question and expect someone to answer it.

            Your perspective is much appreciated. Always appreciate folks publicly discrediting themselves like that.

          • Trilemma

            Both the ERV and ASV translate the first three words of 1Timothy 3:16 as, “Every scripture inspired of God,” which is an accurate translation. English translations before the KJV also had translations that said basically the same thing. The problem for most Christians is that the ERV and ASV translations imply there are scriptures that are not inspired by God. This is totally unacceptable for most Christians. That is why modern translations follow the tradition started by the KJV to mistranslate by adding an “is.” If they don’t, they will be highly criticized and will not sell well, causing the publisher to lose money.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Sorry but the spiritually-dead minions of Satan don’t get to decide what an accurate translation is. LOL

          • Trilemma

            I am so thankful for your omniscience. I had no idea the translators of the ASV and
            the ERV were spiritually-dead minions of Satan. I mean, who knew?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you saying you were one of the translators for the ASV and ERV? Or are you smoking something?

          • Trilemma

            The translators of the ASV and ERV decided an accurate translation of 2Timothy 3:16 is. “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” I agreed with them. If agreeing with them means I’m a spiritually-dead minion of Satan then it must also mean the translators are spiritually-dead minions of Satan too.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Great example of a no true scotsman fallacy. Appreciate you showing more of your logic and reasoning abilities.

          • Trilemma

            You obviously don’t understand how the No True Scotsman fallacy works.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’ll let the definition and your example speak to whether I understand or not. It is a great example just as I said. So all can see who lacks understanding.

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            It just donned on me that you must be talking about the new Queen James Bible. So I suppose that would be correct. No doubt there are many spiritually-dead, sexually-immoral, rebellious God-haters that would want to rewrite God’s holy, inerrant, infallible Word for money.

          • Harry Weaver

            In some places, like parables, and in places where it takes the HOLY SPIRIT to reveal it. “The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit, neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned.”

          • Harry Weaver

            The Bible is NOT just inspired allegory. If it were then our existence is too.

          • Trilemma

            If the Bible were 100% inspired allegory, how would that make our existence allegory too? Where do you stand on the Genesis creation accounts? Literal historical events? Allegory? Mythology?

          • Harry Weaver

            Fact.

          • Harry Weaver

            That is not the content of II Timothy 3:16. The Bible proves otherwise. And more in agreement with the scientists who once in a while do get things right!!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong.

          • Harry Weaver

            There is really not any proof but it is up to God to make the time and since His time frame is eternity, how can it be said that the 6400 year old earth is accurate? If anything the Bible can and does disprove it with scientific proof of the event.

          • Amos Moses

            it is proven scientifically ….. if you are using science and not a vain imagination ……..

          • Balerion

            A 3000 year old fairy tale does not count as science.

          • Amos Moses

            i did not say it did ……. but did you need “fresh” science …. like it had some kind of expiration of scientific truth? ……. what a ridiculous comment …….

          • Balerion

            I’ll take modern science over some tale that was made up by some bronze age goatherder, who was likely high on something when he came up with it. Moses was high as a kite when he spoke to the burning bush.

          • Amos Moses

            you may take whatever you like ……… you have no evidence that scripture is wrong no matter how old or who wrote it …… if you do the show it ………. and for the record ….. Moses spoke to Christ at that bush ……

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Sure. The Bible says that pi=3 (1 Kings 7:23-26) and that insects have 4 legs (Leviticus 11:20-23).

          • Amos Moses

            11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

            i do not see “insects” there ………

            7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
            7:24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.
            7:25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
            7:26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

            i see no reference to “pi” there ……. a cubit is not a precise measure ….. but it is essentially correct ….. pi = 3.14195 ….. or 3 when rounded down due to .14 ….. so what …..

            ” ten cubits from the one brim to the other””and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What flying, crawling things have four legs?

          • Amos Moses

            BATS ………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yeah, no.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah, Yeah ………

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Might wanna just copy and paste this one for AC and some of the others when they pipe in just to hear themselves talk…

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            They seem to enjoy getting the Plato Award though.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Bats don’t have four legs. Two legs, two wings. A wing is not a leg.

          • Amos Moses

            you need to take a closer look …… they have webbing between their legs ….. it allows them to fly …… but they also crawl on the ground and in their lairs ….. like a flying squirrel …..

            Bats Crawl …. on the u-tube machine …. FYI …………

          • Amos Moses

            better check your bat A&P …………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You have bats in your belfry.

          • Amos Moses

            you do not know your bat A&P ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What is “A&P”? Other than a defunct chain of grocery stores that I remember?

          • Amos Moses

            anatomy and physiology ……….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, now I get what you are saying. Still, a wing is not a leg! By your logic, a chicken has four legs. By your logic, a human being has four legs.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. there is a difference between the anatomy of a bat and a chicken ….. not even the same structures ….. has nothing to do with “logic” ….. has to do with ANATOMY and physiology and ….. oh yeah …. SCIENCE ……….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A leg is, by definition, something used to stand on, walk with, etc. Do bats, chickens, etc, walk on their wings?

          • Amos Moses

            The first digit of the bat wing (homologous to our thumb) is small and clawed, and bats can use it to climb or to walk on the ground. Contrary to popular belief, bats are not helpless on the ground or in the water, and some insectivorous species feed on ground-dwelling insects as much or more than they feed on insects captured in flight.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            People can, sometimes, walk on their hands. Does that mean people have four legs?

          • Amos Moses

            we are not talking about people …. we are talking about BATS ………. learn your bat A&P …. bats have phalanges ………… the structures are similar to our hands OR feet ……….

          • Amos Moses

            “Do bats, chickens, etc, walk on their wings?”

            Bats ….. YES ….. chickens ……… NO ….. not the same anatomy ……… learn your bat A&P …..

          • Amos Moses

            bats have phalages …… chickens do not ……… not the same A&P ……..

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Does a flying squirrel have two legs or four?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Four. They don’t have wings.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Look at the skeletal structure. Not much difference between the two. Is a glider not an airplane? Bats obviously flap their wings. Most airplanes have engines to propel them. Flying squirrels glide. So do Gliders. So do bats not fly?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I just agreed with myself because I thought that was someone else responding to myself…uh, what just happened here? I’m confused. Oh well, if I’m gonna give anyones comments a thumbs up, it might as well be my own!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            ANTS! That one should have been obvious. Thank you for showing that your hard-hearted condition has blinded you so badly.

            There are others that ain’t so obvious but why bother list them. You’ve already just proven that you have NO desire for the Truth. Had you even done a simple Google search you would’ve found the answer.

            Or you could’ve just looked at the list of those mentioned in the Bible. You know, that book you think has no credibility. LOL

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            I appreciate you putting that post out there for all to see that you REALLY have NO desire to accept the Truth.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Ants have six legs.

            (Also, note that I managed to answer you without copying and pasting a litany of quotes or making a speech. You might look into it sometime. You’d save yourself a lot of time.)

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not all of them. (Also, note that there is a little thing called Google. You might look into it sometime. You’d save yourself a lot of embarrassment.)

            There also a LOT of other four-legged flying crawling things so why don’t you just admit you were spouting off at the mouth just to talk and do what trolls do?

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Ann Kah

            All ants have six legs. Try again. Give me another four legged flying crawling creature – but check your facts before you do so.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. Not all. Try again, Google it and see what the first thing that comes up is. Then after YOU have checked your facts, c’mon back and apologize. I’ll wait.

          • Ann Kah

            Royce, I googled ant legs, and every reference I see begins with “all ants have six legs”. I accept your reluctant apology.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’m sorry to see you would publicly display your ineptness at using such a simple tool as Google.

            Your sarcasm is noted. Unfortunately, anyone with eyes to see can see the black & white that I’ve put forth and there is NO apology needed when one has nothing to apology for.

            But hey, keep trying. You may get there someday.

          • Arthur Belling

            All ants have six legs.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, you’re in good company! You’re the fourth one on here thus far who enjoys publicly showing their ignorance. See comments above about the simplicity of Google and the inexcusable behavior and laziness for not making the effort to so a simple search.

          • Arthur Belling

            I did use Google. The difference is, I paid attention to what it said and you didn’t.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. Another lie from the Liar.

          • Arthur Belling

            Ants have six legs, Royce E. Van Blaricome. You lose this one.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. Another lie from the Liar. As I’ve repeatedly said on here – “Not all of them” and a simple Google search for “four-legged ants” proves it.

            You LOSE!! But thank you for showing everyone again your stubborn rebellion to the Truth and preference for Denial over Truth. Not to mention willful determination to continue to spread a LIE. That’s what Evolutionists do though. So I understand.

          • Arthur Belling

            No Royce. All ants have six legs. Google will tell you that as well.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for proving yourself to be a deliberate Liar and now EVERYBODY can know it.

            Much appreciated!!

          • Arthur Belling

            Dear Royce “Ants Have Four Legs” E. Van Blaricome,

            All ants have six legs. If they don’t, they are not ants.

            Yours truly,
            Reality

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

            Wrong. Another lie. You’ve been repeated told that and yet you persist and you do so in just the way of a TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Moreover you once again put your public display of ignorance and willful Denial on full view for everyone to see BECAUSE the first thing that pops up on a Google search for “four-legged ants” is one.

            Oh, and it needs to be said again in case anyone else comes in on your idiotic posts late in the conversation, even if that were not true AND IT IS, you are ASSUMING that none previously existed.

            Ever heard of extinction?????????????????????

            Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            (Another little treat for you.)

          • Arthur Belling

            Royce “Ants Have Four Legs” E. Van Blaricome, you are mistaken about ants. They have six legs. All ants.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            See above. You’ve been proven wrong. Your repeating yourself now. Thank you for publicly displaying your Delusion.

            And btw, your repeating the lie and steadfast denial doesn’t change the Truth. No matter how often you repeat it, how long, or how loud.

          • Arthur Belling

            I can use Google too, Royce. Googling a four legged ant brings up only that the movie “Antz” depicted ants with four legs and people wondered why.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Keep trying. Try the Adult version. Then you’ll get something other than cartoons. But, wait a minute, perhaps that explains everything! Eureka!!

            How old are you anyways? Does your mommy know you’re on the internet talking with adults?

          • Arthur Belling

            Ants have six legs, Royce. I looked it up. So did everyone else who’s laughing at you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Another lie. Sheesh, is it impossible for you to tell the truth? But hey, thanks for showing you are of your father, Satan.

            Oh, and do you think you hurt my wittle feelings with your cheapshot? NOPE! LOL All you did is reveal who you are and all you’ve got. LOL

            THANKS AGAIN!!

            (Btw, I didn’t hear any laughing from your atheist buddy who admitted there are ants with four legs.)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “A simple Google search for ‘4-legged ants'” turns up an article about ants with mutations that they have to overcome, not some species of any that has 4 legs.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Another lie. The search takes you directly to the Myrmecos site (that’s about ANTS) and there is NO mention of it being a mutation.

            And btw, for anyone else reading this. Here’s the typical tactic of the God-haters. They take a Biblical text and try to destroy it with false claims.

            Then, when that fails, they try to Distract and Divert the conversation with more false claims like “ants with mutations not a species”. Does the Biblical text say anything about “species”? NO. That’s their insertion.

            Furthermore, they focus in on the ants thinking that if they can prove that wrong, all their other claims are true as well, when the same Google search shows – as does my earlier statements – that there ARE OTHER four-legged insects too.

            And lastly, they make the moronic ASSUMPTION that what we have today must be what was present at the time the Bible text was written!!! Oh, and absolutely laughably, all the while holding to the Bible isn’t true but Evolution is!!

            So they believe things involve but don’t give any room for the possibility that ants and other insects evolved from four legs to six.

            Hopefully that helps bring into a sharper focus just how moronic and willfully blinded these folks are.

            And btw, THAT doesn’t even take into consideration a proper reading and understanding of the Biblical text. THAT is just pure inability and/or unwillingness to exercise simple reasoning.

          • Trilemma

            If I remember correctly, I think the AiG answer is that the OT writers viewed ants as having four front legs and two rear legs. If the two rear legs were for jumping, the insect could be eaten, if not for jumping then the insect could not be eaten.

          • Harry Weaver

            That explains why John the Baptists could eat locusts, another name for large grass hoppers.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “ANTS! That one should have been obvious. ”

            I have to thank you, you just gave me the biggest laugh I’ll have all day.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I know. Me too. It’s comical when folks don’t take the time to do a quick Google search before shooting off at the mouth.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ants have 6 legs. Therefore, your argument is invalid. That was my point.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Should’ve read my other comments. Not all of them. Therefore my argument IS valid and your claim false. So your point is meaningless.

            More to the point, AC’s original claim as with all his claims if false.

            Still laughing?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

          • Balerion

            Yes, I’m sure he thought he was. They don’t call them “magic” mushrooms for nothing.

          • Amos Moses

            no evidence such a thing took place …..

            Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
            Exo 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
            Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Which is it? “Likely high on something” or “high as a kite”? The former shows your bias and bigotry. The latter your faux omniscience, delusion, and need for professional help.

            Folks PLEASE take note of Balerion’s comments!! They are typical of the spiritually-dead God-hating trolls who wouldn’t believe any science that points to a Creator no matter what or how solid it is.

          • Svens Naumočkins

            Exactly. One proof to not believe The Big Blast is to consider that our planet was created in perfect conditions – atmosphere, humidity, average temperature, location in the solar system. Do you ever think a huge blow could do that? By no means. Unfortunately, people want to hear the lies nowadays. If they would accept truth, it would be MUCH easier! There would be peace on earth, no more violence, wars and every other problem would have been solved. But no.. people want to be manipulated.

            Of course, science is important, but let’s not forget that God gave this special gift to some people as God said he will provide each of us with at least one spiritual gift that we need to discover and use in our lifetime to be saved. But the most important thing – believe in Jesus and that’s the most essential point.

          • Chris

            “One proof to not believe The Big Blast is to consider that
            our planet was created in perfect conditions – atmosphere, humidity, average temperature, location in the solar system. Do you ever think a huge blow could do that?”

            I think what you’re referring to is known as the ‘Big Bang’. It doesn’t deal in a blast or explosion of any kind. It postulates that billions of years ago everything in the universe was contained within a singularity. Then there was a rapid expansion of space and time. This results in energy, which resulted in the formation of molecules, etc. At NO time was the earth formed exactly as it is now.

            Go to youtube and look up a video entitled ‘The Big Bang Explained One trillionth of a Second at a Time’. They explain it far more comprehensively than I ever could.

            “If they would accept truth, it would be MUCH easier!
            There would be peace on earth, no more violence, wars and every other problem would have been solved. But no.. people want to be manipulated.”

            There was a time when all the people of Europe did accept the ideas within the bible. That period of time lasted from the period known as the Dark Ages to the one known as the Wars of Religion. Did Christianity cause that? No! But blind belief did.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Albert Mohler has a great article out recently that wonderfully addresses that very thing.

            That said, here’s the one thing you folks are NEVER gonna get around: You KNOW the Truth and CHOOSE to REJECT it.

            “18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:18-22)

          • Balerion

            God and evolution are not incompatible. It’s only because certain people want to insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis for some stupid reason; I’m guessing that part of it is that they want to believe that everyone who doesn’t believe in their version of God in the exact same way that they do is going to suffer in unspeakable agony in hell for all eternity.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your guesses are about as accurate as everything else you’ve stated.

            The actual reason is because the evidence points to a literal reading of Genesis. Here are some verses that support a literal 6-Day Creation and substantiate Genesis 1:

            Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.”
            (Exo 16:25-26)

            “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
            (Exo 20:8-11)

            “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
            (Exo 23:12)

            You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
            (Exo 31:14-17)

            “Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest.
            (Exo 34:21)

            Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.
            (Exo 35:2)

            “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.
            (Lev 23:3)

            “‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
            (Deu 5:12-14)

            “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent” (Num. 23:19)

            “ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2Ti 3:16)

            “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Pro 14:12)

            “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.” (Pro 3:5-7)

            Would you like more? God has given plenty more if you like.

          • Balerion

            He was high, as in under the influence of some psychoactive substance. He was carrying out a conversation with a bush (that was on fire, no less) because he was hallucinating.

          • Chris

            On that note go to youtube and look up Moses vs Santa Claus.

          • Jason Todd

            Blocked.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh wow, you sure showed him.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That must be one of those comments that falls under “I’ve never lied and I’ve never insulted anyone.” LOL

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I guess we can’t all be paragons of Christlike behavior like you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Don’t know who the “we” is that you’re referring to but since you include yourself in the “we” one must assume you’re referring to spiritually-dead God-haters.

            So no, you can’t. No guessing about it. And you wouldn’t have a clue what “Christlike behavior” is because you have no clue what Jesus is like,

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for showing your objectivity. NOT. It’s comments like that which we Christians absolutely LOVE to see because they show the God-hater for what they are and help more folks be willing to actually see what the real science shows.

          • Chris

            “It’s comments like that which we Christians absolutely LOVE to see because they show the God-hater for what they are…”

            The bible is NOT God.

          • Trilemma

            Show me an article from ICR or AiG that prove the universe is 6400 years old that doesn’t base that date on the Bible.

          • Amos Moses

            6400 is your number …… and it matters not ….. the evidence supports a young earth timeline more than “billions” of years ……..

          • Trilemma

            6400 is not my number. It is the number that ICR and AiG claim as the age of the universe. The evidence supports a much older universe.

          • Amos Moses

            you are the one quoting it ………….

            “The evidence supports a much older universe.”

            when you exclude God ….. you can make the evidence say whatever you want ….. FAIL ….

          • Trilemma

            Evolutionists have been guilty of making the evidence say what they want it to. But ICR and AiG have demonstrated that by including God you can make the evidence say whatever you want it to as well.

          • Chris

            In reply may I ask you to watch a youtube video entitled “13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism”

          • Trilemma

            Yup, that’s a pretty good summary of what I was thinking.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            There is just as much evidence to prove YEC as their is billions, and billions, and billions of year. Moreover, more and more scientists are coming around to seeing thaws of gradual change over long periods of time and realizing the “billions and billions” is just plain wrong.

          • Chris

            Actually there is tons of evidence for the age of the earth. Go to youtube and watch ‘the age of our world made easy’ and one entitled ‘the story of the earth made easy’. Or watch a couple of videos entitled ‘how we know the earth is more than six thousand years old.’.

            “Moreover, more and more scientists are coming around to seeing thaws of gradual change over long periods of time and realizing the “billions and billions” is just plain wrong.”

            Evidence for this from somewhere else than a creationist site please.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually there is tons of evidence for the age of the earth that shows it is NOT millions or billions of years old. Go to youtube and watch the videos that don’t comport with your biased, predetermined positions.

            And no, it’s not just plain wrong.

            Why do you demand the evidence come from where you say it must? Why don’t you be intellectually honest and just accept the science regardless of where it comes from.

            Answer: Because you start with a conclusion and only accept that which agrees with it.

          • Chris

            “Why don’t you be intellectually honest and just accept the science regardless of where it comes from.”

            But science goes from evidence to a conclusion and as you’ve already admitted creationism goes from a conclusion to the evidence.

            “Go to youtube and watch the videos that don’t comport with your biased, predetermined positions.”

            Already have. I used to be a mad keen fan of people like Ken Ham, Duane T Gish, etc.

            “Why do you demand the evidence come from where you say it must?”

            Science must come from reputable sources. If people have been caught out in lie after lie – like you and the leaders of creationist organizations have – then why should I believe they are telling the truth now?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            This directly on the heels of “We’re done here.” Doggone it, there’s another lie!

            “But science goes from evidence to a conclusion and as you’ve already admitted creationism goes from a conclusion to the evidence. So creationism isn’t science.”

            And no, I didn’t already admit that creationism goes from a conclusion to the evidence. I admitted that creationism goes from a Starting Point that God is real and that He is the Intelligent Designer behind the Intelligent Design. That is NOT the same as saying that one goes from a conclusion to the evidence.

            But it does point out the Intellectual Dishonesty by those who do the same from a Starting Point that there is no God and then makes takes the results and draws a conclusion that will only fit within that.

            “Science must come from reputable scientific sources. Since creationism doesn’t use science [as Royce has admitted] they are NOT a credible scientific source.”

            Another bold-faced lie. So we can all see just how credible Chris is.

            “Additionally if people have been caught out in lie after lie – like Royce and the leaders of creationist organizations have – then why should I believe they are telling the truth now? If they really had the truth why would they need to lie?

            Additionally if people have been caught out in lie after lie – like Chris and the leaders of atheist organizations have – then why should I believe they are telling the truth now? If they really had the truth why would they need to lie?

            “Of course all of that will be dismissed by Royce but I’m hoping any reader sitting on the fence will think about those questions.”

            So you admit that you are a troll here just doing our father, Satan’s, bidding. And you actually think folks coming to a Christian site to read this article are gonna be persuaded by your lies? LOL

            Now THAT is wishful thinking!

            But it does prove God’s Word true AGAIN.

            And you are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3)

          • Arthur Belling

            YouTube is evidence?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No. YouTube is the source that provides the evidence.

          • Arthur Belling

            No it isn’t. Anyon e can make a video and post it on YouTube.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for another public display of ignorance. It IS a source that DOES provide evidence.

            But hey, thanks for totally discrediting your counterpart Chris and others who reference all those videos on YouTube. You guys crack me up! LOL

          • Arthur Belling

            There are video shows on YouTube about the earth being flat. I guess they are, using your superior logic skills. Since it’s on YouTube it must be true, right, Royce?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, I see. So because there happens to be a falsehood listed on a Source that means every other thing listed on that source must be also too.

            Thank you. Appreciate you publicly displaying your logic and reasoning abilities!!

            So, by your superior logic and reason then ALL science must be false. Great job there Billy Bob!! LOL

            You really should’ve taken my advice to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance. But hey, feel free to do it again.

          • Arthur Belling

            Royce, when you state that something must be true because there is a YouTube video associated with it, you open yourself up to more humiliation than you can possibly know, I cannot believe you do not know this.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            We’ll just consider the source for that comment. I never said any such but you’ve proven all you can do is LIE. My comments are right there for anyone to read.

            So are yours! 🙂

          • Arthur Belling

            Here’s what you said, Roycie:

            “Actually there is tons of evidence for the age of the earth that shows it is NOT millions or billions of years old. Go to youtube and watch the videos that don’t comport with your biased, predetermined positions.”

            All right then, we’ll just go to YouTube and watch the videos that comport instead with YOUR biased, predetermined positions.

            See how that works now?
            See why you should never have said it in the first place?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Here’s what you said, Roycie:”

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

            I’m no psychologist but I’d suggest the “Roycie” was done just to “offend to get a response” and “with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response”. That you for publicly displaying your narcissism.

            Yup, I saw how it works from the beginning. Nope, don’t see that at all. And obviously you don’t either. Just like you can’t tell the difference between Christianity and a Denomination.

            But hey, you wanna keep playing the fool in public, be my guest.

          • Arthur Belling

            Your definition is a waste of time, since I did nothing resembling trolling. All I did was disagree with you because you were wrong.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your comments and the definition for trolling speaks for itself. And you’re still doing it.

            And btw, your other God-hating atheist buddy has already admitted on here that there IS a four-legged ant.

            Guess that means I wasn’t wrong. I’ll wait for your apology.

          • Arthur Belling

            You’ll have quite a long wait. And ants have six legs.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nah, didn’t have to wait long at all for you to come back and publicly reveal yourself for what you are again. Only about 4 hours.

            Thank you again for publicly displaying your Delusion and willful continuous to boldly tell your lies and completely discredit yourself.

            You’re even on the outside of your other atheist buddy now.

          • Arthur Belling

            You should count how many times you thank people for doing things they didn’t do. It’s at least every other message with you. And it never makes any sense.

            I’m not a troll. Given your blind screaming shrieking rages against everyone you converse with, I’d say that’s your department.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you again for ANOTHER public display of lying, Much appreciated.

            You are a troll. Just proved it again. By definition.

          • Arthur Belling

            That moment when you sit here and realize that you’re trying to make a person who thinks ants have four legs see the light at the end of the tunnel. Not going to happen, is it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Probably not. You close your eyes to the Greatest Light of all so I have no expectation that you’ll see the light of that either.

          • Arthur Belling

            Got any proof of that? No, of course you don’t. So I’ll just be terrified of your faith instead.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Arthur Belling

            Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it become true.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Denying the Truth over and over doesn’t make it become false.

          • Arthur Belling

            You’re not in a position to speak about truth when you’re talking about your faith. That kind of attitude makes people fly airplanes into buildings.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That’s funny! Thanks !

            It’s also another example of a Troll’s behavior. Do I need to quote the definition and psychological analysis again?

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Arthur Belling

            I’m speaking calmly to you and you’re the one getting into a blind screaming rage. I’m behaving nothing like a troll, and my posts speak for themselves.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL. There ain’t even a single all CAPS word in my comment and you think that’s a blind screaming rage! LOL

            More trolling behavior. Hope you seek help.

          • Arthur Belling

            Read your posts, then mine, then tell me who is exhibiting the troll behavior.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ok. Done. You are.

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Arthur Belling

            No, sir. Everything I’ve said was sincere and delivered in a calm and respectful manner. You on the other hand flip out and not just with me, but everyone you talk to.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No sir, if that were true your comments would be getting deleted. Here’s let me remind you of just one of your recent comments: “you’re the one getting into a blind screaming rage.”

            And then above “You on the other hand flip out…”

            Nope. No blind screaming rage and no flipping out. Just false accusations from a Troll who “lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.” Just as the definition says.

          • Arthur Belling

            There is no reason to delete my observation that your regular temper tantrums are directed at all those who tell you things you don’t want to hear.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!

            Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Arthur Belling

            I notice you have a Twitter account, and Facebook, and behave similarly on those. Very telling.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Stalking now too???????? Oh yeah, THAT is VERY telling!!

          • Arthur Belling

            If you are ashamed of your social media tools Royce, perhaps you should not be using them.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!

            “Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Arthur Belling

            Screaming Troll Alert every time someone tells you something that hurts your Fee Fee’s just makes you look weak and stupid, you know that, right, Royce? Your buddies are probably going to ban me for telling you as plainly as day what you need to hear for your own good: your faith has turned you into a bigoted, hateful, selfish pig.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Don’t fool yourself. I and everyone else on here can see you have a deluded faux omniscience that you choose to exercise on a regular basis but, make no mistake, you are NOT, have NOT, and will NOT hurt my “Fee Fee’s”. (I assume that is your troll-like way of saying “feelings”.)

            And no, if you get banned by the Owners (who are my Brother and Sister not “buddies” just to be clear), it WiLL BE BECAUSE OF YOUR BEHAVIOR.

            Try taking some personal responsibility for a change. Get some help.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Evidently the owners of this site think otherwise.

            And your faux omniscience fails you again. No temper tantrums on this end. Why I’m not even angry. I do pity you though. But I doubt you’ll be around much longer to try your trolling provoking tactics.

            You’ve got WAY past “discourteous”.

          • Arthur Belling

            Well isn’t it cozy for you then that you post on a site where your bigoted and hateful statements will sail by but those who call you on them get taken to task.

            I’m far from being the first person to be subject to your screaming hate tantrums, there are more here than I can count.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Uh, so whattaya saying about the owners of this site? That they are bigoted and hateful too? Or that they promote bigotry and hatred by taking those to task like you who get their posts deleted and/or banned?

            Like I said before, better to look outward than inward and deal with your problems I suppose.

          • Arthur Belling

            I’m saying they like bigoted hateful pigs like you, Royce. Bye now.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, you said a whole LOT more than that. And it ALL reflects on YOU!!

            I knew a long time ago that it was only a matter of time before you imploded and revealed yourself. A true testimony to Jeremiah 17:9 and why you trolls come here.

            Buh bye!!

          • Arthur Belling

            I have said all there is to say to you, Royce. Your Bible is a book you use to beat people up with. Your religion is a paranoid revenge fantasy in which people who dare tell you what a maniac you are are thrown gleefully by you (not God) unto a lake of fire and you savour their torture forever because they had the nerve to disagree with you. You are everything wrong with the world, not just fundamentalist religion. I think you are subhuman garbage. Goodbye.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, I guess your “Bye now” didn’t mean “Bye now” and my “Buh bye” was premature.

            Save the rest of nonsense for somebody that might buy it. I don’t. We’ve long heard your liberal mantra of how we beat people up with the Bible (I’ve yet to see anyone hit with a Bible yet!!) and how we’re hateful, harmful, bigots, homophobes, blah blah blah.

            You are sorely deceived and there really is no excuse for it. When you attempt to discredit and trash-talk the Bible you are blaspheming God because you call Him a Liar. 2nd Tim. 3:16 is true. Jesus never belittled, undermined, dismissed, or made light of Scripture in any way whatsoever. He never downplayed the significance of Scripture for His own personal guidance. Nor did He ever doubt the authority of God’s Word in any way. He never questioned the veracity of the Old Testament stories or remotely insinuated in any way whatsoever that they were anything but true. Quite to the contrary and just the opposite. Jesus held the Bible in the highest regard. EIGHTY times in the Gospels Jesus quotes from more than seventy chapters from twenty-four different Old Testament books. When the Pharisees would challenge Christ or try to trick Him, what was His response? “Have you not read…”

            So what’s the point? Just this, when you hear someone say that Jesus never addressed this or that, remind them of just that. That and that Jesus is God. The Book of John starts out with “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In John 10:30 Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” So if the Father said something, so did Jesus and so does the Holy Spirit. There is NEVER any contradiction between them. How serious does Jesus make obedience to the Word of God? Matt. 5:17-19 gives us a pretty good idea: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

            You would do well to recall and remember that God chose to write His commandments in stone and that the last Book of God’s Word starts with Christ ordering John to “write down” the things he was about to receive. And John was to send those things to the 7 churches. NOT just tell them what he had heard.

            The bottom line is that if you do not submit to the authority of God’s Word – The Bible – then you are your own god to hear what you wanna hear and do what you wanna do because you have nothing to filter it thru but your own authority.

            And you are most sadly mistaken. It WILL BE Jesus Christ that hurls you into the Lake of Fire.

            Lastly, as I’ve told you before, I could not care less what you think I am. I KNOW what I am. A child of the Most High God. A blood-bought Saint. Born Again Christian who is co-heir with Jesus Christ.,

            And you’ve shown everyone once again just what you are.

          • Arthur Belling

            fstdt dot com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=126135
            You’re fast becoming a star, Royce!
            Favorite quote: “Please, please, please be a troll, how could anyone this stupid exist?”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            So you lied again. No surprise. And, as I told you the last time, I’m more than a star. I’m a child of the Most High God.

  • Amos Moses

    “Fake News” began the day after Christ rose from the dead and the Pharisees spread the “news” that the disciples had stolen the body ……. it is interesting that “fake news” NEEDS to label other news as fake ….. and that fake science NEEDS to label scripture as fake …… instead of doing their job and ACTUALLY proving it wrong …… and they dont do that ….. because they cant …… scripture is accurate ……………….

    • Trilemma

      Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe believes that the Bible (including Genesis 1–11) is the error-free word of God. He also believes the universe is 13.79 years old and has shown ICR’s science to be false.

      • SFBruce

        I think you may have left out the word “billions.” As I understand it, Hugh Ross believes in progressive creationism, which doesn’t accept the notion of a very young universe.

        • Trilemma

          oops – fixed it – thx

        • Robert

          Hugh Ross would be more comfortable with trillions or Zillions of years rather than just billions TO yet I don’t care what Hugh Ross thinks Since he is no where to be found in the book of Genesis he would not know.

          • Chris

            Nor is Robert. You both rely upon an interpretation. But Ross has something else – he has evidence for the age of the Earth.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for that perfect example of your dishonesty, deception, and delusion. Ross has NO “evidence” whatsoever. He has an INTERPRETATION based on observations.

          • Trilemma

            Observations are evidence.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Only to the point of being evident. Nothing beyond that.

      • Amos Moses

        “Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe believes that the Bible (including Genesis 1–11) is the error-free word of God. He also believes the universe is 13.79 billion years old”

        so apparently not ………

        • Trilemma

          Why is you interpretation of the Bible better than Hugh Ross’s?

          • Amos Moses

            “Why is you interpretation of the Bible”

            i do not have an “interpretation” …… that would be ADDING to scripture ….. making it NOT scripture ….. and if Mr. Ross has an “interpretation” …… then he does not have scripture ….. has added to scripture …. and it is therefore NOT scripture ………….

          • Trilemma

            You interpret Genesis as literally true. Others interpret Genesis as figuratively true. Why should Genesis be interpreted as literally true and not figuratively true?

          • Amos Moses

            nope … i do not “interpret it” ……… the truth is either ACCEPTED OR REJECTED …….

          • Trilemma

            How do you know what you’ve accepted is the truth? Do you ever entertain the possibility that what you’re accepted as the truth is not actually the truth?

          • Amos Moses

            scripture is the only truth in this world …… if it is not ….. then there truly is NO truth in this world …… the truth in scripture is totally verifiable …… i am satisfied that it is the only truth we have …… if you have any proof it is not then it is on you to prove it a lie …… and if it is a lie …… it should be easy ……….

            millions have tried to prove it a lie …… they have failed in all attempts ….. for THOUSANDS of years …… it is still here …. they are NOT …….. and if you choose to waste your time in that continued endeavor ….. your fate will be the same …….

          • Trilemma

            “scripture is the only truth in this world….”

            A Muslim would say that the Quran is the only truth in this world. Both are simply statements of faith about a book. Faith in a book doesn’t make it truth.

            “…… if it is not ….. then there truly is NO truth in this world ……”

            I agree. There’s not much truth in the world but a lot of faith pretending to be truth.

          • sandraleesmith46

            And the Quran is quite easy to prove as a lie.

          • Trilemma

            Not to a Muslim.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Not so; once exposed to truth, they find that for themselves often; but many are turning to Christianity; or just away from Islam for that very reason: they see it for the lie it is.

          • Robert

            Because the scripture verses on Genesis give no indication what so ever that we are not to take it literally.

            And because Jesus himself in the New testament takes the book of Genesis litterly and teach’s US his truths first brought up in the book of Genesis. AND because the Sabbath day for Jews came about due to the fact the creation days we’re natural 24 hour days .since not even Jews are blessed with billions of years life so they could rest on the Sabbath day.

          • Chris

            “And because Jesus himself in the New testament takes the book of
            Genesis literally and teaches US his truths first brought up in the book
            of Genesis.”

            According to the Gospels Jesus taught that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. It isn’t. Are we to take that literally?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

          • Trilemma

            A talking snake is a good indication that it’s allegory.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. God also had a donkey talk.

            Also, in addition to what Robert said, Exegesis 101 and Hermeneutics 101 teaches that one MUST allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

            Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.”
            (Exo 16:25-26)

            “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
            (Exo 20:8-11)

            “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
            (Exo 23:12)

            You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
            (Exo 31:14-17)

            “Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest.
            (Exo 34:21)

            Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.
            (Exo 35:2)

            “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.
            (Lev 23:3)

            “‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
            (Deu 5:12-14)

          • Arthur Belling

            It is not physically possible for snakes or donkeys to talk.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. It happens. Your god, is much too small. If God can raise one from the dead, he most certainly can make a snake or donkey talk.

            But since you’ve made the claim. By all means, prove it.

          • Arthur Belling

            I don’t need to. A snake has no voice box. Are you saying it was possible because Jesus is magic?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. Because Jesus is God.

          • Arthur Belling

            Oak Royce, do you seriously believe what you are saying?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yup. Absolutely. Jesus is God and ALL Christians know that. Sheesh!

            Oh, and if you’re saying that the snakes never changed, then I appreciate you Denial and Rejection for Evolution!!

          • Arthur Belling

            Royce, I must ask you: have you ever had a psychiatric evaluation? There is no need to be ashamed.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Arthur Belling

            So – no answer, just a typical screaming childish tantrum. Noted.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            What’s noted is whose comment got deleted. And your response? MORE TROLLING!!!!!!!!!!

          • Arthur Belling

            Doesn’t matter, you read it before it was removed. I’m not trolling, I’m not the one screaming LIAR at everyone who responds to him with eighty-six exclamation marks and trying to say with a straight face that ants have four legs.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah but it does matter. It proves you are trolling. And if the shoe fits….

          • Arthur Belling

            It proves only that some moderator didn’t like it, probably because they thought I was insulting you but I was not. I was quite serious when I asked if you’d had a psychiatric evaluation.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, it proves that you know nothing about this site and, moreover, that you’d rather point the finger at others than look inward.

          • Arthur Belling

            Coming from someone who constantly points fingers at others, that’s pretty rich.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Or just wrong.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            You’re gonna need a bigger shelf for all those Plato Awards

          • Trilemma

            I have two concerns with the Bible. The first, what does it actually say and the second, is what it actually says actually true. I think the creation accounts were meant to be viewed as allegory, which also gets rid of the need to reject science. But even as allegory they’re still basically wrong.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Not necessarily; and there was also a talking Jenny.

          • Robert

            God explaned satan had used the snake it was satan talking by way of the serpemt . have you visited lutheran sciemce institue latly on the web. lots of new creation material added. enjoy

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            See my post on here where I listed a dozen or so Scriptures that back up the 6-Day Creation. As you and I know, Scripture must interpret Scripture. You may wanna log those away somewhere for future use.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Again; the Word isn’t open to “interpretation” by anyone.

          • Trilemma

            Do you rightly divide Genesis to be literally true or figuratively true.

          • Arthur Belling

            You have an interpretation just like everyone else. Why do you think there are thousands of denominations? If everyone understood scripture the same way there would be only one denomination.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not true. The Bible actually gives room for differing denominations. Best you not try to talk about that which you are completely oblivious too.

          • Arthur Belling

            Explain then why Christians divide approximately down the middle on the subject of infant baptism.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Apples and Oranges. More importantly, that subject is a Non-essential. Doesn’t affect one’s Salvation either way and either one isn’t gonna keep you out of the torment of the Lake Of Fire for ALL Eternity.

          • Arthur Belling

            You’re avoiding the question, Royce.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not at all. Not my problem if you don’t know what a Christian is (thought NOT at all surprising!) and obviously have a hard time tracking in a conversation.

          • Arthur Belling

            Your problems are showing themselves to be more prevalent each time you speak, Royce. Please explain the patent absurdity that you are trying so desperately to make fly here.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your problems are showing themselves to be more prevalent each time you speak, Arthur. Please DO NOT TRY explain the patent absurdity that you are trying so desperately to make fly here.

            And thank you for once again showing your bias, bigotry, ignorance, and TROLLING nature. If you do not understand what I said there is NO way that you can HONESTLY characterize it as absurd!!!!!!!!!!

            Hopefully a ton of folks can see your post before you go try to change it.

          • Arthur Belling

            Exposing your exact words is not trolling, Royce. Pointing out when you say something that has zero basis in fact is not trolling, either. The way this seems to work is someone (not necessarily me) points something out in a calm and rational statement, and you instantly go into full-on shrieking freakout mode, calling everyone a liar and a troll. Count your exclamation marks sometime Royce, it’s a treat.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            ” you instantly go into full-on shrieking freakout mode,”

            TROLLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            There’s a treat for ya. And btw, it’s the TROLLS who get their comments deleted.

            Take a hint!

          • Arthur Belling

            Pointing out your immature behavior is not trolling, Royce.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            Your characterization of me is empty. Your behavior fits the above. Your continued OFF-TOPIC personal ad hominem is prima facia.

          • Arthur Belling

            I notice what you’re saying to me you seem to say to everyone. That sort of tells me who the troll around here is.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Good for you. Glad to see you recognize yourself on the Wide & Easy Road to damnation along with the other God-hating trolls. (I assume by “everyone ” you mean just the spiritually-dead God-haters who come here to habitually harass Christians and play their silly games.) Not hard to understand at all why you’d realize yourself in that group.

            Of course it would tell you that. Thank you for once AGAIN publicly showing your ignorance and willful preference toward being oblivious to Reality – especially since you’ve read this a half dozen times now.

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

            CHRISTIANS can’t by definition be “trolling” CHRISTIAN pages. Duh!!! Smh…

          • Arthur Belling

            You don’t get to send people to hell Royce, as much as I know you want to fulfill your paranoid revenge fantasy. The way I understand it, that’s the job of your God who said “vengeance is mine”. I don’t hate what I cannot believe exists. It’s just as simple as that.

            You should really stop thanking me for doing things I didn’t do – I didn’t show any ignorance. I merely exposed yours.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, I don’t get to send people to Hell. Jesus does that. But I do get to tell you that your ticket is already paid for and the ride will be a fast one.

            No paranoid revenge fantasy here. Thanks for showing you don’t know anything.

            You do hate God and He DOES exist. It’s as simple as that.

            Oh but you did show your ignorance and I do thank you for it. It’s a TERRIFIC visual testimony to the foolishness of the wicked and the Truth of God’s Word.

          • Arthur Belling

            Paranoid revenge fantasy to a T. You love your like of fire, and love telling people in your loving Christian way that they will burn there.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for showing your evil, wicked, dark heart again. The hatred and vile nature is on full display but you got it just a little bit wrong.

            The Lake of Fire is not mine. It’s yours. But yes, I do love telling people in a loving Christian way that they will burn there. It’s called Obedience and Jesus said those who love Him will obey Him. So I thank you for confirming that I love Jesus.

          • Arthur Belling

            Do you not even begin to see the humor here, a guy who tosses out warnings to everyone he disagrees with that they’re going to burn in a lake of fire, telling OTHER people that they have “evil wicked dark hearts”? Ahh…can’t you feel the Christian love?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes, I can feel the love. And you would too IF you knew what “Christian” or “Love” actually is.

          • Arthur Belling

            Telling people do as I say or burn in hell doesn’t sound loving OR Christian to me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That’s because:

            1) You’re not God
            2) You’re not a Born Again Child of God
            3) You’re not a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ
            4) You don’t know what Love is
            5) You don’t know that Love include Truth & Justice

            Thank you for giving me the opportunity to help you understand. And, as I said before, you have NO clue what a Christian is so how would you have any idea what on sounds like.

          • Arthur Belling

            1) You’re not God either.
            2) You don’t know what my faith is, so this statement is false.
            3) see #2.

          • Amos Moses

            “You have an interpretation just like everyone else. ”

            Nope …. that is adding to scripture …. and we are forbidden from that ….. it is called adding to scripture ….. we do not get to amend Gods word ……..

            Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Galatians 1:8-9, Revelation 22 18-21

            “Why do you think there are thousands of denominations?”

            because heresies exist ……. and because people ADD TO SCRIPTURE …………

          • Arthur Belling

            I’m not accusing you of adding to scripture. I’m saying that when you read scripture you do it the same way everyone does, in other words, you understand it a certain way. That is the reason we have different interpretations and so many different denominations, just based on the fact that all these texts aren’t nearly as straightforward as they are presented.

          • Amos Moses

            interpretation …. IS …. adding to scripture …. we are not given the latitude to change Gods word …… it is HIS word ….. it is not ours ….

          • Arthur Belling

            I think you need to look up the definition of the word “interpretation”. It doesn’t involve adding anything. It’s about perception and understanding. What this means is that nothing is being changed, and that you should stop saying it’s “adding to scripture”.

          • Amos Moses

            no …. we need to read scripture as it is given by God …… and not to lean on our own understanding …… the dictionary has no purpose in reading what scripture says ….. scripture defines scripture ….. not the dictionary ………..

          • Arthur Belling

            If you read something in a book, you’re going to understand it a certain way. It doesn’t matter if that book is the Bible or if it’s a child’s picture book. If you’re going to tell me that you have the same understanding God has then I’d like to know how that is even possible. And how you managed to do it.

          • Amos Moses

            Prv 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

          • Arthur Belling

            That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah …. has everything to do with what you said ….. you just do not like the answer …. because the answer is from scripture and answers the question …… we do not get the luxury of interpretation …… we do not get to add to scripture ….. and interpretation is adding ……. it relies on our OWN understanding ….. not Gods understanding ……

            it is like your parent saying to you “you must be home by 11” ……. and then you try to “interpret” it as you see fit …. not as your parent made very clear when they said it what was meant …….

            NO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION ………..

            1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
            1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
            1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

          • Arthur Belling

            No, Amos, you are dodging the issue. You still show a complete lack of understanding of the word “interpretation”. Interpreting means understanding. Interpretation isn’t a “luxury” at all, as you said, but simply what everyone possesses. When you read a set of rules of how to put a model airplane together, you are interpreting it. You are taking the words that someone has put on paper and trying to understand what they meant. Some people manage to put the model airplane together correctly because they had a better interpretation. Those who messed part of it up misinterpreted the words.

            Using your example, “you must be home by 11” is pretty straightforward, but we know lots of scripture is not. It’s been translated, and re-translated, and mistranslated, and reworded and reworked, precisely because no one can exactly understand what was meant. Certain words in Greek do not translate easily to Arabic and other languages and vice versa. So, just because God understands something perfectly doesn’t mean we hear it and INTERPRET it perfectly.

            The problem is people like you who think you understand what was meant ABSOLUTELY perfectly, and don’t consider for a moment that there are other Christians who ALSO think they understand what was meant ABSOLUTELY perfectly too – and yet the two of you couldn’t be further apart.

            The scripture you quote only serves to show you don’t understand the issue or are pretending not to, and continue to tap dance around it. No one’s talking about “private interpretation”. I’m talking about all the denominations disagreeing about their very PUBLIC interpretations.

            Now, go look up the word interpretation again and read it over a few times until you understand it.

          • Amos Moses

            we, as christians, do not get to “understand” the bible, Gods word, in any way we choose ……….

            “When you read a set of rules of how to put a model airplane together, you are interpreting it.”

            No … you are not ….. not if you want to build it as the creator intended ………… you FOLLOW the directions …. you do not “interpret” them …………

          • Arthur Belling

            You are still dodging and playing games. OK, so God means his words only one way. How can you be certain you’re understanding them in the way that He meant? Maybe you are misunderstanding them. Or to use your example, how do you know you are FOLLOWING the directions correctly when the words might not have been translated properly?

          • Amos Moses

            “How can you be certain you’re understanding them in the way that He meant?”

            CONTEXT ………..

          • Arthur Belling

            OK, fine, how can you know your context is correct?

          • Amos Moses

            how can you know if little red riding hood was the heroine or evil …………

          • Arthur Belling

            Nice dodge. It’s clear as day what you are doing. But it’s completely ridiculous for any Christian to make the statement that the Bible is crystal clear about absolutely everything and that there’s only one way to understand it and that is YOUR way and those who understand differently from you are false Christians. That’s your statement in a nutshell, Amos.

          • Amos Moses

            nope … answer the question …. HOW DO YOU KNOW …………

          • Arthur Belling

            I don’t know. No one does. We make the best guesses we can but we don’t walk around telling the other guy is wrong for doing exactly the same thing we do.

          • Amos Moses

            then you dont know ANYTHING and it is pointless to continue ….. if you are not smart enough to discern little red riding hood ….. then all you have is complete conjecture and no truth ….. your words are all lies …………

          • Arthur Belling

            I haven’t lied once. Not once. I’m pointing out to you what you seem determined to dodge from at every single turn. If everyone understood (interpreted) the Bible the same way, there would be no disagreement among Christians. I don’t have to tell you how much disagreement there is. And it’s not because the wrong ones are “false Christians”. It’s because none of you can get your act together on what the words actually mean.

          • Amos Moses

            every word where you then make the comment that you dont know …… colors everything you have said ….. if you dont know if it is a lie or not …. then it is ALL LIES ….. whether you realize they are lies or not …… if you do not know … THEN YOU KNOW NOTHING …… and you are just spouting and bloviating to hear yourself ……..

          • Arthur Belling

            In matters of faith, no one knows anything for sure. Which is why it is a bad idea to be arrogant about it.

          • Amos Moses

            THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU ADMIT YOU DO NOT KNOW ……

          • Amos Moses

            “But it’s completely ridiculous for any Christian to make the statement that the Bible is crystal clear about absolutely everything and that there’s only one way to understand it and that is YOUR way”

            NOPE ….. GODS WAY ……… it is His word …. not ours …….

          • Arthur Belling

            And how remarkable that God’s Way is always IDENTICAL to your way. Wow.

          • Amos Moses

            ” that God’s Way is always IDENTICAL to your way.”

            NOPE ….. what is remarkable is that MY WAY IS GODS WAY ….. I FOLLOW HIM ….. He does not follow me …. i take my direction from Him …

          • Arthur Belling

            You follow him IN THE WAY YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS.
            Just like every other Christian. The problem is, you all do it differently.
            That’s how it is, Amos. Your way is just one of millions of ways.

          • Amos Moses

            nope ….. you do not even understand what you are reading in scripture …. as you have said …… you DONT KNOW …… why should we continue ….. you dont know anything ….. BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT ………

          • Arthur Belling

            Neither do you. Neither does anyone. We have holy texts that we can either decide to believe or disregard. But you’re a special case in that you’ve decided on one single interpretation on one single holy book and insist everyone else, including your fellow Christians, are wrong or false.

          • Amos Moses

            “Neither do you. Neither does anyone. ”

            so you admit AGAIN …. YOU KNOW NOTHING …. then WHY are you here …… to talk about what YOU ADMIT YOU DO NOT KNOW …………. WHY ………….

          • Arthur Belling

            Because we can still speculate about things like this without talking arrogantly about having the absolute truth all the time. For goodness sake Amos, why is it so hard for you to admit you don’t know everything?

          • Amos Moses

            “Because we can still speculate about things like this without talking arrogantly about having the absolute truth all the time”

            if there is no absolute truth ….. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT …………. on WHAT BASIS can you know that …………

          • Arthur Belling

            I didn’t say there was no absolute truth, maybe there is. I said you cannot know absolute truth from reading holy text, including the Bible. The Bible might be wrong. It was written by people, even though those people claimed to be channeling God.

          • Amos Moses

            “Using your example, “you must be home by 11″ is pretty straightforward”

            NOPE ….. “but daddy, its always 11 somewhere” ….. “but daddy, did you mean 11 AM or 11 PM” …….

          • Arthur Belling

            OK, so now you’re agreeing with me, that the words of the Bible are not going to absolutely clear to everyone?

          • Amos Moses

            no ….. those are your weasel words for denying scripture ….. not mine ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            I am not about denying scripture. I’m about getting you guys to agree on what it means.

          • Amos Moses

            no you are not ……… more lies from a liar ….. YOU ADMIT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS AND THAT YOU CANT …………. WHY should we continue ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            I deny scripture when it makes promises it can’t deliver. I don’t deny it when it’s matters of historical record.

          • Amos Moses

            “I deny scripture when it makes promises it can’t deliver.”

            on what basis can you even know that …… WHEN YOU ADMIT YOU KNOW NOTHING ….

          • Arthur Belling

            I didn’t say I know nothing. I said that when it comes to anything involving the afterlife I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. You have faith, and that’s all. You don’t know what comes after.

          • Amos Moses

            you are continually making UTTERLY self refuting statements …… do you even know what you are talking about ……..

          • Arthur Belling

            No. What are you having trouble understanding? What to you that I have said is “self-refuting”? Just because I don’t claim to have all the answers in the universe doesn’t mean I have an inability to spot things that are hideously wrong when they come from other people.

          • Amos Moses

            “It’s been translated, and re-translated, and mistranslated, and reworded and reworked, precisely because no one can exactly understand what was meant. Certain words in Greek do not translate easily to Arabic and other languages and vice versa.”

            you have absolutely no evidence of such a thing ………

          • Arthur Belling

            Google “List of English Bible translations”.

            There’s your proof. Next.

          • Amos Moses

            NOPE ….. WRONG ….. there is a mixture of terms that you are trying to conflate ….. and it only makes you a bigger LIAR …………..

          • Amos Moses

            “It’s been translated, and re-translated, and mistranslated, and reworded and reworked, precisely because no one can exactly understand what was meant. Certain words in Greek do not translate easily to Arabic and other languages and vice versa.”

            The academic discipline of “textual criticism” assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error. We must remember that the Bible was hand-copied for hundreds of years before the invention of the first printing press. Nevertheless, the text is exceedingly well preserved. Again, I pondered this — of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament. I again compared this with Homer’s Iliad. Of the approximately 15,600 lines that make up Homer’s classic, 764 lines are in question. These 764 lines represent over 5% of the entire text, and yet nobody seems to question the general integrity of that ancient work.

            Dramatically, when the Bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand alone as the best-preserved literary works of all antiquity. Remarkably, there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide astounding evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.

            The manuscript evidence for the “New Testament” is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

            Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar’s The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger’s Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus’ Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years).

          • Arthur Belling

            If you’re going to cut and paste walls of text, you could at least say where they came from.

          • Amos Moses

            google it ….. but the fact is all your statements have been lies …. whether you know it or not ……….. and all that makes you is a liar ……. when you spout lies knowingly or unknowingly ….. you are just a liar …… spouting garbage that YOU got off some web site that YOU do not want to post ………..

          • Arthur Belling

            No, my statements aren’t lies. When I don’t know something, I have the guts to admit it. But you don’t like being told that your faith isn’t the same as truth.

          • Amos Moses

            you admit YOU HAVE NO TRUTH …………. so why are you here …………. WHY ARE YOU HERE …… you admit YOU ARE A KNOW NOTHING …………

          • Arthur Belling

            I have truth. I just take it from reliable sources, not a bunch of ancient holy texts. Things I can rely on to be accurate.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry …… WHAT RELIABLE source do you think you have when you say ….. 1. there is no absolute truth …… 2. even if there was ………. NOBODY CAN KNOW IT …… and 3. EVEN IF THEY KNEW IT ….. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU SAID NOBODY CAN KNOW IT ……. Complete and UTTERLY self-refuting GARBAGE ……………

          • Arthur Belling

            I’m not talking about faith. I’m talking about science, things I can know. That’s pretty reliable. The fact that gravity holds me to the ground is reliable. We know it and can see it and can study it. Unlike matters of faith.

          • Amos Moses

            “I’m not talking about faith. I’m talking about science, things I can know.”

            AGAIN ….. you said ….. 1. there is no absolute truth …… 2. even if there was ………. NOBODY CAN KNOW IT …… and 3. EVEN IF THEY KNEW IT ….. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU SAID NOBODY CAN KNOW IT ……. Complete and UTTERLY self-refuting GARBAGE …….

            “The fact that gravity holds me to the ground is reliable.”

            HOW do you “know” it is gravity …………. HOW do you “know” that when you have said NOBODY CAN KNOW …. based on WHAT …. where did the “science” COME FROM …. YOU said it was UNKNOWABLE ………. Complete and UTTERLY self-refuting GARBAGE ……. How do you know the “science” book you read that out of was correct and in context ……. how do you know the measurements were correct and that conclusions were correct …. HOW CAN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU SAY IS UNKNOWABLE and that NO ONE can know …………… Complete and UTTERLY self-refuting GARBAGE …….

          • Arthur Belling

            I didn’t say there is no absolute truth. I said your faith is not the same thing as truth. Try to be honest here.

          • Amos Moses

            is truth knowable or not …………..

          • Arthur Belling

            Yes.

          • Amos Moses

            HOW …………….

          • Arthur Belling

            Because truth is something you can test with facts and data. Unlike faith.

          • Amos Moses

            AGAIN ………. really ……….. so you have PERSONALLY checked every “theory” of science and tested evey thing in EVERY science book and therefore know it to be true ……. NOPE ….. and if you said yes you would be the BIGGEST liar ………….. NOPE …. you accept it ON FAITH ……… and NOTHING ELSE ………………

          • Arthur Belling

            You are still saying your faith is preferable to science in terms of provability? Really?

          • Amos Moses

            science COMES FROM MY FAITH ….. it is the measure … the GOLD STANDARD of your FAITH in science …… if your science does not comport to christianity …. THEN IT AINT SCIENCE …… it is GARBAGE ………….and FYI …. GOD, CHRIST created science to CONFIRM the creation ……….. and thus confirm HIM …….

          • Arthur Belling

            Science doesn’t come from your faith. It comes from testing hypotheses and looking at data. Making it the exact opposite of your faith.

          • Amos Moses

            ” It comes from testing hypotheses and looking at data. ”

            and the only reason you are able to do ANY of that is because you have a CREATED STABLE UNIVERSE ……….. made by a CREATOR ……… and thus COMES FROM MY FAITH ….

          • Arthur Belling

            That’s one opinion…

          • Amos Moses

            not an opinion ….. if there was no stable universe you could test NOTHING ……. you would not even be here ….. the alternative is that you and all this is just an accident ………. and you have even LESS proof of that …………

          • Arthur Belling

            You still haven’t proven God. And science can exist just fine with or without.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not have to prove God …… you deny God …. and if you cannot see His work ….. then no proof is going to make you see Him ….. see ….. you have to work VERY HARD to deny God …. you invest your time in denial, willful blindness and refusing to hear the truth …..what a waste of energy ….. to deny the truth that is right in front of your eyes ….. very sad ……..

          • Arthur Belling

            I see the same things you do. It doesn’t NECESSARILY mean God did it. There you go again confusing your faith with truth. Very sad.

          • Amos Moses

            “I see the same things you do. It doesn’t NECESSARILY mean God did it. ”

            no you dont ……. if you did you would not say the things and would not hold the beliefs you do …..

          • Arthur Belling

            I’m not saying there isn’t a God. I’m saying that if there IS a God, I’m quite confident he bears no resemblance to the tyrant of the Bible.

          • Amos Moses

            it is an interesting theological argument ….. but you have no evidence ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            When I make no claim, I require no evidence. You’re the one making a claim.

          • Amos Moses

            NOPE ….. YOUR claim ……..

            ” I’m saying that if there IS a God,” …. THAT IS A CLAIM …….

          • Arthur Belling

            No it isn’t, because of the word “if” there that you seem to pretend is NOT there.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. i INCLUDED IF ……. and it does not alter YOUR CLAIM ………. and it IS A CLAIM …….

          • Arthur Belling

            A claim doesn’t contain the word “if” because “if” suggests several possible outcomes. So I’m not making a claim.

          • Amos Moses

            YEAH IT DOES ……… FAIL ………

          • Arthur Belling

            No Amos. When I say “if” I make no claim whatsoever.

          • Amos Moses

            weasel words do not erase your claim ….. FAIL …………

          • Arthur Belling

            It’s not a fail, Amos. And you know that. No claim is being made because I claim no creator. Unlike yourself.

          • Amos Moses

            “No claim is being made because I claim no creator. ”

            so you are just a cosmic accident …. again ….. a very interesting theological statement …. THAT DENIES GOD …. and IS A CLAIM ………. FAIL ………..

          • Arthur Belling

            Not necessarily. Why is saying “I don’t know” so hard for you, Amos? Try it sometime.

          • Amos Moses

            because you do know ….. you know God exists …….. you suppress the truth …. you lie to yourself ………. and then you lie to others about it …. and your claim is not just “i dont know” …… it is that you refuse to acknowledge God by denying His existence ……… you are trying to hold a beach ball (the truth) under the surface of the water ….. and you are struggling to suppress that knowledge in a continual effort to deny God …. you are not a cosmic accident ….. you are a created being …. and you know this to be true …….

          • Arthur Belling

            Is that right? Why don’t you tell me more about what I’m REALLY feeling, since you are the expert?

            Seriously, why do fundamentalists think they know better than I do what I think and what I know?

          • Amos Moses

            i said nothing about your “feelings” …. irrelevant …. i spoke about what you know …. you KNOW God exists ….. you suppress that truth ………

          • Arthur Belling

            There you go again, telling me what I know. You don’t and can’t know that.

          • Amos Moses

            yes … i can and do know ….. you lie to yourself …… you refuse to acknowledge the truth ….. and so you have no good assessment of what you are doing as you lie to yourself ……..

          • Arthur Belling

            You know squat. About me, God, or anything else.

          • Amos Moses

            is that a scientific, theological or personal opinion ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            Considering you don’t know me at all, it’s a fact.

          • Amos Moses

            yeah …. no …. i do not have to know you personally …… we know what men do …….. i have done it …. you are no different ……… you lie to yourself ….. we all do it …..

          • Arthur Belling

            When you tell me that I know God exists, you lie not just about me but you lie TO yourself.

          • Amos Moses

            all men know God exists …. you know …. you suppress that truth ….. but you still know ….

          • Arthur Belling

            When you say “all men know God exists” you are making claims on behalf of other people. You know as well as I do how dishonest that makes you.

          • Amos Moses

            i know that you lie to yourself about God ………. and how dishonest that makes you … with yourself …. you suppress the truth …. you lie to yourself ………..

          • Arthur Belling

            You don’t and cannot know that. It is impossible.

          • Amos Moses

            if you are in a car accident ….. and are unconscious …. and are taken to an ER ….. the Dr. does not have to know anything about you personally to diagnose you ….. nor does a psychiatrist have to know you personally or for a long period of time to tell you about yourself ….. now you may disagree with both of them … does not change anything ….

            you lie to yourself ….. it is a spiritual condition that all men have ….. and i do not need to know you personally to know that ………….. you lie to yourself constantly about God ……..

          • Arthur Belling

            So you’re a spiritual doctor who can diagnose the entire planet?

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. the spiritual doctor has already made the diagnosis ….. and you fall under it …… but it is painfully obvious ……..

          • Amos Moses

            “I’m not saying there isn’t a God. ”

            yes …. you are ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            Pretty sure I know better than you do what I am saying. What a shame your INTERPRETATION of my words is wrong. Just like your INTERPRETATION of God’s Word could also be wrong.

            No…I’m not saying there isn’t a God. Really.

          • Amos Moses

            “No…I’m not saying there isn’t a God. Really.”

            when you say “IF THERE IS A GOD” ……… that IS you saying He does not exist …… as if there could be any doubt …. and in fact …. YOU KNOW THERE IS A GOD …… you just refuse to acknowledge Him ………..

          • Arthur Belling

            There IS doubt! I don’t know and neither does anyone else! But that’s not the same as saying there is absolutely no God. I would NEVER say that.

          • Amos Moses

            “There IS doubt! I don’t know and neither does anyone else!”

            there is no doubt unless you lie to yourself ……….. “you do not know” …. and that is all you can say ….. but the fact stands ….. you do know ….. and you suppress the truth ………..

          • Amos Moses

            God created man which is required for all cognitive reasoning, including all scientific inquiry, making my position ipso facto prior in the order cognoscenti ….. that means it is better than yours ….. Christ is better ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            God is great, Christ is great, blah blah. You’re just deflecting. You are not the only person to follow God and you are no different than your fellow Christians who have a totally different understanding of God’s word than you do.

          • Arthur Belling

            Science proves itself incorrect often when it gets a better theory. Compare that to faith which says it’s always right and demands that you believe it.

          • Amos Moses

            God ….. is never incorrect …… science IS …. SO HOW can it be truth ….. science depends on FLAWED MEN and his FLAWED PERCEPTIONS …… TRUTH DOES NOT CHANGE ………. Truth is ABOVE science …….. you lose ………….. and as i have already pointed out ….. you have FAITH ….. and it is BLIND FAITH in men who are FLAWED ………….. you do not perform every experiment …… you JUST ACCEPT AS A MATTER OF FAITH that what you are reading in science texts is correct ….. you NEVER self verify anything …… THAT IS ALL FAITH ………

          • Arthur Belling

            God may never be incorrect, but this isn’t about God. This is about people INCORRECTLY following God and thinking they are always right. You do this.

          • Amos Moses

            “God may never be incorrect, but this isn’t about God. ”

            this is a CHRISTIAN FORUM …….. it is ALWAYS ABOUT GOD …………..

          • Arthur Belling

            The forum here is about God, yes. Your finger pointing at people you call “false Christians” because they have a different understanding of scripture than you do is not about God.

          • Amos Moses

            changing the subject ………. Christ is who HE says HE is ….. we either agree with Him or we are WRONG ……… i agree with Him ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            You are the one changing the subject, and I never said anything about Christ.

          • Amos Moses

            “Your finger pointing at people you call “false Christians” “and I never said anything about Christ.”

            when you mention His people, you mention HIM ……… LIAR …

          • Arthur Belling

            It gets tiresome when you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar. Don’t change the subject. You aren’t in a position to call a Christian false based on a single statement they make.

          • Amos Moses

            i call those liars that are liars ….. and you are one ….. when you spread lies …. knowingly or unknowingly ….. that makes you a liar ………..

          • Arthur Belling

            You’re calling people you don’t know liars. Period.

          • Amos Moses

            i am calling the WORDS they spew lies ….. and THAT MAKES THEM LIARS …………. period ….

          • Arthur Belling

            You probably just misunderstand those words. This is your whole problem, you take no time to find out.

          • Harry Weaver

            You are an unbeliever. Your posts reflect that. I am blocking you since I do not wish to recieve your drivel.

          • Arthur Belling

            What I disbelieve is nonsense and willful ignorance.

          • Amos Moses

            “Try to be honest here.”

            i asked if you could know if little red riding hood was the heroine or evil …………

            you refused to answer and so i asked again

            “nope … answer the question …. HOW DO YOU KNOW …………”

            your answer was ……….

            “I don’t know. No one does.”

            SO LETS BE HONEST ………… YOU cannot even tell me anything about little red riding hood ….. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION ………. but now you want to bloviate about what truth you think you have …… YOU HAVE NONE …… you cannot even discern little red riding hood ……….. but you think you have some “truth” from science ….. and you cannot even tell me from where science came …… and i have news for you …. IT WAS NOT THE GREEKS ….. it existed LONNNGGGG before the GREEKS ………….. tell us some more LIES ….

          • Arthur Belling

            “SO LETS BE HONEST ………… YOU cannot even tell me anything about
            little red riding hood ….. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION ……….”

            I admitted nothing. Little Red Riding Hood is the heroine to most people. Some people may not see her that way after she shouts for the woodsman to come shoot the wolf. As with the Bible, not everyone is going to agree on everything.

            Science provides proof and truth. It’s not necessary to know science’s origins to know that.

          • Amos Moses

            “I admitted nothing. Little Red Riding Hood is the heroine to most people.”

            i gave your comments in order ….. those were your statements ….. you are a liar …….

            “Science provides proof and truth. ”

            NO ………. science provides NO TRUTH ….. it confirms truth …… but science is BELOW the truth …. not above it ….. if science does not confirm the truth then it is NOT SCIENCE …… it is GARBAGE ………. Truth does not need to be proven …. it is accepted or rejected ….. but if you reject it …. THE TRUTH IS STILL THE TRUTH ……… your rejection of it matters not ….. your “scientific experiment” does not alter the truth …………

            “It’s not necessary to know science’s origins to know that.”

            YES IT IS …………….. otherwise all you have is your own OPINION ……………. and that is GARBAGE ….. NOT SCIENCE AND NOT TRUTH …………

          • Arthur Belling

            Science is more reliable than faith.

          • Amos Moses

            really ……….. so you have PERSONALLY checked every “theory” of science and tested evey thing in EVERY science book and therefore know it to be true ……. NOPE ….. and if you said yes you would be the BIGGEST liar ………….. NOPE …. you accept it ON FAITH ……… and NOTHING ELSE ………………

          • Arthur Belling

            It isn’t necessary to check every scientific theory. Other people test them in their daily lives and daily work. The data only gets more reliable that way. Faith is not part of the process.

          • Amos Moses

            “It isn’t necessary to check every scientific theory. ”

            THEN IT IS FAITH ………………

          • Arthur Belling

            Not when they do tests.
            Can you test the presence of God?

          • Amos Moses

            when you do NOT do the test …. and you accept the results ….. THAT IS FAITH …… and ONLY faith …………

            there is no need to test God ….. the EVIDENCE of His existence is abundant …. it even allows for you to test His creation and get consistent results ….. to deny His existence is to deny your own existence ………… the evidence IS MACRO ….. it is not MICRO ….. it is everything you can see or ever will see ……. it is even YOU ……..

          • Arthur Belling

            If that were true, there would be no such thing as an atheist.

          • Amos Moses

            it takes FAR MORE FAITH to be an a-theist ………….

          • Arthur Belling

            The word is “atheist”, not “a-theist”. Do you possess a dictionary? And no, it doesn’t, because to be an atheist, you’re not putting faith in anything at all.

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. a-theist denotes the absence of God ….. but your objection is noted …. not that i care ….

          • Arthur Belling

            “Atheist” denotes the absence of God, and it’s a perfectly respectable word so I’m not sure what point you’re making by adding your hyphen.

          • Amos Moses

            your objection is noted …. not that i care ….

          • Amos Moses

            “because to be an atheist, you’re not putting faith in anything at all.”

            absolutely false ….. we all obey a god ….. either the true God …. or one of our own making ….. a-theists worship their belly or the “law of other men” or “science” ….. but worship and obey they do ……….

          • Arthur Belling

            No, atheists (not a-theists) do not worship their bellies or laws or science. If that’s what you think then you need a dictionary worse than I thought. Look up “worship” before you do anything else. Just because we all enjoy certain foods doesn’t mean we worship our stomachs. It means we find eating to be pleasurable.

          • Amos Moses

            “a-theists do not worship their bellies or laws or science.”

            Yes they do ………….. you worship what you hold in esteem ….. they esteem one of those three ……………

          • Arthur Belling

            No, no one worships objects. No one.

          • Jim Tully

            Nice copy and paste.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No….Amos….interpretation…is…NOT…adding…to…scripture…do…you…own….a….dictionary…

          • Amos Moses

            it is adding to scripture …. do you own a bible ………..

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Definition of interpretation

            1 : the act or the result of interpreting : explanation

            2 : a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style

            3 : a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information natural history interpretation program

            There you go, Amos, nothing about adding to scripture, as you can see. Unless you’re now going to tell me the dictionary is wrong.

          • Amos Moses

            does not apply …………

            Prv 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

          • Trilemma

            If you read an English Bible then you are reading someone’s interpretation of the scriptures.

          • Amos Moses

            NO …. WRONG …. conflation of terms …. inaccurate …….. GARBAGE …….

          • Trilemma

            Translating the Bible into English from Greek and Hebrew requires interpretation. That’s why there are so many versions of the English Bible. Every translator uses his own interpretation of what the original languages are saying to choose which English words to use. Translation is impossible without interpretation.

          • Amos Moses

            “Translating the Bible into English from Greek and Hebrew requires interpretation. ”

            NO …… it requires TRANSLATING ….. NOT interpretation …. conflation of terms ….. WRONG ….. FAIL …..

          • sandraleesmith46

            The Bible, like the Constitution, isn’t open to “interpretation”; it’s only open to be rightly divided. That means correctly understood; and the only way 1 does that is by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

          • Trilemma

            Interpretation is unavoidable. Rightly divided means accurately interpreted or correctly understood.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Interpretation is subjective; understanding correctly is objective. They aren’t necessarily interchangeable.

          • Trilemma

            When you read an English Bible you are reading someone’s interpretation. So, that would make all English Bibles subjective and impossible to understand correctly.

          • sandraleesmith46

            A translation is not an interpretation; it’s done by standards. And with tools like a Strong’s exhaustive concordance and dictionaries, you can easily check the translator’s work as well, for accuracy.

          • Trilemma

            Translating the Bible into English from Greek and Hebrew requires
            interpretation. That’s why there are so many versions of the English
            Bible.
            Greek words, just as English words, have multiple meanings both literal and figurative. Every translator uses his own interpretation of what the
            original languages are saying to choose which English words to use. Translation is impossible without interpretation.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well said!!

          • Chris

            And all the supporters of every single one of the hundreds of correct understandings would all say that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Amazing how that works isn’t it?

          • sandraleesmith46

            Not amazing at all; Muhammad got fooled by Satan masquerading as Gabriel; others get fooled as well. Truth will ALWAYS align with what the written Word says; and if it doesn’t align perfectly, it’s NOT truth! Satan is also good at pretending to be the Holy Spirit; he began practicing that in the Garden of Eden. Discernment is an essential that isn’t taught any longer.

          • Chris

            Yep. And you are being fooled too. Right? Or are you immune to being fooled?

          • sandraleesmith46

            Not when I line up what I say or believe to the written Word as given to us by Yhwh God Himself. When I stray from that alignment, then perhaps.

          • Chris

            “Not when I line up what I say or believe to the written Word as given to
            us by Yhwh God Himself. When I stray from that alignment, then
            perhaps.”

            And every single person with an opposing view would say the same thing.

          • sandraleesmith46

            You’re lying to yourself and all others when you promulgate that lie.

          • Chris

            I can quote people who make the same claim. All you’ve done is make claims that many, many others have made before you.

          • Trilemma

            Is your understanding of the written Word perfect, inerrant and infallible?

          • Chris

            “Truth will ALWAYS align with what the written Word says; and if it doesn’t align perfectly, it’s NOT truth!” Just like every other holder of an opposing view.

          • sandraleesmith46

            No; holders of opposing views are NOT aligning with the WRITTEN Word of God; that simple.

          • Chris

            Well they say they are and YOU are not. Who are we to believe? Those supported by EVIDENCE!

          • sandraleesmith46

            The ONLY evidence is the written Word of God; and you fail to grasp it, so you won’t recognize truth when it is presented. WHEN and IF you ever want to know truth, more than just vindicate your own rejection of it, we can talk; ’til then I’m done with you.

          • Chris

            “The ONLY evidence is the written Word of God; and you fail to grasp it,
            …”
            As do you.

            “…so you won’t recognize truth when it is presented.”

            And everyone would have dismissed your claims exactly the same way.

            “WHEN and IF you ever
            want to know truth, more than just vindicate your own rejection of it,
            we can talk; ’til then I’m done with you.” See ya.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Another blatant lie.

        • Chris

          Go to youtube and watch ‘age of the universe – Hugh Ross’ where you can hear Ross himself speak, then come back and apologize. If you’re honest that is..

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I was referring specifically to “and has shown ICR’s science to be false.”

            Prove that to be true or come back and apologize. If you’re honest that is…

          • Chris

            First there is NO SUCH THING as ICR’s science. There’s only science. Secondly ICR uses the same arguments as other creationist organizations. That being the case any evidence against creationism is evidence against ICR’s contentions.

            But if you want videos disproving creationist work here we go.

            Try :
            Carbon dating doesn’t work – debunked.
            And Noah’s flood debunked [parts 1 & 2]

            Then you could try Noah’s ark and the cheetah

            Then there’s Confronting creationism [parts 1 & 2]

            Finally there’s the excellent series Foundational falsehoods of creationism.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try at Distraction and Diversion again. I’m confident that MOST folks who read my comment without an obvious bias and bigoted mindset will realize that my reference to “ICR’s science” was not meant in any way, shape, or form to remotely suggest they had their own “science”. DUH!

            But thank you again for highlighting your obvious bias and bigotry. Which is evident from every one of your “debunked” claims. LOL

  • RWH

    The scientific community generally believes that creation science and intelligent design are not science. It’s interesting that when Liberty University got accreditation, they moved the Creation Science course out of the Science Department into the Theology Department. The Dover PA court decision of a couple of years ago was a devastating blow to those trying to promote intelligent design as real science. The individual in this article is just reporting what is already believed by the scientific community. Furthermore, the Bible never claims that it is a book of science.

    • Chris

      Galileo said it best ‘The bible teaches me how to go to heaven, NOT how the heavens go”.

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

    Sorry but ICR is a repository of junk science. A “scientist” tries to explain why the stars might not indicate their age by suggesting that the speed of light (186 thousand miles per second) might not actually be the speed because it is measured as a round trip and the one-way speed is unknown.

    • Sven

      Thanks so much for sharing. The opinions of some elderly homosexual carry tremendous authority for all the billions of Christians in the world.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

        My opinion is more authoritative than a pointless argument ad hominem. Sexual orientation has no effect on critical thinking skills. Apparently that is not true for some people who are slavishly devoted to ancient chronicles.

        Most Christians are far more sophisticated than that. The battle of religion vs. science is a rather new phenomenon. In 1882 Charles Darwin was buried at Westminster Abbey which is possibly the holiest place in the UK.

        • Jason Todd

          My opinion is more authoritative

          Not when you deliberately ignore supernatural, physical and archaeological evidence that bring validation to the existence of God and the veracity of the Bible. Your opinion is worthless.

          Sexual orientation has no effect on critical thinking skills.

          “Sexual orientation” is a myth.

          • Johndoe

            LMAO!

          • Chris

            “Not when you deliberately ignore supernatural, physical and
            archaeological evidence that bring validation to the existence of God and the veracity of the Bible.”

            Please specify what evidence confirms the existence of the supernatural. Which archaeological evidence confirms the existence of God.

            “”Sexual orientation” is a myth.”

            Evidence?

      • Croquet_Player

        You are using a computer. Alan Turing, a British mathematician and homosexual, laid the groundwork for all modern computing today. He also cracked the WWII German “Enigma” machine code, which gave the Allies a tremendous advantage. It is estimated that his work brought the war to a close three years earlier than could otherwise have been expected, and saved over 14 million lives in Europe, mostly Christian. So, regardless of your opinion of homosexuals, many of those “billions of Christians” owe him their very lives.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Ironically, it is the computer that is showing the necessity for a Creator to have been for Man to be here.

          • Croquet_Player

            Really? Where?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            In the actual “science”

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m asking you to provide a source for your claim. Unable or unwilling? Fine with me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Good.

          • Croquet_Player

            Subsequent to a brief search, I found no sources and see no evidence that computing has demonstrated the “necessity for a Creator”. Unless you’d care to offer any sources, I must conclude your claim is baseless.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Conclude what you like. Your inability to see the evidence is your problem. Not mine. One day it will all be perfectly clear and then you can exist in all Eternity with the consequences of your blindness.

          • Croquet_Player

            I have concluded your claim is entirely baseless, and further, that you have a propensity to make claims without any basis for support, either because you are unable or unwilling to offer any. So you’ll have to forgive me if I also dismiss your claim about “Eternity” for the identical reasons.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, golly gee Wally, how will I ever sleep tonight? Dismiss my claims all you want, I really could care less. But you won’t dismiss this claim forever…

            “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

          • Croquet_Player

            You “could care less”? So you do care to some degree. How very sweet. (I believe the phrase you were searching for, and failed to locate, is you “couldn’t care less”. Accuracy counts. To some of us anyway.) Sleep tight!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Only so far as I hate the thought of anyone spending Eternity in the torment of the Lake of Fire.

            Accuracy counts. To some of us anyway. Sleep tight!

          • Croquet_Player

            Can’t come up with your own material? Poverty of language? What a shame.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Croquet_Player

            Still borrowing someone else’s words, eh?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. Handing out Plato Awards. Congratulations! You get another.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Chris

            Royce doesn’t do sources just assertions.

    • bowie1

      There seems to be some evidence of tremendous energy at the beginning in which the speed of light came near to infinite light speed. The law of physics also seems to break down around black holes and this is something that has been claimed on “real” science programs such as on BBC Earth (currently on free preview where I live.).

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

        Were there a black hole between you and a star you would be unable to see the star because light cannot be transferred through the void. There is high energy light produced when a star and a black hole are close together that can be seen with high-powered telescopes. However, that is a unique phenomenon.

        Scientists know where black holes are by studying the movement of stars and gasses.

        I had to check NASA’s web site for that one. There is, by the way, a very large black hole at the center of the Milky Way called Sagittarius A.

  • james blue

    Creation “science” no more belongs in a science class than evolution belongs in a bible class.

    They can use every real scientific method known to man, but the conclusion that “God did it” remains naught but a leap of faith.

    I have faith in the existence of God, I cannot prove he exists.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      So you would tell all those Scientists who believe they have been called by God into their profession that they haven’t been?

      You would take someone like Larry Vardiman who spent 2yrs and multi-millions to conduct an objective honest scientific experiment and report the findings however they came out – which (for the God-haters) could have proved the Bible wrong but actually wound up destroying the very foundation for Evolution – as having no business being in Science?

      Please cite your Scriptural basis for that. I would disagree with your supposition and say that while, yes, the belief in God will always require an element of faith, God has not intended our faith to one of a blind faith. For He has said so in His Word.

      • james blue

        Is English not your first language?

        If you are just going to make up what others say all you are doing is arguing against the voices in your head.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          You oughtta know. I didn’t make up anything. If you can’t communicate your thoughts correctly, perhaps you should just remain silent. Or just keep talking to the voices in your head.

          • Chris

            You’re projecting Royce.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            As are you.

          • Chris

            Where exactly.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

      • Chris

        “You would take someone like Larry Vardiman who spent 2yrs and
        multi-millions to conduct an objective honest scientific experiment and
        report the findings however they came out – which (for the God-haters)
        could have proved the Bible wrong but actually wound up destroying the
        very foundation for Evolution – as having no business being in Science?”

        Can you point to the peer reviewed journal where this is reported or are you just taking his word for it?

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          1) Evolution is NOT just a theory in BIOLOGY but in Geology before that. And I don’t need to checkout his degree. I’ve been to several of his seminars and actually witnessed what he did. Take off your bias and bigotry and try that sometime yourself.

          2) “So NOT multi-millions just one million in donations and 250,000 from ICR.” It actually went over one million in donations. The diamonds they purchased themselves if I remember correctly were more than a million. But thanks for trying to pick at nits to discredit the actual study. It shows the weakness of your case and the desperation you employ. The inaccuracies of your claim are beginning to show.

          3) Let’s see how your findings are, shall we? “”Randy Isaac of the American Scientific Affiliation noted that the leap from the findings to the conclusion was never made clear…”

          Ah, so the best you have to offer is someone’s opinion that he couldn’t understand or grasp a 2yr multi-million dollar scientific experiment. Got it. Thanks.

          Ah, but you don’t stop there. You offer another opinion…””The project has also been criticized by geologist Kevin Henke”

          It would seem you’ve proved no such thing…unless you’re gullible enough to believe one can go to the internet and pull out whatever they want from the CONCLUSION THEY STARTED FROM to substantiate their POV. How many non-Creationist people did you research, read, and site that supported Vardiman’s findings? I’ll wait.

          “See what I did here? It’s called research. You look up the data both for and against.”

          Yeah, I see what you did. Exactly the kind of thing you’ve been carping against.

          Here’s what you did. The same thing that nearly 600 “experts” did in response to Paul McHugh & Lawrence Mayer’s Study. They joined forces and said, “We don’t like what was said.” But they NEVER provided even ONE THING to dispute the finding. They offered NO evidence to the contrary.

          One can read more in the very well written response if they Google “The Editors of The New Atlantis Respond to the Recent
          Open Letter About Our Fall 2016 Issue”.

          And THAT is ALL you have.

          • Chris

            “1) Evolution is NOT just a theory in BIOLOGY but in Geology before
            that.”

            No. Evolution is defined as “Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of BIOLOGICAL populations over successive generations.”

            That’s of no possible interest in geology. However, and this is where I think you are getting confused, geology and many other disciplines use the term ‘evolution’ in its broadest sense which just means ‘change over time’.

            Now let’s look at your other response “It actually went over one million in donations.”

            Evidence from a reputable source please.

            You then give the quote 3) Let’s see howyour findings are, shall we? “”Randy Isaac of the American Scientific Affiliation noted that the leap from the findings to the conclusion was never made clear…”

            “Ah, so the best you have to offer is someone’s opinion that he couldn’t understand or grasp a 2yr multi-million dollar scientific experiment.”

            If someone’s work makes a leap it means they have NOT supported a contention with evidence. Thanks for showing your inability to grasp scientific work. Got it.

            “The project has also been criticized by geologist Kevin Henke”

            Why do you stop the quote there?

            “How many non-Creationist people did you research, read, and site that
            supported Vardiman’s findings? I’ll wait.”

            I researched about ten or more.

            “Here’s what you did. The same thing that nearly 600 “experts” did in response
            to Paul McHugh & Lawrence Mayer’s Study. They joined forces and
            said, “We don’t like what was said.” But they NEVER provided even ONE
            THING to dispute the finding.”

            Two points:
            1) Interesting to see you believe in conspiracy theories. I don’t. Nor do I dismiss findings by screaming CONSPIRACY merely because I don’t like them.
            2) The experts I quoted did show several things which disputed the findings.

            Now I realize fundie creationists are rather infamous for lying so here’s what we’ll do. If you lie twice more on any thread I shall discontinue this discussion and block you.

            “One can read more in the very well written response if they Google “The Editors of The New Atlantis Respond to the Recent Open Letter About Our Fall 2016 Issue”.”

            Sorry but when a critique of your work is presented in a scientific journal it isn’t appropriate to reply in an open letter. That’s propaganda stuff. You argue your point with your peers NOT with the general public who don’t understand the terminology or the concepts.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No. Alas, you discredit yourself again. You’re truly beginning to bore me and I’m not about to address each one of your lies but I will highlight just a few to show your willful, deliberate, intent to deceive and follow in your father, Satan’s, footsteps. First, I suggest you dump using Wikipedia as any kind of authoritative source. Anyone familiar with it knows that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can put whatever they want and make any claim they desire on Wikipedia.

            Now, let’s look at a dictionary for Evolution:

            1) the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. (This could include a Mountain or the Grand Canyon and it’s formations.)

            2) one of a set of prescribed movements

            3) a process of change in a certain direction

            4) a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state

            5) the process of working out or developing

            And now let’s look at the “objective” source you got your definition from:

            “All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA),[4][5][6] which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago,[7] although a study in 2015 found “remains of biotic life” from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia.[8][9] In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the LUCA of all organisms living on Earth.[10]”

            Oh yeah, that’s a real scientific, objective, and provable statement that lends to the credibility of you, your definitions, and your science!

            “That’s of no possible interest in geology. ”

            Yeah right. No interest at all. Except that it is the fossil record contained in the strata layers that Evolutionists point to as evidence for their millions and billions of years! LOL

            “Here’s the rest of the quote from wikipedia…”

            See above. But thanks again for showing your “credible” sources. LOL

            “1) Interesting to see you believe in conspiracy theories…..

            Nice attempt at Distraction & Diversion. I never mentioned the word conspiracies or CONSPIRACIES. Your facade falls flat on its face. Just like everything else you’ve said.

            “I do usually dismiss work when it is produced by people who have a proven track record of dishonesty. ”

            Except your own. Tell ya what, on that I’ll agree and therefore dismiss anything you have to say. Thank you.

            Now I realize you spiritually-dead, God-hating trolls are rather infamous for lying so here’s what you can do: DON’T wait for me to say something that you think is a lie. Just discontinue this discussion and block me NOW. M’kay? You wouldn’t know the Truth if He was standing in front of you. In fact, I have no doubt you’d try and tell Him to His face that He wasn’t,. LOL

            “Sorry but when a critique of your work is presented by your peers you reply in a peer reviewed journal NOT a newspaper. ”

            THAT is EXACTLY the point of the response. There was NOT ONE “critique” of the work presented. NOT ONE. Just a bunch of names gathered by so-called “peers” who objected to the findings and didn’t like what was said.

            And THAT is why “peer review” these days is meaningless.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          I see you changed your first comment from asking me to provide a peer review article for Vardiman. Guessing you must’ve found one.

          However, here’s something for you. I want you to build yourself a big ol’ wood fire. And once it’s going really good with a nice big bed of red hot coals, I am telling you NOT to put your hand in the fire and grab any of those coals.

          Now, in fairness, I have to tell you that I’ve never been peer reviewed. Not once! But hey, don’t listen to me. Don’t take my word for it. In fact, I’m not sure there has ever been an article published, let alone peer reviewed, that says you shouldn’t.

          • Chris

            “I see you changed your first comment from asking me to provide a peer
            review article for Vardiman. Guessing you must’ve found one.

            Since Vadiman has only worked and published in creationist organizations your guess would be wrong. Except for his PHD thesis of course.

            You also don’t seem to understand the reason for peer review. First peer review means that the claims in the article have been checked by reviewers who are knowledgeable in the discipline under discussion. Second scientists from the actual discipline will try to disprove the hypothesis. A hypothesis which isn’t disproven becomes the generally accepted theory IF it has followed the scientific method.

            Vadiman’s work did NOT pass review by scientists from the relevant discipline. Now a reputable scientist would either try again [taking their criticisms into account] OR scrap the work altogether. He does neither.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, I’ll be seeing him in a couple of weeks and I’ll ask him. I figure he’s a better source than you for that info.

            You also don’t seem to understand the reason that more and more scientists are coming out and speaking on why “peer review” no longer has any meaning.

            Your last paragraph is just a flatout lie. Moreover, the challenge for any of your so-called “reputable scientists” is on the table. All they have to do is run the same experiments and prove him wrong.

            All reputable scientists and other loud-mouth no-nothings would either do the work to prove him wrong or scrap their criticisms altogether. But alas, you are the epitome of those that show that’s never gonna happen.

  • SFBruce

    ICR’s website states, “The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God.”

    With all respect for those who believe in the inerrant Word of God, this is simply not science, it’s faith. IRC has every right to exist and do what they do, but I’m glad their claims of being scientific are being challenged. In science, there is no final truth, because there will never be sufficient data to say any particular theory is absolutely true, and there’s no more to be discovered about it. Think of it this way: if you develop a rash that doesn’t go away, do you want your doctor to consult the Bible or the latest relevant dermatological literature?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      “Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God.”

      So they openly admit that they start with a conclusion? I don’t know how much clearer you can be that your work is pseudoscience.

      • Croquet_Player

        Honestly, I don’t know why they bother. They keep trying to prove “creationism” by pointing out “Hey, this little gizmo” in a cell, or in DNA, or what-have-you “is so fancy and unique it could only be the result of design! By an ‘intelligent designer’! Therefore God! Ta-da!” Despite years of effort, they have yet to accomplish anything of note.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Despite years of effort, the God-haters have yet to accomplish anything of note.

          • Croquet_Player

            Are you equating all scientists with “God-Haters”? That would be an error, because many scientists are devout believers, from many diverse faiths.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for showing you have NO clue what a “God-hater” or a true Believer is.

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m asking you to define your terms for clarity. Don’t want to? Fine with me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Pretty self-explanatory but I go by the Biblical definition.

          • Chris

            Do you also go by justice? In the US you don’t start a trial by deciding the accused is guilty or innocent BEFORE the evidence is examined but that’s EXACTLY what ICR and answers in genesis does.

            Now the question becomes are you going to travel in their prejudiced footsteps or are you prepared to examine the evidence first? Up to you and your ego Royce old bean.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually you’re factually wrong there. A trial IS started by deciding the accused is innocent. Too bad you just defeated your own argument by your own statement. LOL

            Now the question becomes are you going to travel in your own prejudiced footsteps or are you prepared to examine the evidence that exists regardless of where it comes from? Up to you and your ego Christ old bean.

          • Chris

            “A trial IS started by deciding the accused is innocent. Too bad you just defeated your own argument by your own statement. LOL”

            I actually wrote ” In the US you don’t start a trial by deciding the accused is guilty OR INNOCENT BEFORE the evidence is examined but that’s EXACTLY what ICR
            and answers in genesis does.”

            Didn’t you even read what I wrote Royce? Or didn’t you care?

            “Now the question becomes are you going to travel in your own prejudiced
            footsteps or are you prepared to examine the evidence that exists
            regardless of where it comes from? Up to you and your ego Christ old
            bean.”

            I already have. I was a creationist. I got out when I noticed their lies, their quote-mining, their adoption of bias [biblical glasses as Ken Ham calls it, and their misapplication of science.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you. And why do you keep changing your posts? Why don’t you stick with what you originally wrote?

            No real need to answer. I think we all know it. Just more Deception and Distraction. You know what you originally wrote proved my point and made you look like a fool AGAIN.

            “You are correct. And it’s nice to see you admit, by implication, that creationist organisations decided their case BEFORE examining the evidence.”

            Nice way to twist what was said but no cigar. And what you refuse to admit is that at least those organizations like ICR are intellectually honest enough to admit they look for explanations that fit within the Truth of Scripture. They’re not creating the Truth or the results. They’re simply holding to what is true and trying to reconcile the results with that.

            What you refuse to do is admit that you and your ilk do the exact same thing but just the opposite. There is NO difference between the two of you except that the Creationists are honest enough to admit it.

            Just like the claim of the one scientist to Larry Vardiman at the San Francisco symposium when he said, “That is fascinating evidence but it can’t be true because you’re a Creationist.” Or words to that affect. And THAT is EXACTLY your POV which says all that really needs to be said.

            I could careless what you think about me. But thanks for pointing out the obvious typo. I’ll fix it now.

          • Croquet_Player

            People interpret the bible in different ways. If you’re going to make a claim, and then refuse to define your terms when asked, by default, you have failed to make your point.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2nd Peter 1:20)

          • Croquet_Player

            And yet people argue endlessly over conflicting interpretations of scripture. Which is why I asked you to clarify what you meant, as I wouldn’t wish to presume.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
            (Rom 3:10-18)

            For the choir director. A Psalm of David. A Song.
            Let God arise, [fn]let His enemies be scattered,
            And let those who hate Him flee before Him (Psa 68:1)

            “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. (Matt. 6:24)

            “If the world hates you, [fn]you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. (John 15:18)

            ““If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have [fn]sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ (John 15:24-25)

            Good enough?

          • Croquet_Player

            Very poetic. And then I would respond by encouraging you to “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.” (Psalm 34:14, KJV.) Depart, depart!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus. Get behind me Satan!

            as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:10-18)

            He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [fn]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:18-20)

          • Croquet_Player

            I see, so you can quote scripture, but others who do it back to you are “Satan”. Well isn’t that cute. Grow up.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

            Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

            18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:18-22)

            And you are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3)

          • Croquet_Player

            Yawn. Goodbye.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Buh bye.

          • Chris

            Well said.

      • Croquet_Player

        From their website: “All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11.
        The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all
        theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form
        are false.” So, yes, they already have their conclusion, and have specifically excluded evolution. Not science at all.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        “So they openly admit that they start with a conclusion? I don’t know how much clearer you can be that your work is pseudoscience”

        Thank you for publicly displaying your admission that all “science” which comes from the God-hating spiritually-dead who have a preconceived bias and hatred for God is actually pseudoscience.

        Much appreciated!!

        • Chris

          Do you often lie like this? You should be ashamed.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      At least ICR is intellectually honest enough to state where their absolute Authority and Truth comes from.

      Your own post shows the God-hating, spiritually-dead, secularists don’t do Science either. They operate from faith as well and their Starting Point is that there is no God. Go to fullyfreefilms dot com and watch “Evolution vs God” and “Atheist Delusion” and watch it with an open mind if you can.

      • Chris

        “Go to fullyfreefilms dot com and watch “Evolution vs God” and “Atheist Delusion” and watch it with an open mind if you can.”

        The Ray Comfort films? The guy who’s been caught out dishonestly editing his videos? Go to youtube and watch ‘When it’s OK to lie When you’re lying for Jesus ‘.

        You also might want to google ‘Ray Comfort confesses’ about his selectively editing the film ‘evolution vs. God’. I’m afraid you got taken in by a con man.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Your fear is mistaken and misplaced.

          • Chris

            Indeed. And when they hear that Ray voiced over his own question and changed it they may learn something about the honesty of Ray Comfort and Royce. And you didn’t respond to the second source. I wonder why.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, once again you changed what you originally wrote! I wonder why. (Not really)

            Let me help with your wondering though. The reason I didn’t address the second source is because every single one of the sources you’ve cited thus far has no credibility. I didn’t feel the need to keep repeating that as it’s readily apparent by now.

            I’m quite content with others going and Googling as you say. Anyone Googling “Ray Comfort+Lies” is gonna find just what they after. Thank you for showing your modus operandi and objectivity once again.

            On the other hand, anyone who is being drawn by God (which must be the first thing that happens due to their totally depraved state to begin with) AND who honestly wants to know the Truth, will find it as well.

      • SFBruce

        And since the source of that “authority and truth” is the Bible, they themselves acknowledge that faith guides their beliefs, not collecting the best data to formulate new or refine existing theories. That’s not science; it’s religion.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          I don’t know exactly who you are referring to by “they themselves” but I assume you are making a sweeping generalization which would be an absolute falsehood as I’ve heard it straight from “their” mouths.

          • SFBruce

            I used “they themselves” in exactly the way the vast majority of English speaking people would understand. If you think the two words lack clarity, why did you use them yourself in your first reply to my comment?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, uh, I didn’t. You must be reading something into what is not there. No worries. I understand that’s what the Evolutionists do all the time.

            And btw, it doesn’t take away from the fact that your accusation is false. Like I said, I’ve heard it straight from “their” mouths.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          And since the source of that “authority and truth” is themselves, they themselves acknowledge that faith guides their beliefs, not collecting the best data to formulate new or refine existing theories. That’s not science then, it’s religion,

          And when you can come back to me with evidence as to where the energy came from that caused the Big Bust, then I’ll accept that the denial of a Creator and the atheist, secular, and Evolution-promoting “scientists” are not operating from faith.

          • SFBruce

            If you’re waiting for emperical proof for the Big Bang theory in order to accept the notion that the scientific approach is useful, you’re not going to be convinced. I can’t help you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            If you’re waiting for empirical proof for the existence of God reality in order to accept the notion that the scientific approach is useful, you’re not going to be convinced. I can’t help you.

  • Jason Todd

    1) This could only be based on the assumption there is no God, an idea that is selfish, self-centered, and laughable.

    2) What’s with all the atheists?

    • Trilemma

      The assumption that there is a god doesn’t make ICR’s science any more credible.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        The assumption there is no god doesn’t make ICR’s science any less credible.

        • Chris

          It does make it unscientific however. In science you don’t start with a conclusion, you start with the evidence.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. The atheists start with a conclusion as well. Most start with the Big Bang though many are now leaving that but all of ’em start with the conclusion that there is no God and there must be a natural explanation.

          • Chris

            What I wrote “In science you don’t start with a conclusion, you start with the evidence.”

            What you replied “The atheists start with a conclusion as well.”

            I didn’t mention atheism did I Royce? Strawman “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy
            based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument,
            while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes it did. But I don’t expect the spiritually-dead and blind to see it.

            Strawman “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”

            Already addressed that once.

          • Ann Kah

            When I study a chemical reaction, I start with some assumptions, of course. I assume that the label on the bottle is correct. I assume that if I measure the ingredients correctly and perform a reaction at the correct temperature, I’ll get the product I want, because I assume that the laws of chemistry will still be the same today as they were yesterday.

            When you go into the kitchen and bake some blueberry muffins, you must make exactly the same assumptions. You mix the batter, you bake at the proper temperature. Now comes the experimental bit: are those muffins as good as your grandma baked? Would they be better with more sugar, or more blueberries, or less salt? Go ahead and try it with a little lemon rind, or a touch more almond flavoring. Those are experiments – but you don’t know if they’re better until you try them at the end.

            You start both of these with assumptions about how the world works, and that’s your experience of the past…but it isn’t a conclusion. You really do not know how grandma did it, but it would be possible to try enough variations until you get it right. That, Royce, is science.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Please explain that to the global warming/climate change crowd so they understand it!

          • Chris

            Are you talking about the laypeople or the climatologists? Most laypeople, myself included, can stand to have the principles of science explained clearly and simply until we understand.

    • Copyleft

      Your assumption about others’ assumptions seems to be a false assumption. What’s with that?

      • Jason Todd

        Which means what? Do you have a coherent point to make?

        • Copyleft

          I see I need to simplify again. Your assumptions are unsupported. Therefore, your argument fails.

          • Jason Todd

            Explain.

          • Copyleft

            Glad to. Your comment was “1) This (i.e, the labeling of ICR as a junk science site) could only be based on the assumption there is no God.” This is obviously and clearly wrong. Junk science can and does happen without any such assumption, and you’d be hard pressed to find any scientific publication that makes such a claim anyway.

            You then say “(the no-god assumption) is an idea that is selfish, self-centered, and laughable.” This is also completely unsupported–simply a declaration of hatred for those who don’t share your beliefs, without a shred of supporting evidence.

            Ironically, you’d need to employ the tools of reason and science in order to make a persuasive case… and your superstitious hatred prevents you from doing so.

          • Jason Todd

            So you are then saying belief in God can co-exist with the exploration of science? Interesting.

          • Chris

            Of course belief in God can co-exist with scientific exploration. Some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians. But they had one thing most creationist leaders lack – a dedication to the scientific method.

            The first examined the evidence and went from that to a conclusion. Creationist leaders go from their conclusion to the evidence.

            Additionally sientists see bias as an impediement to their research, hence the use of peer review. Creationism holds up bias as a good thing. Ken Ham calls such bias his ‘biblical glasses’.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Another patently false statement.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And now are you going to tell us what’s false about it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Self-explanatory. Not surprising you don’t get it though. Which is why it’d be useless to try.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yeah, thought not. You never back up your own statements.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Another lie. Thank you again. Always appreciate when you reveal yourself again.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

    • Ann Kah

      How does a disbelief in God equate to “selfish”? I am still a decent person and a good citizen. I married once, for life. I raised two moral and decent children, each of which is a happily married person, stable, employed, and a taxpayer. I know a number of other atheists with a similar résumé.

      If you make assumptions about a group of people just for rhetorical reasons, you are first required to actually get to know some of those people, and listen to what they tell you. Rhetorical flourishes without knowing what you’re talking about are, quite simply, lies, “bearing false witness”. Yes, I know you think you can make a point by throwing bad names at us, but if you must tell a lie to make your point, then your point is indefensible.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        I hope you and Jason don’t mind if I comment on your questions.

        First, the fact is if Atheists REALLY believed there was no God they would be living it up, getting every ounce of self-gratification and hedonistic pleasure they could.

        There would be none of this nonsense of hiding behind a facade of caring for their fellow man. Baloney! There is no reason to care for your fellow man if this life is all there is. Get drunk. Do drugs. Rape, pillage, & plunder for today we live and tomorrow we die!

        They would be the ultimate hedonists. For there would be no reason not to. Get all you can while you can and don’t hold back. Eat, drink, be merry, live while you can and then die and that’s the end of it.

        But they don’t do that. No, instead they prove by their very lives they KNOW that God is alive and very, very real. And they prove by their continued existence on here EXACTLY what God has said several times in His Word about them.

        I don’t recall whether it is on this thread or another CNN thread but KingofRye and I went over this in great detail and he even finally admitted that when he does things for other it is for himself and his own gain. The same is true of you.

        ” I am still a decent person and a good citizen.” By whose standard? Answer: Yours. You go on to list some of the criteria by which you make the claim. But one day you will stand before a Holy God who is Perfect and Righteous in EVERY way and He will judge you on that according to His Standard.

        Have you ever told a lie? What does that make you?
        Ever stole anything that didn’t belong to you? What does that make you?
        Ever look at another with lust? God says that makes you an Adulterer.
        Ever had sex outside of marriage? That would make you a Fornicator.
        Ever used God’s name in vain? God says that makes you a blasphemer.

        So by God’s Standard, if you’ve done those things, you’d be a LIar, Thief, Adulterer, Fornicator, and Blasphemer. Now do you REALLY think you’re gonna measure up to God’s Standard?

        “I raised two moral and decent children…” Again, by whose standard? And if they hold the same Standard that you do, what will happen to them on Judgment Day when they stand before God Almighty?

        Here is what God says about your current condition:

        18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:18-22)

        And you are dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3)

        I strongly recommend you think about Eternity. I just lost my younger brother last Saturday. He was only 51. Now he is in Eternity. Those 51 years won’t even show up as a blip on the radar.

        Are you prepared for Eternity? I can tell you base don what you said that you are NOT!

        • Ann Kah

          Royce, I’ve told you what I’m like. I have morals. So do all my atheist friends, else they wouldn’t be my friends. Our morals are based on consideration for others – you refer to them as the “golden rule”, although they were written millennia before the bible and observed long before that.

          Your imaginary evil atheist doesn’t exist. We have criminals, but so do the religious, and in approximately equal proportions. Most of us are not like that, just as most Christians are not like that. But you imagine a world of unrestricted hedonism and assign it to atheists because you don’t listen to the rest of us. How are you ever going to learn unless you listen?

          Please don’t continue to lie about us. I don’t know if you’re projecting your own desires, but theft and murder and unrestricted sex are not on my “to do” list. Our morals are there, intact. We just don’t believe in god, that’s all.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Says you. Homosexuals think they’re “moral” too. Some even think it’s more “moral” for them to get married so they can practice their perversion “morally”.

            “although they were written millennia before the bible and observed long before that.”

            Prove it.

            “Your imaginary evil atheist doesn’t exist.”

            Oh but they DO! God says so. God sets the Standard. You rambled on but never answered my question. Obviously you can’t. As I said, if there is no God, no Judgment, and no Afterlife, there is NO reason whatsoever to care about anyone but yourself. To claim there is, is illogical and without reason.

            I’m listening. So please do tell us all what logical reason there is for caring about anyone else if there is no God, no Judgment, and no Afterlife UNLESS it is for your own selfish reasons according to your own set standards for what is best for you.

            It’s not a lie. God says you are evil. See Jer. 17:9. What you fail to admit is that if it were not for God’s Grace and restraining your total depravity you have NO idea what you are capable of doing. Those “morals” you think you have, well, they came from the God-given conscience that HE gave you.

            So now, ball is in your court, let’s hear how you obtained your morals, where they came from, on what basis, and why you hold to them.

          • Ann Kah

            There is no afterlife. But there is THIS life, and morals are really just an extension of empathy. I don’t want someone to steal from me, so it’s no great step to conclude that therefore I shouldn’t steal from him. I don’t want someone to kill me, so I shouldn’t kill him. It’s really just what you refer to as the “golden rule”.

            That morality must have been with us since our caveman days. Small bands of people in a dangerous word had to stick together and trust each other, and it’s hard to trust a guy that steals your lunch or your woman. Those who went against the morality of the tribe got ousted, to face danger without the backup of the tribe. That is exactly what happens today in many tules of herd animals. Morality, though the specific details may have changed, has been around longer than humanity.

            And if you want a reference for pre-biblical codes of ethics, google Hammurabi. I’m sure you know that already, as you brag about your google skills.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            YES, there is an Afterlife and no matter how many time you deny it that won’t change the fact there is. Jesus is the living proof. The eye witnesses that back up seeing Him give evidence to that. Not only is there the Historical Record in the Bible but even extra-Biblical writings speak to it.

            Again, best to remain silent than speak and show your ignorance.

            “I don’t want someone to steal from me, so it’s no great step to conclude that therefore I shouldn’t steal from him.

            Wrong. It’s a HUGE step. And if we were to talk it wouldn’t take me long to get you to admit that you’d find it perfectly acceptable to steal from someone else but would kill them for doing the same thing. Happens everytime I talk with anyone who has no Standard by which they live except for themselves.

            “That morality must have been with us since our caveman days.”

            Thank you for clearly expressing your Faith.

            “Small bands of people in a dangerous word had to stick together and trust each other, and it’s hard to trust a guy that steals your lunch or your woman. Those who went against the morality of the tribe got ousted, to face danger without the backup of the tribe. ”

            Another Faith Statement.

            “That is exactly what happens today in many types of herd animals. Morality, though the specific details may have changed, has been around longer than humanity.”

            Thank you for providing a glimpse into where your Morality comes from. Nice to see you compare yourself to an animal.

            Meh? I’ll stick with the Imago Dei!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Nice to see you compare yourself to an animal.”

            Humans are animals, you know.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually, no I don’t. That you would assume so I do. Hopefully one day you’ll come to understand that’s not true, that humans are a creation made in the image of God and that not one drop of Jesus’ precious blood was spilled for any animal.

            When you come to see the wonder in Christ and the precious redeeming value in His blood, you’ll understand that.

          • SolontheWise

            Jesus is the Saviour of the world. That includes animals.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, I see you don’t know anything about the Bible or Jesus either.

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Definition of human:

            any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
            any such living thing other than a human being.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Definition of human:

            26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [fn]sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Define “God.”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “I AM”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s a definition? “I am”? Actually, that illustrates why I like the idea of ignosticism, let alone agnostism. Ignosticism means the question of the existence of a god isn’t even a question in the first place, because, there’s no clear, unambiguous answer to what “god” is. How can I argue against something that isn’t clearly defined?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yup. And it’s perfect. And it’s exactly the answer The Father and The Son gave when asked the same thing.

            I think the better question is why you would want to.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, you answered the first five or six words of what I said, so how about the rest?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I see two questions. I answered them both.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, fair enough, what I said was one actual question, followed by some thoughts of mine. Do you have any responses, any reactions, to those thoughts?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            There were two questions. Or at least two Question Marks. No other responses other than what I said.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hmm. Pardon me then, I think I got kinda mixed up, and I thought you were replying to one post of mine when you meant another one. I’m fastidious about how I use punctuation.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Pardoned. No worries.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There….are…four lights!

            (A reference to a Star Trek:TNG episode, by the way)

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I have no clue what you’re trying to say.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Never mind anyway, it was just a reference to a favorite show of mine….

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Okie dokie

          • Chris

            You’re a Trekkie? I knew there was some reason I liked you.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That episode is one I’ll always remember….it was just intense. I’ve seen a lot of the original series, but it was TNG that really got me hooked. Probably because that came out was I was 10 or so….lol

          • Chris

            I enjoyed TNG but I’m a Deep Space Nine kinda guy. Probably explains why I liked Babylon 5 as well.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh, yeah, DS9 was pretty good in its own right. Still, I haven’t seen as nearly as much of that as I’ve seen of TNG. But there are still plenty of characters I like, arcs I liked, and so forth. I probably have seen more of a percentage of Voyager episodes, really. That was worth watching just for Seven of Nine. She was an interesting character….yeah….that’s the only reason I liked her….I swear!

            (wink wink nudge nudge)

          • Chris

            Lol. She wasn’t hard on the eyes, true enough. But my fav was Jadzia Dax. Now there was a beautiful woman.

            Serious question. Who was the better starfleet captain? Kirk? Picard? Sisko? Janeway?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Picard, with Kirk closely behind.

          • Chris

            I like Picard too though I would choose Sisko first. Kirk always seemed a bit too reckless for my taste. I’ve never met anyone who picks Janeway.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Nevertheless, in a reference to what I said earlier about ignosticism….isn’t it true that even among followers of any one particular faith, people have different ideas of what God means to them? For example, there’s people who call themselves Christians who are pantheists, or deists, and the like.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Matt. 7:21-23

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Okay, that passage basically says, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a true Christian. Fine. That’s completely beside the point I was trying to make.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ok.

            “For example, there’s people who call themselves Christians who are pantheists, or deists, and the like.”

            “not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a true Christian. Fine.”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            To put it another way, I think all theistic religions are equally wrong. Therefore, if someone wants to call themselves a Christian or Muslim or whatever, who am I to say they aren’t?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not only are you “aren’t” but you “can’t”. You don’t have the ability. That’s not a slight. Just the Truth. You’re still spiritually-dead in your trespasses and sins. One has to be Born Again and indwelt with the Holy Spirit in order to obey John 7:24.

            As for you citing Matt. 7:1, I can only say twist not Scripture lest you be like Satan and it’s best not to reference something which you know nothing about.

            That said, had you just taken the time to read down another four verses you would have hopefully seen that Matt. 7:1-5 is an instruction on how to follow the COMMAND of John 7:24. The “AND THEN” in Verse 5 leads right into Verse 6 and the following verses, like starting in Verse 12, that require judging.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “lest you be like Satan”

            Well, considering I am actually a Satanist, that’s kinda what I’m going for!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Okie Dokie. SMH. Never have figured out why someone wants to sign up with a known Loser and be on a known losing team. But whatever.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, hello, Mr. Double Standard. You accuse me of misrepresenting Christianity, and you obviously don’t know the first damn thing about my religion, and have apparently made no effort to, either.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Au contraire. I’ve read the Book all the way to the end. Several times. I know full well how the story ends.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Once again, you spectacularly miss my point.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not at all. You did miss mine but it is perfectly understandable.

          • Max Green

            God is a being above human comprehension that we cant even understand. He has his hand in human history and it is obvious. Think of your dog. Does he understand how you came to own him. And God is our CREATOR. He is so much higher than us than we are to our Dog.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And why would we care about a completely un-scientific definition, not used by experts in the field?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That’s a terrific question that I hope you find the answer to while you still have time.

            Perfect example of a remark that a Troll makes when they come to a CHRISTIAN page to ask such a dumb question. Which begs an even better question for you to answer.

            Why do you do that? Why do you come to a CHRISTIAN page to ask stupid questions about what you don’t care about?

            No real need to answer. The answer’s already been given. I’ll put it here again:

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

            Apart from that one must wonder if you have multiple personalities or just gave an admission that you’ve brought a bunch of trolls over to a CHRISTIAN page for surely you can’t be so ignorant as to not realize that you are on a CHRISTIAN page.

            That aside, you’ve already demonstrated numerous times just how empty your rhetoric is about “experts”.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can stop copying and pasting your quotes. I’ve read them enough times. I’m aware of your thoughts on the matter, which remain wrong.

            I’m not here simply to make you mad, I’m here to cause you to think more critically about the things you believe. Which is clearly a losing proposition.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh, trust me, I don’t paste them for you. I paste them for the edification of others. And they are RIGHT.

            So, let me get this straight, you think your existence on here is somehow to cause me (and I assume others) to critically think about things we believe? LOL Just a little bit of an arrogance problem there, bub. What makes you think I (and others) haven’t. I can assure you I most certainly have.

            So now you may feel perfectly free to go away. Aren’t you an atheist? Or was it agnostic? If so, it doesn’t matter one iota what I or anyone else thinks. The only thing that matters is what’s good for you. Either way you’re a Troll by very definition. Think critically on that one for awhile.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “So, let me get this straight, you think your existence on here is somehow to cause me (and I assume others) to critically think about things we believe?”

            No. I had hoped it would, but you refuse to.

            “What makes you think I (and others) haven’t.”

            Because you can’t answer introductory-level questions about literally any topic we discuss here. You just congratulate yourself for how smart you are but you don’t actually seem to know or understand any subject.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong. Your inability to comprehend elementary answers is not a reflection on me.

            “You just congratulate yourself for how smart you are but you don’t actually seem to know or understand any subject.”

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

            There’s a perfect example of your idea of “introductory-level questions and discussion and NOW everyone can see just why we don’t waste our time with you.

            “But if any place refuses to welcome you or listen to you, shake its dust from your feet as you leave to show that you have abandoned those people to their fate.” (Mk 6:11)

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, I’m sure the “others” who need your “edification” are entirely incapable of scrolling up two comments, necessitating your repeated copying and pasting. Because it’s not like you’re posting that over and over as a slap in the face to me or anything. No, I’m sure you’re still posting it for the “others.”

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            They sure don’t need your spiritually-dead, satanically drive, regurgitated drivel.

            As for what you’re “sure” about, well, you’ve demonstrated that quite well numerous times as well.

          • Max Green

            We are classified as animals, but we have a soul and God made us ruler over them, so we are above them

          • Max Green

            Why do you live like that if you dont believe in christ. According too you there is nothing outside of life. Why dont you live it up? Because you know in your heart that it is wrong. And what said it is wrong? God.

          • Ann Kah

            Max, morals are a part of living in society. Christians have morals, Muslims and Jews and Buddhists have morals, and atheists have morals. Even groups of animals have their own kind of morals. Someone has told you that Jesus is the only way to have morals, and it simply isn’t true. Morals are what make it possible to live together, to defend and help each other, and to trust each other. Morals are dependent upon empathy, not dogma. I don’t want to be hurt or killed or robbed, so of course I can understand that other people don’t want to be hurt or killed or robbed. I don’t need a bible to tell me that. I simply need to be human to understand that.

            You’re young, and it’s understandable that you believe what you’ve been taught. I’m old, and have grandchildren older than you ….and in all those years, I’ve never stolen or injured anyone, never been unfaithful to a marriage that lasted until the day he died, and never been in any kind of trouble with the police. I would never want to be the kind of person that would harm another, nor would I want to associate with people I couldn’t trust. Morality is HUMAN. No gods required.

            I’ve been an atheist for about sixty years, and I’ve never seen anything that would make me want to return. I simply don’t believe in the kind of magical woo that religion promises. I’m a scientist, and proud of it. Reality is wonderful enough. I don’t need to add the supernatural to that. But that doesn’t mean that you and I are all that different. We are both human. You’re being taught that you have to be good “because god”. I have lived a good, decent, moral life – I simply believe in one god fewer than you do. I’m not afraid of an imaginary hell, or looking forward to an imaginary heaven. I’ve got one life – and that means I want to spend it properly. I’m no longer sixteen, so I don’t want to cut loose and “sin”. I don’t need anybody to tell me to behave. Maybe that’s helpful to you now to think that you do, but really, you want to grow up healthy and happy and be a decent, responsible adult, respected in your community. That’s what I’ve done. If you think you need Jesus to do that, OK, but it’s simply your connection with the rest of humanity that makes you want that respect.

          • Max Green

            I see your point Ann, but what makes a toddler sin? Nobody teaches it to hit and throw a fit, but it does. What makes it sin, also, what defines these “moral rules”? A human knows right and wrong in its heart. even if it was acceptable would you go and kill? Would you feel wrong for it? When you and your friends as a kid go and do something wrong, even though it is acceptable to thier friends why does one allways say that theyve gone to far? Because they know it is wrong in their hearts.

          • Ann Kah

            Max, toddlers don’t “sin”, and if you belong to one of those fringe cults who put every cry of an infant down to “sin”, I can only advise you to run, not walk, in the opposite direction. Toddlers cry because they lack the vocabulary and the self-awareness to explain “I’m tired. I’m hungry. I really want that toy that the other kid has.” Toddlers are just “humans in training”. Have you ever seen what happens in a group of tiny children when one of them is crying hard? You will see other kids gathering around, looking worried but not knowing what to do. They don’t like to see other children miserable, and will sometimes even cry themselves in response. That spark of human empathy is there, even in a two-year-old, and it’s the job of parents to encourage that sympathetic response in their small child.

            Do you want to kill? Then think, “do I want to be killed?” “Do I want to associate with killers, people I couldn’t trust, people I could never turn my back on?” For most of us, the answer is no, you’d want to be trusted and want to be able to trust others in return.

            I don’t have to tell you all this. You have been told before. I’m agreeing with what your family has told you …all I’ve done is left out the “because god” part of the message. I’m an atheist. I don’t have two heads, and have not eaten babies for breakfast. If I see you in the street, you’d think “little old lady”, and you might hold open the door for me. I may be the little old lady who says “excuse me, you’ve dropped this” and return your wallet to you, or the one who gives you another dollar when you have too many groceries for the budget, or maybe I’m the one who pays for a college scholarship for you. I’m as human as you are, and as decent to my fellow humans as I hope you are. I don’t need supernatural beings for that.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “I don’t recall whether it is on this thread or another CNN thread but KingofRye and I went over this in great detail and he even finally admitted that when he does things for other it is for himself and his own gain. The same is true of you”

          I didn’t “finally admit” that as a result of our conversation, it was something I would have said all along.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Actually you did but I don’t doubt you would’ve either. Thanks for being honest enough to admit that. Now ya better just hope your morals are the same as your atheist friend Ann.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Now ya better just hope your morals are the same as your atheist friend Ann.”

            What does that sentence even mean? I honestly don’t get what you’re trying to say there. I presume by my “atheist friend Ann,” you mean Ayn Rand, who I referenced several times before in our earlier conversation. I thought I said, in all of that, that I don’t completely agree with her on everything, or words to that effect. So, I suppose you could say my morals aren’t exactly the same as hers.

            So….why does that matter?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes, I meant Ann Kah. Why should they be the same? Just think on it for awhile.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I guess I should have known not to expect a simple, intelligible answer from you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That was pretty straight-forward, simple and intelligible. Evidently you didn’t understand it. Try looking inward rather than diverting.

        • Max Green

          Well said

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you. Feel free to copy & paste when appropriate.

      • SolontheWise

        As an atheist, do you have a spirit, and if so, where did you get it?

        • Ann Kah

          My goodness, you speak a strange language. I can’t answer that until you define what the word “spirit” means to you, but I suspect my answer would be no.

          • SolontheWise

            The source of our existence, according to atheists, is evolutionism. But it is an absurd farce. You look at a jet in the sky or a car coming down the road and acknowledge they are intelligently designed. You look at a blue heron in flight or a hummingbird and say “They came into being by accident.” A dog and a cat come down the road. They also you say, they came into being by accident. And yet the birds and the dog and the cat have bodies 10,000 times more complex than the plane and the car. And they are able to generate offspring.
            DNA is encoded information which always has an intelligent source. What is the Intelligent Source behind DNA? When has encoded information ever come into being by accident?
            Now to the spirit: “And forming is God the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the spirit of the living, and he is becoming a living soul.”
            What happens to the spirit upon death? Just before He died on the cross, Jesus said, “Father, into thy hands am I committing my spirit” (Luke 23:46). The spirit returns to God Who gave it.
            You know, Ann, that you have a spirit which is the essential you. But you cannot account for its source. Evolutionism is no help there, as it makes you a mere conglomeration of chemicals, accidentally combined.
            Many atheists rebel against Christian religion which misrepresents God as a mysterious trinity of persons who purpose to torment millions of humans endlessly. It’s a false and horrible teaching, making the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ into a hateful monster, and should be rebelled against. The truth is that at the end of the eons, or ages, God reconciles all of his creations to Himself through the blood of Christ. God is Love.
            Here’s a great book on that subject: “A Truer God: The Supreme Spirit of Light and Love in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.” Google “A Truer God” and check out the site. There’s a clever 12 question multiple choice test there I think you will enjoy.

          • Ann Kah

            As I thought, the answer is no. You’ve brought up that old, spurious comparison of a living creature and a mechanical object, a point refuted a thousand times before. There is so much wrong with what you’ve said, but as it is impossible to give you a dozen years of science education in a paragraph, and as you wouldn’t read it anyway, I’m not going to bother.

            Everything you’ve said is faith, not fact. I deal with the world of fact, quite happily, and I see you have no “faith” in facts. We occupy different worlds, you and I, and I have no interest at all in changing you since I won’t get any bonus points from a magical being. And since I’ve been an atheist for approximately sixty years, and since I’ve never seen any reason to return to religion in all those years, you won’t be changing my mind either.

          • SolontheWise

            Thanks for a rich report on your belief system. I’ve never heard the comparison between a living creature and a mechanical object refuted even once. Please share that refutation with me.

          • Ann Kah

            On the off-chance that you’re telling the truth (as opposed to “hearing it before but deciding not to listen”, here’s the simplest run-down.
            1) Chemistry isn’t random. Atoms and molecules tend to combine i predictable ways.
            2) Molecules create other molecules. That doesn’t happen with, say, airplane wings and cockpit controls.
            3) Living creatures, from cells on up, pass on their DNA to the next generation. If it “doesn’t work”, the result is sterility or stillbirth or offspring that can’t survive. Inanimate objects do not reproduce, and cannot pass on their design.
            4) Sometimes mistakes are made in transmission of DNA, and the chain of molecules has another bit added, or a bit missing, or a bit repeated, like a sort of stutter. We call those mutations. Once again, there’s no similar mechanism for inanimate objects.
            5) The offspring with that mutation can do one of three things: survive, die, or thrive. If they die, that’s a failed mutation. If they thrive because the mutation is favorable, they may pass on more of that “good” mutation, and evolution occurs. If it’s sort of neutral, that is, it is different but it doesn’t matter much, then both forms exist. An example might be blue eyes-green eyes-brown eyes; all exist side by side but all are functioning eyes. Once again, a machine can’t do any of those things.

            Now go back to (3) and repeat a few million times.

          • SolontheWise

            Hi Ann, Your example in (5) of blue eyes/green eyes has nothing to do with one species allegedly “evolving” into another species. Eye colors are variations within a species.
            In comparing living creatures with inanimate objects, you write in (3) that “inanimate objects . . . cannot pass on their design.” Are you suggesting that living things can pass on their design? If so, how could living things pass on their design if they are not designed themselves? Hummingbirds and other living things sure look designed, don’t they?
            Also in (3) you refer to “living creatures.” Creatures is a noun form of the verb create, thus your word “creatures” implies that they were created, a contradiction of evolutionist theory. All living things, a/t evolutionist theory, can best be described as mutant randomites or random mutants – as they are the products of thousands of accidents (mistakes in genetic copying). A/T evolutionist theory, you are a random mutant.
            In (3), (4), and (5), you emphasize that an inanimate object (the jet airplane) cannot reproduce – yet we can recognize its design. A hummingbird is 10,000 times as complex as a jet plane, and does reproduce, and yet you do not recognize it as being designed, but insist it is the product of mistakes. That’s just crazy.
            In (2) I don’t understand how molecules “create” other molecules.
            How did the first cell (a combination of lifeless chemicals) become alive, and have the ability to reproduce itself?
            How did DNA (encoded information) come into being? Doesn’t encoded information always have an intelligent source?

            The last thing I would want you to do is “return to religion.” Christendom (mysterious trinity of “persons,” free will, hell) is a false religion. I am part of the body of Christ, a spiritual organism. I believe and teach exactly what our Christ-commissioned apostle Paul taught using his exact words, translated concordantly from the Greek. Paul reveals that (ultimately) “God is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers” (I Timothy 4:10).
            If you are not conciliated to God through the death of His Son in this “present wicked eon” (Galations 1:2), you will be at the end of the eons when death is abolished and God becomes “All in all.” For God “wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth” (I Timothy 2:4). And who can resist the will of the Supreme?
            You really should check out the site of the book I suggested – just for fun. I don’t think it is at all what you expect.

          • Ann Kah

            I explained that DNA passes on the design, but I’m afraid you’d need an education in biochemistry and genetics to get the details. That design is a result of chemistry, which I already explained is not random; since you don’t know how molecules make other molecules, I see you’ve never had a chemistry course in your life, and it’s beyond my power to pass on years of education in a simple post.

            DNA in the cells passes on the design from one living thing to another. That’s why people tend to resemble their parents. I’m sure you know people where the children of a family resemble each other, or where somebody looks just like his dad. Yes, that’s what happens with DNA. You get it from your parents, and it determines many things about your physical appearance.

            For a simple example of design, put a layer of marbles in a box. Because of their shape and size, you will find some of them make a design, a pattern, and when you roll them around a bit, different areas will make a pattern. No “creator” or “designer” required.

            When you confuse etymology with science, you commit the logical fallacy of reading much more into the words “design” and “creature” than the words actually represent.

            The “variations” are just the baby steps of evolution, and just as I can take one step, then another, and another, and walk a mile, an animal or plant can make one tiny change, then another, then eventually become a different species. Don’t forget, WE defined “species” based on what we see in the present day. There is no magical barrier between species, and if we were to make that definition a few million years who, we might have made different classifications.

            If you think that “mistakes” in DNA are “crazy”, explain how an infant can be born with a genetic disease.

          • SolontheWise

            A/T your thinking, we can trace you back millions of Darwin years to a single cell – the very first living thing. How many millions of mistakes did it take to finally evolve Ann Kah? That’s what I mean that design based on mistakes is “crazy.” Mutations (mistakes) do lead to genetic diseases. They do not lead to improvements in the next generation. A de-generation takes place when the mistakes occur.
            How changes in eye color within a species can be a building block of somekind for the transformation into another species, I can’t fathom. You have no evidence for that. It’s a mere supposition about “baby steps.” If it’s not mere supposition, lay out the baby steps that have lead to a different species.

            You’ve put yourself in the same unscientific trap as Darwin’s elder brother Erasmus who wrote to Charles after reading his copy of The Origin of Species: “The a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling.”

            That’s why you can only look to bogus “consensus” and wishful thinking to back you up instead of the facts. You can’t give me an single example on one species “evolving” into another with the evidence for it. There are about 2 million species on the planet. Surely you can pick one and identify, with evidence (facts), the species from which it allegedly evolved, can’t you? But never mind. If the facts won’t fit into your theory, too bad for the facts.

          • Chris

            “Mutations (mistakes) do lead to genetic diseases. They do not lead to improvements in the next generation.”

            Go to youtube and look up a video entitled ‘How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 54 Beneficial Mutations’.

    • Harry Weaver

      This is a few remarks concerning atheism.

  • Fang

    The liberals maintain numerous hate blogs. Being listed on any of them should be taken as a compliment.

    • Croquet_Player

      But it is not a “hate blog”. If you click on the link to the actual site, included in the article above, you’ll see that it is a list of inaccurate websites from all across the political spectrum. It’s very easy to simply dismiss something as a “hate blog” because you don’t like one thing they’ve pointed out. But if you actually looked at the site, you might find you agree with some of the listings they included.

      • why not what

        You misunderstood.
        They said something bad about a christian web site for science, therefore:
        1. they’re liberal
        2. they’re evil
        3. whatever it is on the web that says something bad about christians, its a hate-blog
        4. seeing as they’re the Bad Guys, being called out by them is a compliment.

        You have to follow the logic, twisted as it is.

        • Jason Todd

          Point?

          • Johndoe

            You don’t have one

        • Croquet_Player

          I know. I try to be patient.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Non-christian Westerners hate the Christians. Pagans do that with ignorance, but the Westerners do that knowing it’s evil. That’s the problem.

          • Croquet_Player

            The problem, Grace, is that “Fang” called a politically balanced list of disreputable websites a liberal “hate blog”, when it simply is not. Please try to stick to the topic at hand.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Think of the core matter. Liberals desire to corrupt children and destroy nations. Sodom is their dream utopia, but we all know too well what happens to Sodom and Gomorrah and their surroundings. Read Jude 1. Do the Bible study properly.

          • Croquet_Player

            Give it a rest Grace. You make the same statement over and over and over again. Try to focus.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s important, C-P. Secular West is trying to establish slavery by falsehood again. This news is another proof.

          • Croquet_Player

            Grace, this article is about a list of unreliable or biased websites, ranging all across the political and ideological spectrum. It is a helpful resource for those who want to make sure their information sources are accurate. It has absolutely nothing to do with secularism, slavery, or anything of the kind.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            C-P, unbelieving Westerners are all the same. You have no desire for the truth, honesty, or fairness. You must face your own root problem. Christendom alone seeks the truth. Tackle the core matter.

          • Croquet_Player

            Just curious, did you even look at the link that the Christian News article helpfully provided? Be honest. Did you review it, yes or no?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I usually don’t read links, but I read the news text in whole or in part. I read, not review. Why?

          • Croquet_Player

            Because the link in the article – a list of unreliable websites, and some helpful information on how to tell if a website is questionable – is the specific subject we’re discussing. If you’d like to be involved in the discussion, it would be helpful to take a look at it, so you can be informed, and offer your own opinion on it, instead of making generalized statements that don’t pertain directly to the subject. Plus, it’s a handy resource. I bookmarked it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I see. Thanks for the info. All I hope is for you is to get saved by meeting Jesus Christ. The entire internet has nothing profound or vital comparing to the Holy Bible. You must seek the truth and read the Word of God to get saved, if you are an honest human.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Talk about hate! I see folks who are non-Christians on this blog making rational arguments in a very civil manner without condescending to Christians. You, on the other hand, are the one using hate language. You will not even try to address the issues directly.

            Try using a bit of civility and reason. When you attack, readers who disagree with you immediately circle their wagons and take up defensive positions.

            If you want to just denigrate and think that’s the Christian way, then you will never gain converts.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Non-believers threaten and bully. Unbelieving Westerners single out the Christians for bullying because they know that Christians alone do not retaliate but only evangelize and pray for others’ salvation and blessings. This century’s secular Westerners are repaying the good with evil to their Christian forefathers and to local Christians. Secular West’s problem is that it hates God’s truth and morality though it was a Christendom before. I write here not only for converts but also to tell Americans to stop forcing the people to endorse immorality because it is wrong. If the USA loses freedom, all its servant nations will mimic; that’s why.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I’m a non believer. Yet I don’t threaten and bully. How does that fit into your statement?

            Can you not see that your attitude forms an unbreachable wall that blocks any attempt to find common ground? No, I do not think that you will not convert any non believers.

            I am having a very good civil debate on another subject on Christian News. We are getting along very well. I’d love to sit down with such a person and, over a few glasses of wine (or beer), talk for hours. I get very philosophical after a few glasses of wine. 😀

            But, this is the best we can manage, so I hope you don’t mind if I ask you some questions for a civil, intellectual discussion.

            Do you believe that the Bible (KJV) is the literal word of God? Where you, as a child, taught to believe it?

            Do you know that the great majority of believers in the verious religions the world over believe theirs because it was what they were taught from tot-hood to believe it?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I’m very sorry for my delayed reply. I hope you are still here. You have a nicer manner but you don’t acknowledge the Creator God or fight for the life of the unborn children. Therefore atheists are wrong. I’m not here to convert( the Westerners are not entirely ignorant pagan) but to transmit God’s truth, although I do pray that people here will get saved. If people hate the truth, it’s their problem. You should correct your fellow atheists to behave nicer towards religious people. They cuss and blaspheme all the time to make religious people suffer. I don’t drink alcohol, sir. Enjoy some juice instead.

            Here are my answers to you. 1) I do believe that the Holy Bible( KJV, NKJV, NASV, NIV, etc. in the English language’s case) is the literal Word of God. My parents taught me first and I read all of it several times throughout my life. Jesus Christ is indeed the Way and the Truth and the Life, as He said He is. John 14.

            2) Yes, I’m aware of the trend, but the majority of Christians are converted people. You should watch how Christianity alone spread. The West had it close to 2000 years. In my region, less than 200 years. Many suffered martyrdom at the hands of the pagans and atheists, but Christians never gave up. People become Christian because Christianity alone is realistic and full of God’s love and has the real Saviour. The Christian West has been different from all others because the God whom the Holy Bible reveals is incomparably holy and glorious and loving.

          • Johndoe

            Disagreement is not bullying. You just can’t handle the fact that everyone doesn’t agree with you and your rants.

          • Ann Kah

            I don’t hate you, Grace. I find you tedious and repetitive, and unable to respond to questions without going off on a tangent to a sermon, but I don’t hate you.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Atheists hate the Christians and the truth. You young Westerners never went through hard time and do not know the real hardships on Planet Earth because you’ve been always well-protected by the Protestant Church. That’s also why you attack your Christian ancestors who are far better than the baby-killing Sodomic moderners.

          • Ann Kah

            Thanks, Grace, I haven’t been called “young” in a good long time. I’m in my seventies, and have been an atheist since the mid-1950s. I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing in all those decades that would persuade me to return to religion. I’ve led a pretty blameless life, one husband only (until his death) and the most trouble I’ve ever been in is a traffic ticket, about four times in the last half-century.

            I’m kind to strangers and don’t kick puppies. I don’t have two heads and do not eat babies for breakfast. I know there are hardships in life, and I know I’ve been lucky to avoid them. But I’ve never seen a hardship situation that was helped by religion. There’s even an ad on this page about helping Syrian refugees – instead of food and shelter, the church gave them audio bibles. I’m sure they found them to be delicious. Why does the church’s assistance have to come with a sales pitch for religion?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            All atheists including American ones kill the children in wombs and are evil. The communist ones kill the believers in God, too, not just the babies. Western ones are the worst and deadlier over all because they knowingly blaspheme God and educate all children to become destructive-immoral by prohibiting the truth and morality. This is the summary of history. If you have been alive since the 1950’s, you should remember these facts. Westerners including Americans are not good if they are not Christian because Christianity alone is the sane conscience for them.

            Pre-christian barbarism is less guilty than Post-christian Sodom. Christians give religion utmost and foremost, because the Gospel of Jesus Christ alone saves human soul not just the physical life. Christians also give everyone food, medicine, education, and charity everywhere. You are an unbelieving domestic American and know nothing about how the American Christians are feeding and rescuing people on the entire planet while the secular ones are polluting everyone. Americans were good only because of their Christian religion. You must repent of your sin to get saved. Read John 3.

          • Harry Weaver

            What country are you from and what religion? You have so many beliefs that coincide with mine. I am a US citizen and military veteran.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Really? That’s good. Thank you. I’m a Mongoloid (not Mongolian. I’m emotionally mixed) from the Eastern Asia, and my religion is Protestant (Bible-keeping evangelical) Christianity. I love the USA and the US military because the Americans (the missionaries and soldiers) brought us Christianity, human rights, democracy, and freedom. If the liberals were all quiet, all nations would have been still grateful towards Americans.

          • Harry Weaver

            I’m American of course and US military veteran, and evangelical Christian, and an ordained Minister. Note certain parts of my ID is blocked out so as not to reveal my identity and for security purposes and to keep in the rules.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes. Nice to meet you, sir. I think conservative (Bible-keeping) Christians believe and think alike world-wide.

          • Harry Weaver

            I thought I sent you an ID for an Ordained Minister but sometimes I look and can’t find the post. I will try again.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, I got it. Viewing of one’s own posting on the page could be delayed. I don’t know why. I can read your post of that content on this page.

          • Harry Weaver

            Ok thanks. I looked at the post, and the text was there but not the pic of my license.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Interesting. Why block your ID in the first place. I’m quite sure no one wants to do you harm. I’ve not hidden mine and have never been attacked (physically). I like to stand on my comments with transparency.

          • Croquet_Player

            I do understand your frustration here. Please try to be patient, the lady has a singular viewpoint, which she repeats over and over and over again. I think she’s a very nice person who means very well. Her remarks exist upon a “spectrum”, if you will. I think we can all take a step back and appreciate Grace for who she is. I never take her remarks personally, and I consider her a friend although we differ on almost everything. I understand it is spring where she lives, and trees are blooming. It’s happening where I live too, and I was happy we could both enjoy our pleasure in nature’s beauty together.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            C-P, thank you for your niceness. I do not want to be bullied by the Western white pervs and their mental servants now or in the future for not-supporting their mentally ill inclination to homosexuality and transgenderism. It’s a disgrace as a human being, not just as a Christian, to be silent in a time like this in facing the West’s Sodomic tyranny, no matter how powerful they are. It’s the battle point of the era.

            I believe present immoral Western white people must stop bashing their normal hard-working Christian ancestors and forefathers because it is unfair to the normal and hard-working white people of the past and it also greatly hurts Western children. I’m deeply grateful towards the white Christians of yesteryears who brought Christianity into Asia. I want their descendants to get saved and stay safe.

            Sodomic inclination of the West is suicidal and it endangers the whole world. Sodom gets destroyed by fire. Western Sodomites should know they are hurting everyone by persecuting the Christians. People have rights to the truth and life. Western white people should read the Holy Bible and get the truth, morality, and freedom. It’s unacceptable they compare the colored people or women with sexual pervs and rant equality. Western culture is only immoral if it has no Judeo-Christian teachings.

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you Grace. I hope you’re enjoying the weather where you are. I live near a very large park, and everything is blooming. It’s very lovely.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            That’s good. Give thanks to God in Jesus for the lovely day. It’s been altogether wrong for you to ignore the Christian faith and betray the Lord. All you need to do is to repent of your sin and return to God. Do it before it’s too late. Nothing is more important than your soul. Apart from Christianity, there is no salvation or goodness. Please wake up. Praying for you. I wish I could know your name.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            [Seek the Lord while He may be found,
            Call upon Him while He is near.
            Let the wicked forsake his way,
            And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
            Let him return to the Lord,
            And He will have mercy on him;
            And to our God,
            For He will abundantly pardon.

            “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
            Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
            “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
            So are My ways higher than your ways,
            And My thoughts than your thoughts.

            “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
            And do not return there,
            But water the earth,
            And make it bring forth and bud,
            That it may give seed to the sower
            And bread to the eater,
            So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
            It shall not return to Me void,
            But it shall accomplish what I please,
            And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”]

            – from Isaiah chapter 55

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Four traffic tickets in 50 years? Oh no, you know what that leads to…jaywalking, overdue library books, and tearing tags off mattresses!

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m fifty-three. The total extent of my involvement with Johnny Law is the speeding ticket I got driving home from college in Eugene Oregon to the bay area when I was 18. I was driving five miles over the limit on I-5. In, I kid you not, “Weed” California. You’re coming out of some mountains there, and there’s a natural incline and straight road. So everyone speeds up without noticing. And the town just parks an officer there with a speed gun to write tickets. Everyone just pays, because no one wants to drive back to Weed to argue about it. I’m pretty sure it’s how they fund the entire town.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I used to be a prosecutor, but even I hate speed traps. They’re playing dirty. Speed limits serve a purpose, in theory, but that nonsense isn’t it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Pretty good description of “self-righteousness”.

            God says that’s on par with used menstrual cloth.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Great reply, Ann. I, too, am an atheist in my seventies. I left Christianity not long after high school having had three encounters with cognitive dissonance. The last impelled me to return to school after the military and study world religions, paleoanthropology and philosophy. As they say, “Mine eyes were opened.”

            And come to think of it, I don’t eat babies either. 😀

          • Max Green

            Ann Kah, I may be what is called one of those “young” christains, but the religion that we “pitch” is not because we dont want to help. It is because we care. we care about your eternity. We dont want you to see us as bullying. I would find great joy in leading someone to christ. We just want to feed the soul and the body. The churches assistance is both spiritual, which is what it is made for and it is physical. I have donated 100’s of dollars to the church to help locals and Im only 16. Can you say that about most non christain’s? Its not because they dont care, but it is because I am driven by christ to help. I hope one day you can get this drive too.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Therein lies the problem with fundamentalists Christians.

            We need to understand the difference between hating people for their beliefs and disliking them for trying to impose those beliefs on the rest of society.

            The solution is simple. If Christians would stick to their churches, refrain from injecting their religious beliefs into politics and keep their symbols off government/public property, then no atheist would have a problem with them.

            For example, I do not consider Sunday to be a holy day. Yet there are laws in some areas that forbid the purchase beer or wine. Those are religious laws and should not be on the books. If they are challenged, it is most likely the court would agree. That’s what happened to the Sunday Blue Laws.

            Yes, if Christians would mind their own business, then peace would prevail. Non-Christians could live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience, not the dictates of a church. We, as they, would retain the right to debate if both sides want and Christians would still retain the right (barring neighborhood restrictions) to erect christian symbols/monuments on their own property.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are at falsehhod. Secular Westerners hate the Christianity only because they want to continue the abortion-murder and sexual immorality. They hate the voice of God’s people telling them to stop sinning. If the West does not adhere to Christianity, it promotes Sodomy. The Sabbath laws flourish the society. Americans were not greedy when they kept the Sabbath intact. Guess who lost what. Godliness and families are true treasures. It’s futile to own everything on a dying planet. And the godless childless tribes leave the land to foreigners.

            If Christians are silent, the barbaric world becomes full of innocent victims. Non-christian conscience has serious defects and its dictates are useless. No peace to baby-killing Sodomites. Peace for villains means the evil’s reign and must not happen. Jude 1. America always need Christian symbols and monuments because Christianity created America. Non-christian America only promotes the slavery-by-immorality and not human rights or liberty.

        • ShemSilber

          Oh, there is plenty bad that one can say about Christians, because we all still commit sins. The difference is that Christians are called on to fight against the sinful nature that we have, and the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) is zealous to help all who believe on Him and testify about Him to be overcomers. He makes new people out of us, if we are following Him.

          No matter how we define ourselves, whether Christian, Messianic Jewish, Messianic Israelite, Nazarene Israelite, or whatever, we all still have much to learn and do to live as the Master Yahushua lived, for His perfection is beyond us, and therefore people do say evil things about us, and sometimes rightly so, but it is up to us to submit to the Master so that He can make overcomers of us, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, omein!

          • why not what

            And…. right off topic you go… what a shock.

          • ShemSilber

            Quite the contrary. The only true science that matters is the answer to the question, “How do we go from this temporary age that is rapidly coming to its close (either with the age itself ending for everyone, or we as individuals cease to be in it) and enter into the permanent, REAL world that will never end?” Any other science is subsidiary to that.

            Wake up and hear the birdies sing! True science leads to salvation in Yahushua’s Name, available nowhere else, without which we die the second death, and THAT is true science, omein!

          • why not what

            With respect, you literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Literally. Have a good day!

          • ShemSilber

            Through the offices of the Master Yahushua, I have learned a bit about how ignorant I am, but what have you learned? Do you have the foggiest notion about what your saying? But you will learn, and then you won’t be quite so ignorant, with all due respect, but is there any due for such an ignorant attitude? I almost fell out of my chair laughing…

    • Johndoe

      List please

  • Croquet_Player

    ‘“When we report on the good science behind stunning ingenuity in DNA
    repair enzymes, for example, we feel free to credit the Creator,” he
    stated.’ And exactly that’s why it’s “junk science”. He’s free to believe his personal deity created everything, but “Here’s this amazing thing, it seems so clever, only God could have done it” is not a scientific conclusion.

    • Amos Moses

      but it is a CORRECT conclusion ………..

      • Croquet_Player

        According to you, it is. And that’s an opinion you share with every person who believes their particular deity (or deities) created and/or designed everything. You only differ on which deity(s). However the “This is something very clever and we can’t figure out, therefore God(s)” is what is known as the “argument from ignorance fallacy”. It doesn’t work in science. And this is why anyone who uses that argument and purports to be “scientific”, isn’t. And when you, or anyone else can demonstrate creation or design from a genuine scientific perspective, I hope to be among the first to congratulate you on your earth-shattering achievement. To date, no one has.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      Neither is rejecting the obvious that only God could have done it because the mathematical statistical probability of it otherwise happening makes it impossible.

      Thank you for once again showing your bias and stubborn rebellious effort to remain ignorant. It only helps others see it and willingly choose to look into it themselves.

      • Croquet_Player

        “because the mathematical statistical probability of it otherwise happening makes it impossible.” Really? Where? I’d welcome some reputable source you could cite.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Your “reputable” has already been defined by your own bias and bigoted remarks so try Google and I’d suggest going first to those sites that you don’t believe are “credible” or “reputable”.

          • Croquet_Player

            So, no sources to offer? O.k., whatever.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ok, whatever. Google is a source.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You make the claim, you provide the evidence. You’ve been told this multiple times.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, another troll pipes in. As if I’m gonna fall down now and say, “Yes Massah!”

            And btw, ol blind guide, Google is a source. And a good one!

          • Michael C

            google is a tool.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            It’s a source.

          • Michael C

            My car is not a source for the best ribs in town.

            My car can take me to the source of the best ribs in town.

            My car can also take me to the source of the worst ribs in town.

            My car doesn’t know the difference between the best ribs and the worst ribs.

            My car is a tool, not a source.

            Google is a tool, not a source.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your car is a source of Transportation. Not a tool of Transportation. It IS a source that may take you to another source for whatever ribs you desire.

            A tool, like say a hammer or wrench isn’t a source of anything. It doesn’t do anything.

            Thanks for showing your faulty reasoning. Much appreciated.

          • Michael C

            wow.

          • Chris

            If Royce ever put google as a source on an exam paper the teacher would give him an immediate ‘F’. And Royce would dismiss the teacher as a god-hater and biased to boot. 🙂

          • Chris

            You might also look up ICR and answers in genesis and see how many patents they hold. You’ll find the answer is NONE. Funny that isn’t it? It would seem that creationism provides no benefit, except to the ego.

            In other words it doesn’t work.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Strawman. And that you for proving that you DO start with a conclusion. Every single source you’ve cited has been from God-haters. Try citing some source from one that doesn’t hold your God-hating POV.

          • Chris

            “Strawman.”

            A strawman is a parody of an argument. YOU haven’t contended that ICR and AIG produce useful science. I am contending that they don’t. Science is meant to be useful. Creationism produces NOTHING useful.

            “Every single source you’ve cited has been from God-haters.”

            I cited Ross and HE is an old earth creationist and a conservative Christian. That’s your second lie Royce. Not looking too good old bean.

            “Try citing
            some source from one that doesn’t hold your God-hating POV.”

            Ok. Try ” Noah’s ark and the cheetah”. The guy was a Christian when he made this video.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, another lie.

            “Strawman – an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”

            “YOU haven’t contended that ICR and AIG produce useful science.”

            Another lie. I have. Often. Perhaps you should block yourself! LOL

            “Creationism produces NOTHING useful.” More blatant bias and bigotry. How objective! LOL

            “I cited Ross and HE is an old earth creationist and a conservative Christian. That’s your second lie Royce. Not looking too good old bean.”

            Ross is a Poser. Fits in Matt. 7:21-23 who. You can NOT stand in opposition to Jesus Christ and be His follower. Ross is practicing lawlessness by repeatedly preaching his lies. So, THAT IS YOUR ???? (who can count anymore?) lie, Chris. Not looking to good old bean.

            “The guy was a Christian when he made this video.”

            See above reference to Posers.

            PLEASE folks, DO go watch the “Noah’s ark and the cheetah”. The claims of this guy in the first 2min of the video are downright laughable. The things this guy brings up is easily explained away by a child with a functioning brain. Which says a lot for the author of the video and the one recommending it to be watched! LOL But MOREOVER it shows that these people are paying NO attention whatsoever to the explanations being offered by the Creationists. Easily understandable, logical, and reasonable explanations but they completely ignore anything that comes from a Creationist.

            This is the very epitome of Romans 1:22. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools”

            “To quote wikipedia…” See above.

            “To quote wikipedia…” See above.

            “There ya go Royce. Three Christians with evidence for evolution and against creationism.” See above

            Here’s a little helpful advice. it’s best to NOT talk about something which you have absolutely NO clue what you’re talking about or what even makes up the subject you refer to. A spiritually-dead, God-hating troll would not be even ABLE to have the remotest idea what a Christian is.

    • Sharon_at_home

      Aren’t the scientists the ones that can’t conclude what ever it is they are trying to prove: “this amazing thing”? If they can’t figure out the conclusion, and it’s way out of the mathematical explanations they tried…. Why can’t it be accepted that only a God could have created “this amazing thing”? They have no explanation so it COULD be that it was God. You are excluding the fact that if science can’t prove what they were trying to prove, that there is an explanation that you just don’t want to accept?
      If the scientists DID prove the existence of God, would you believe them? You seem to throw out any evidence of God regardless of what is proven, so why would scientists proving it be any difference to you. You don’t want to believe in God, so you will find fault with anything to do with Him.

      • Croquet_Player

        What you are suggesting is known as the “argument from ignorance fallacy”. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). In this case, “We have no explanation for X, therefore God did it.” This overlooks the fact that while we may have no explanation for something now, we may in the future. Incidentally, this does not rule out “God did it”. It would simply have to be demonstrated, with evidence, like anything else, otherwise you’re skipping a key step.

        “If the scientists DID prove the existence of God, would you believe them?” Sure. With enough credible evidence and demonstrated method. I have yet to see any credible evidence, for any deities. This does not rule out the possibility.

        “You don’t want to believe in God, so you will find fault with anything to do with Him.” No, I simply apportion my belief to evidence. I understand that other people find the evidence for whatever deity they believe in to be credible. And that some people are willing to believe anyway without sufficient evidence. I simply have yet to be presented with any credible evidence.

      • Ann Kah

        “I don’t know, therefore God did it?” A scientist would say “I don’t know, so I’ll look it up”, or “I don’t know yet, I’ve still got some more specimens to study”. When you say “only a God could do this”, you are just saying that you don’t know, or you don’t believe that a rational explanation exists that doesn’t need the supernatural.

        In a previous century, you might have said that “God is angry so we have a bad storm” or “God took away my sister”. But now we can track a low pressure area and see the radar picture of the storm, and know what areas are in danger and when the storm will arrive, now we can see that your sister had a preventable disease, and prescribe the right antibiotics to help her live again. And after all the work that doctors and pharmaceutical companies and nursing care, God’ll get the credit. Next time, thank the doctor instead.

  • Croquet_Player

    “The death of expertise is not just a rejection of existing knowledge. It
    is fundamentally a rejection of science and dispassionate rationality,
    which are the foundations of modern civilization. It is a sign, as the
    art critic Robert Hughes once described late 20th century
    America, of “a polity obsessed with therapies and filled with distrust
    of formal politics,” chronically “skeptical of authority” and “prey to
    superstition.” We have come full circle from a premodern age, in which
    folk wisdom filled unavoidable gaps in human knowledge, through a period
    of rapid development based heavily on specialization and expertise, and
    now to a postindustrial, information-oriented world where all citizens
    believe themselves to be experts on everything.” – Tom Nichols,”The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters” He is professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War
    College, an adjunct professor at the Harvard Extension School, and a
    former aide in the U.S. Senate.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    The Go-haters can choose to live in their fantasy world and Denial until the cows come home. That’s their choice but one day they WILL face the FACT that Science did not and CAN NOT disprove A SINGLE THING that has been written in the Bible. Not the flat Earth (and, in fact, it was the Bible who spoke of the Earth being round BEFORE Science ever did – way before!! But why would anyone expect a narrow-minded – err, make that CLOSE-MINDED, biased and bigoted cretin to know that), nor the age of the Earth nor the global flood.

    In FACT, those who are intellectually honest KNOW that Science can NOT prove any of those things because they KNOW what Scientists are teaching today are NOT facts. They are interpretations of observations!!
    .
    Don’t miss that!! Scientists are NOT teaching facts but rather interpretations of observations. And those interpretations come from a Starting Point based on their Worldview. It is absolutely imperative to understand this in order to use critical thinking when evaluating what they are saying.

    • Ann Kah

      Respectfully, Royce, that is just not true. The bible contradicts itself. Pi is not 3, and insect (including ANTS) don’t have four legs. Since you’re proud of your ability to google, google “mistakes in the bible”.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Respectfully Ann, no it is NOT true. God is MUCH too smart and perfect to contradict Himself. Which, btw, makes perfect sense since he’s God.

        When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

        Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

        “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

        “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

        Why would I want to waste my time looking at nonsense? Besides, I’ve probably heard them all anyways. (Such as Pi is not 3. Gimme a break. Please don’t be so ignorant as to spout that nonsense. If I were to ask you what time it is and it was 3min30sec to the top of the hour, what would you likely tell me? 3min to… or maybe even say it was the top of the hour? God is much too smart and perfect to make mistakes. Which, btw, makes perfect sense since he’s God.

        Since you’re so proud of your ability to tell me to Google, how about you practicing what your preach and do the same? Isn’t that the “moral” thing to do. Go ahead and do that Google search and then look at the sites under the same search that EASILY explain away every single one of your so-called mistakes.

        Or you could just ask yourself, if there is a God then why would He make mistakes? Duh!

        (Oh, and btw, YES there are ANTS with FOUR LEGS! As well as other insects. You should’ve practiced what you preached and Googled that first!!)

        A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

  • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

    The rest of the list is probably worthless too. I’m pretty sure they didn’t include CNN, and that news is completely cooked.

  • Robert

    secular heathen fake science needs millions even billions and trillions if not zillions of years for nothing to turn into something let’s not forget.

    • Chris

      Then by all means when you get sick stay away from those heathen fake medical scientists known as doctors.

  • Chris

    To any Christian readers here’s a few things to consider.

    According to Barna research group a large number of young people will leave their faith. What reasons do they give for this? Let’s see:

    They asked a number of young people who had left their faith why they had left. Here’s some of their answers:

    “Christians are too confident they know all the answers”;
    “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in”;
    “Christianity is anti-science”; and
    “[I am] turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.”

    So to these young people the Christians they were familiar with are anti-science and arrogant know-it-alls. Now read the posts of Christians like Royce, Jason Todd, and Amos Moses and tell me that these young people are wrong.

    Are all Christians, or even the majority arrogant, anti-science know-it-alls? No! I don’t believe that for a second. But the refusal to accept the findings of science is destroying your church. At the best your church will become a cultural irrelevance as it becomes smaller and smaller. More and more of your best and brightest will leave as they are told they have to choose between their faith and their brain.

    The ones who are left will fall increasingly under the sway of con men like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind, etc. The alternative is to find some way to reconcile your faith to the findings of science. Change is NEVER easy but, in this case, it is essential. Only you can decide. Do so wisely.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Ken Ham is a respected scientist and Christian. Off with your subversion.

      • Chris

        Nope. For one thing he’s not a scientist, He only has a Bachelor of Science. For another the only people who respect him are the people he pays and the victims who pay him.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          A Bachelor of Science is different in Australia than it is in the US and Canada. Also, he’s got more science education than Bill Nye, who isn’t even a scientist. Thirdly, Dr. Damadian, the inventor of the MRI, is hardly a paid victim, and he greatly respects Ken Ham. So do a lot of very living and very current scientists.

          • Chris

            “A Bachelor of Science is different in Australia than it is in the US and
            Canada.”
            It may well be but I am an Australian and attended an Australian university and our Bachelor degrees are NOT the equivalent of a doctorate from the US or Canada.

            “Also, he’s got more science education than Bill Nye, who isn’t
            even a scientist.”

            They both attained a Bachelor of Science degree.

            “Thirdly, Dr. Damadian, the inventor of the MRI, is
            hardly a paid victim, and he greatly respects Ken Ham. So do a lot of
            very living and very current scientists.”

            Werll if he’s not a victim then what does that leave except victimizer? Doctor Damadian knows enough about medical science to know that the things that Ham is spouting, especially in the area of biology, are a pack of lies.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) Your bachelor degrees are not the equivalent of a US or Canadian bachelor degree either, Chris, and who said anything about it being the equivalent of a doctorate?

            b.) Bill Nye is someone who plays a scientist on television. His science degree was honorary.

            c.) You are now putting thoughts and intent into Dr. Damadian that are just not there. Are you projecting?

          • Chris

            “a.) Your bachelor degrees are not the equivalent of a US or Canadian
            bachelor degree either, Chris, and who said anything about it being the
            equivalent of a doctorate?”

            Since Australian students can study in the US or Canada after they’ve finished their Bachelors it would seem they are equivalent. It was you, was it not, who called Ken Ham a scientist?

            “b.) Bill Nye is someone who plays a scientist on television. His science degree was honorary.”

            Incorrect. To quote wikipedia “He [Nye] studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where he took an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan)and graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1977.”

            “c.) You are now putting thoughts and intent into Dr. Damadian that are just not there. Are you projecting?”

            Since Dr. Damadian has a medical degree he would understand biology would he not? Then he would also understand that Ken Ham has misrepresented biology would he not? Since he has made a film in support of Ken Ham it would seem that he doesn’t care about Ham’s misrepresentations of science in general and biology in particular. That would make Dr. Damadian a victimizer.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            a.) Ken Ham IS a scientist. He has a science degree. And yes, someone with an Aussie Bachelor can study abroad, but at a higher level. Someone at a US level Bachelor would typically start at a lower level abroad unless they can pull strings. For example, American Ph.D. students often cannot do entry level mathematics at Canadian universities.

            b.) Taking an astronomy class doesn’t make one a scientist. 🙂 Nice try though. Keep trying to discredit Ham’s very real science education while puffing up Bill Nye’s faux credentials. 🙂

            c.)Dr. Damadian is a genius. I respect his opinion. Darwin is a flunkee and a bigot. I disrespect anything associated with him.

          • Chris

            “a.) Ken Ham IS a scientist”

            To be considered a scientist you would need a doctorate. No doctorate no scientist. In addition, no matter the degree you would need to apply the scientific method.

            i.e. go from the evidence to the conclusion, try to eliminate bias as much as possible, use blind tests, incorporate peer review and falsifiability. Ham does NONE of this. He is neither a scientist nor does he practice science.

            And yes, someone with an Aussie Bachelor can study abroad, but at a higher level.”

            Evidence please.

            You then talk about US degrees as though they were all the same. Nope. A degree from say CalTec is a completely different thing than some small college.

            Then you came out with this gem “Taking an astronomy class doesn’t make one a scientist.” He GRADUATED with a DEGREE. Now I know fundie creationists lie a lot so I’m instituting the three lies and your out rule. That’s your first lie.

            “Darwin is a flunkee and a bigot. I disrespect anything associated with him.”

            Just as I do you. If you’d learned logic you’d know that evidence is what counts and NOT whether you like the character of the person giving it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            One need not have a doctorate in order to be a scientist. However, by your criteria, neither Nye nor Darwin could be considered scientists. So which one is it? 🙂

            Nye did not graduate with a degree in astronomy. The only science degree he has is merely honorary. He is not a scientist.

          • Chris

            Actually Darwin studied for a degree and his work certainly earned him the modern equivalent of a research degree. However scientific methodology is rather more important than qualifications. Ham uses no scientific methodology.

            “Nye did not graduate with a degree in astronomy.”
            I NEVER said he did. The wiki article said he attended classes in astronomy.

            “The only science degree he has is merely honorary.”

            There’s your third lie. And yer OUT! See ya.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, Darwin got kicked out of school for failing.

            Nye took one astronomy class. By your standards, he’s a scientist, yet Ham who really does have a science degree is not because you don’t like him? Logic, Chris, logic. 🙂

          • Chris

            Ken Ham’s qualifications should also be noted “Ham earned a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in education from the University of Queensland.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Those are good qualifications, and as stated, a Bachelor’s in Australia is higher than a US Bachelor, and it’s still a lot more science education than actor Bill Nye has. 🙂

          • Chris

            “Those are good qualifications, and as stated, a Bachelor’s in Australia
            is higher than a US Bachelor, and it’s still a lot more science
            education than actor Bill Nye has. :)”

            Since I’ve already quoted wikipedia which writes of Nye’s DEGREE in science that’s your second lie. One more and you’re out. Got it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            First of all, wiki isn’t a good source, and second of all, Nye’s science degree was honorary. He’s a NASA reject.

          • Chris

            His DOCTORATE is honorary. His Bachelors is earned.

            Since you don’t like wikipedia here’s his bio from biography dot com “Born on November 27, 1955, Bill Nye grew up in Washington, D.C. After GRADUATING from Cornell University, he moved to Seattle to work as a
            mechanical engineer for Boeing, and eventually became a comedy show
            writer and performer.”

            As to his being rejected by Nasa that’s not exactly something he hides. I’ve often heard him joke about it. Unless Nye were a LOT fitter and with years of experience as a military pilot his chance of being accepted by Nasa as an astronaut were practically zero.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, he had a 3 year degree and never made it into NASA. Real scientists laugh at him. Even wiki doesn’t call him a scientist. 🙂

          • Chris

            As to Ken Ham here’s a few video’s about his dishonesty:

            Ken Ham LIES at the Bill Nye Debate

            Ken Ham’s Layers of Lies

            Lies Answers in Genesis Told Me

            Ken Ham: A Thousand Lies To Defend A “Truth”

            Evolution Caused Racism1/5 Ken Ham – ExtantDodo Debunk

            Zack Kopplin and Ken Ham: Ken Ham’s Big Lie

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Those are articles written by atheists. There’s no truth in them. Ken Ham is a brilliant man, a good scientist, and a devoted Christian.

          • Chris

            At least one of them was by a Christian. That tells me you either didn’t watch them or paid them scant attention.

            If I wrote “those are articles written by Christians. There’s no truth in them.” I would be a religious bigot would I not? If I wrote “those are articles written by negroes. There’s no truth in them.” I would be a racial bigot would I not? Well then what do you call someone who refuses to listen to information merely because it comes from an atheist?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know what a Christian is if you think that’s a Christian.

            Atheists are known for being fools. Their entire belief system is founded upon a lie. Of course I disregard them just like I’d disregard a Muslim man trying to tell me about women’s rights.

          • Chris

            Negroes are known for being fools” = bigot.
            Christians are known for being fools = bigot

            “Atheists are known for being fools.” = ?

            “Their entire belief system is
            founded upon a lie”

            Their entire belief system? Atheism is a lack of belief in ONE area – God! That’s it. No belief system involved. As to it being a lie – no, it is merely an opinion which with you disagree. Learn the difference.

            “Of course I disregard them just like I’d disregard a
            Muslim man trying to tell me about women’s rights.”

            Or a Fundie bigot telling me about truth?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thank you for just proving Charles Darwin was a bigot with your first line. You do know that Darwin also said Australians were idiots too, don’t you? Not just aboriginals, but all Aussies.

          • Chris

            Many people in the 19th century were racists. So what? Would you like me to quote the number of Christians in the 10th and 20th centuries who were also racists? Most of them were creationists. 🙂

            In addition Darwin argued against many of the discriminatory practices which we now recognise as racist. Just like your utterances are recognised as bigotry.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If anyone is a racist, he/she cannot be a Christian since racism is against Christian doctrine. Darwin believed you to be inferior. Are you proving him true?

          • Chris

            Ya, ya ya, the only true Christians are you and the no true scotsman. Got it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You know the true Scotsman fallacy doesn’t work if you change the definition, right? 🙂

          • Chris

            Oh and by the way, they are NOT articles, they are videos. I would suggest the fact that you didn’t know that they were videos suggests you didn’t even watch them. Nor pay attention to the fact that they often show Ham giving his lie before they show a scientific paper which proves he lied and he knew it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ve seen them before. They are put out by atheists.

          • Chris

            By the way if you had seen them before you wouldn’t have referred to them as ARTICLES!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh please, an error is just an error.

          • Chris

            You haven’t shown any error. Merely dismissed them as coming from atheists [one of them was from a Christian] and therefore wrong. Bigotry be thy name.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I was dismissive of them because they are worthless. Like I said, they’re founded upon a false principle and thus cannot be true. You’re wrong about the other source being a Christian one. One cannot be a Christian while disregarding God’s Word. By the way, how’s it feel to support one of the biggest bigots of all time, that being Charles Darwin? You know, the guy who said you’re dumb.

      • Tangent002

        Respected as a scientist by whom?

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Other scientists and specialists like Dr. Damadian, the inventor of the MRI.

          • Tangent002

            Damadian has no credentials in cosmology or biology.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Then you’d better never have an MRI since you think so lowly of him. By the way, there are plenty of esteemed scientists who do support Ken Ham.

          • Tangent002

            I never said I thought low of him, I merely said he has no particular expertise in matters of theology or biology. I wouldn’t expect Einstein to be able to repair my swamp cooler either.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And you’d be wrong on both counts. By the way, did you know Darwin had no expertise in matters of theology or biology? He flunked out of both.

          • Ann Kah

            He’s an expert in one field. He comments on other fields of science from the viewpoint of an amateur.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you think medicine doesn’t involve science? Besides, my point is that many scientists – real scientists, not actors who play scientists on TV, like Bill Nye, respect Ken Ham.

    • The General

      zzzzzzz

      • Chris

        What are you trying to do an impression of, someone asleep or an intermittent short?

    • Reason2012

      Making up a belief that “populations of fish can evolve over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish” is not “findings of science” but is anti-science science fiction.

      It’s observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, amphibians remain amphibians, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds. Evolutionists throw this scientific fact out, which shows they’re anti-science. Then they attack belief in God, which has nothing to do with what I just said, and has everything to do with exposing the hate that drives them to cling to the science fiction of fish to mankind evolution.

      • Ann Kah

        Your ability to observe populations of fish is so limited, though. How do you plan to observe a million years worth of change? Because you, personally, haven’t observed change doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The microbiologists have observed it in bacteria – but they reproduce very rapidly compared to land animals, so the changes are observable.

        • Reason2012

          Throwing out science to replace it with anti-science belief is not justified by “well, we are limited in our observations, so believe our science fiction beliefs instead as long as we give reasons to believe in it”. Welcome to their religion.

          Science is about things that happen, not throwing out things that happen to replace it with things some insist we believe to happen contrary to what happens instead.

          The only thing microbiologists have observed in bacteria: that no matter how many generations go by: ALL populations of bacteria remain bacteria. The point are there are barriers that are never crossed, even if we don’t know what all the barriers precisely are, rather than “there are NO barriers because we said so and here are reasons we believe in it”.

  • ShemSilber

    Scripture itself is accurate, having been inspired by the Author of creation, the Master Yahushua, appointed by His Abba / Father to be the CEO of creation (John 1:1-18; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:1-3). But what some people believe about the Bible is indeed “junk science,” or as the Apostle Paul stated it, “science [or ‘knowledge,’ ‘γνῶσις,’ ‘gnosis’] falsely so-called” (1Timothy 6:20). For instance, some attempt to combine creation with evolution, but are hard put to prove evolution from one kind to another, as from ape to man. Others claim the earth and all was created a mere 6,000 or so years ago, whereas there is plenty of room in creation for billions of years. Some claim that this is the only habitable planet of the Creator, and how do we know whether there are or are not other creations? That is presently not our beeswax, anyway. And some even say, in spite of the roundness of the sun and the other planets, that the earth is flat. Yes, indeed, there is a good deal of junk science in people’s belief about the Bible, but not in the Bible itself. You have to read the junk into it if you want junk.

    Yahuwah is, as the Apostle Paul says in 1Corinthians 14:33, an Elohim of order and not confusion. We will ALL know that, if not in this temporary age, in the REAL WORLD for which this age is the testing ground to see if we will choose life in the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus), the only source of everlasting life, says Yahuwah tzevaot (of armies), omein.

  • Tangent002

    ICR is junk science. I’m surprised AIG was not included the list.

  • sandraleesmith46

    Bet she believes in evolution too….

  • 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.

    • Sentient Ape

      “Evolutionism” – is that like gravityism? Or germism? Or atomism?

      • Reason2012

        No, objects drop to the ground: observable, repeatable, verifiable.
        Diseases spread: observable, repeatable, verifiable.
        We use what we know about atoms to create atomic power: observable, repeatable, verifiable.

        No matter how many generations go by: ALL populations of: fish remain fish, amphibians remain amphibians, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, apes remain apes, and so on: observable, repeatable, verifiable.

        • Ann Kah

          “No matter how many generations go by” – citation needed. That’s a conclusion without evidence.

        • Sentient Ape

          So because you choose to be ignorant about evolution, evolution is wrong?

          • Reason2012

            Feel free to prove I’m “ignorant” about what evolutionists claim and back it up. Every time I call evolutionists on it, they either vanish, or end up proving what I said is accurate.

          • Sentient Ape

            “Evolutionists”? Is that like gravityists? Or germists? Or atomists?

            And once you post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific research published in scientific refereed journals that supports your claims, I’ll be glad to point out where you’re wrong.

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you cannot prove I’m “ignorant” of what evolutionists claim. Thank you for posting.

          • Sentient Ape

            Apparently you have reading comprehension issues. Again, post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific research published in scientific refereed journals that supports your claims, and I’ll be glad to point out where you are wrong.

    • Ann Kah

      Get into genetics, and have someone explain the function of DNA to you. This is a new science with experimental evidence still pouring in. Geneticists can explain to you how DNA changes, “mistakes” in the long chain of molecules. Some of them don’t seem to do anything; they’re just repetitive chunks. And we see some of those same mistakes in the very similar DNA that we get from the great apes, the SAME MISTAKES. We gets our DNA from our ancestors, and so do the apes, and the most probable way for us to carry that same mistake is to assume that each strange mistake was made once and passed down – to both the apes and humans, from our common ancestor. I’m sure that our similarity to the great apes has not escaped your notice.

      That is an observable scientific fact.

      • Reason2012

        Just because two living things have DNA similarity, does not mean they are in any way related. They must first show it to be more than science fiction that populations of fish even CAN evolve over generations eventually into animals we clearly no longer consider fish before they push reasons to BELIEVE that fish are in any way related to animals we do not consider fish.

        Even under their belief of “life just happened” – they need prove only ONE life form came into existence on its own and is hence the ancestor of all life, instead of two life forms that formed independently of each other, or three, or four.

        What do they have against the observable, testable, repeatable scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, amphibians remain amphibians, felines remain felines, and so on?

        • Ann Kah

          I just explained it to you. Yes, I imagine there could well be different “ancestor” molecules. But when a DNA transmission MISTAKE is made, then that same mistake is found in a similar species, that’s a good clue. Science is about evidence. Our knowledge cannot be limited to just what one person learns in one generation, and we have many tools at our disposal to see the past.

        • Sentient Ape

          When you get infected with a virus, that virus infects your cells. And the virus will insert itself into your DNA. Even after you build up antibodies to neutralize the virus, it will show up at same spot in the gene it attaches itself to. It stays there until you die. But sometimes that virus invades your germline. Those are the sex cells. These are called Endogenous Retroviruses, or ERVs. And when that happens, if you have a child after being infected, your child will have that snippet of virus at the exact same spot in their gene as you did. And their children will as well. Over and over. For thousands of generations. This one method science uses to track ancestry. Now imagine an animal with one of these ERVs, and it had babies, and those babies had babies. And somehow, one group of this animal became reproductively isolated from the other group. And both groups underwent different ecological pressures. Over time those 2 groups with each individual still having the same ERV at the same loci on the same gene, diverge. Eventually, they can’t even breed with the other group.

          After millions of years they are different species. And a scientist could examine the DNA from each group and see the same ERV at the same loci. The scientist could assume it’s a random coincidence, right? If these species were human-like, they’d have about 30,000 genes. So the odds of 2 different species having an ERV at the same loci would be about 30,000 to 1. A big number, but it could be a coincidence.

          OK, now here’s the kicker. Humans and chimpanzees both have around 30,000 genes. So the odds of humans and chimpanzees having an ERV at the same loci by chance would be 30,000 to 1. But we know that humans and chimpanzees have at least 7 ERVs at the same loci. So the odds of that happening by chance are 30,000 out of 30,000^7. And number 1 out of 729,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

          And that shows that the odds of humans and chimpanzees not having a common ancestor is as close to zero as it gets.

          • Reason2012

            Unfortunately, the topic is science – so them giving anti-science reasons to believe why fish are related to human beings is just that: anti-science beliefs – circular reasoning.

            Let’s get back to science: It’s observable, repeatable, biological fact that no matter how many generations go by: ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, amphibians remain amphibians and so on.

            If some want to deny science on this matter and come up with reasons to believe in an anti-science fish to mankind story, have at it – doesn’t make it science.

          • Sentient Ape

            I gave you science. You lack the cognitive capacity to comprehend it. Undoubtedly this is a reflection of your overwhelming Dunning-Kruger effect.

            I’ve never understood why fundamentalist creationist purposefully to be ignorant about science, and then go on the internet and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you get extra Jesus points for lying?

  • Reason2012

    Even under evolutionists other belief: that only ONE life form came into existence by itself – that life “just happened” – ask them to prove ONLY one life form came into existence, instead of even two, or three or four, and that life forms have more than one ancestors, and hence perhaps there ARE barriers that are never crossed: that it’s not true that every single life form has the very same original ancestor.

    Anti-science assumptions piled upon assumptions is the bane of fish to mankind evolution.

    • Sentient Ape

      You do comprehend that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things, right?

      And no one claims that there was just one “first life”. The earth was very empty back then. There could have been hundreds of thousands of “first life” events over a billion years and in millions of locations.

      • Reason2012

        Which is why I said “Even under evolutionists OTHER belief …”

        If there was more than just one “first life” then why do they say all life as we know it has a common ancestor? Thank you for proving they have no way of knowing this even under there “nothing did it” belief system. And thank you for proving that they cannot assume (and yet DO assume), say, fish and reptiles are related because instead it’s possible they’re descendants of different “first life forms” each instead as you unwittingly admit.

        Fish to mankind evolution is anti-science science fiction.

        • Sentient Ape

          Because all the other “first life’s” died or got absorbed. Same concept as mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam.

          Again why do you disparage what you clearly do not understand?

          • Reason2012

            Since you claim the following are SCIENCE, please cite the observable, repeatable, verifiable fact that

            – life can come from non life
            – that the first life did just that
            – that many life forms first came about, but by some convenient coincidence all of them died except one so you can hold onto the belief that there are no barriers to evolution.

            Why do you have to disparage science to hold onto that anti-science mythology, pretending that’s science instead?

          • Sentient Ape

            You again demonstrate your profound ignorance of science. Your time would be better spent auditing a remedial freshman level biology class at your local CC.

  • NCOriolesFan

    Working for the Washington Post should give common sense people where she gets her ‘fake’ news from.

  • Harry Weaver

    Danger: Warning” To those who try to understand the Bible without the leading of the HOLY SPIRIT. It can be very misleading for some, they seem to come up with almost all the wrong things to say.

    • Sentient Ape

      So, decades ago I was as big a fundy as any of you on here. I could damn folks to hell as good as any of you. So obviously I was being led by the Holy Spirit as I read the Bible.

      Thankfully, I got an edumacation! And the whole belief collapsed like a house of cards. Why wasn’t your Holy Ghost able to prevent me from learning about science and history?

      • Reason2012

        (1) Fish to mankind evolution is not “history” nor science.
        (2) Jesus says most who profess Christ as Lord will still be cast into_hell, which means most professing Christians are not being led by the Holy Spirit.

        • Sentient Ape

          Just because you purposefully choose to be ignorant about science it doesn’t mean science is wrong.

          • Reason2012

            You have yet to show that I’m ignorant of science. Feel free to point out one thing I got wrong about fish to mankind evolution. Just one. I’ll wait.

            Meanwhile ad hominem shows you not only lost the argument, but that you also know it. By behaving in such ways, evolutionists continue to show they’re really following an anti-science cult, not science.

          • Sentient Ape

            There is no such thing as “fish to man” evolution. It is sign you choose to be ignorant about science. And you wear that ignorance as a badge of honor.

            And again, the “evolutionist” crap gets a bit old. Try and grow up.

          • Reason2012

            You seem lacking in knowledge of the fact that they claim:
            populations of fish evolved over generations eventually into amphibians, then
            populations of amphibians evolved over generations eventually into reptiles, then
            populations of reptiles evolved over generations eventually into mammals, then
            populations of mammals evolved over generations eventually into ape like creatures, then
            populations of ape like creatures evolved over generations eventually into human beings.

            You are right, however, there is no such thing -but they most certainly believe in it, and your anger and non stop ad hominem doesn’t change that.

            Take care.

          • Sentient Ape

            The only ones who make claims like that are ignorant fundamentalist christians. Not angry at all. Just tired of the constant lies you folks post. It’s embarrassing and it’s pathetic.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            What is REALLY old is spiritually-dead God-hating trolls coming to a CHRISTIAN site to harass Christians.

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • Sentient Ape

            Perhaps if fundies would stop posting lies about science you’d have a point.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!

            Thank you for the picture perfect comment that fits perfectly with the definition of a Troll.

            I’d ask you to prove that statement but we both know you can’t so why bother.

          • Sentient Ape

            Weird how fundies think that anyone who corrects their lies about science is a troll.

            This is most likely a reflection of their overwhelming Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That would be what Jesus calls a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket.

            And btw, you haven’t remotely shown anywhere in any of your comments anything to backup your claim.

            Empty rhetoric and troll behavior. That’s all you have. Thank you.

            I will confess your moniker makes for a very strong temptation.

          • Sentient Ape

            And yet, I not the one posting lies about science.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ah, but that is ALL you have done.

          • Sentient Ape

            Name one lie. And be sure to include the science showing it’s a lie.

            I dare you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Weird how fundies think that anyone who corrects their lies about science is a troll.

            This is most likely a reflection of their overwhelming Dunning-Kruger effect.”

            THAT is just your last lie.

            “I dare you”

            THAT is called “baiting”. A routine practice of TROLLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Sentient Ape

            Neither of those were lies. You lose, again.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes, it is a LIE. And it is so because you willfully and knowingly chose to say it. NEWSFLASH: No matter how deluded you are, you are NOT omniscient and can’t read minds.

            But hey, thanks for showing you’re still a Troll trolling.

          • Sentient Ape

            Again, neither of those was a lie.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for proving my point. So you’re actually claiming that you are omniscient or can read minds?!

            I think mental professionals can help you with your Denial. Buy hey, thanks for putting that on public display.

          • Sentient Ape

            Again, post the lies I have made.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why? So you can just say, “No they’re not.”? LOL Go away troll and stop acting like your moniker

          • Sentient Ape

            Again, please post the lies.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Again, I already did. You just lied again by denying they are lies.

            Here’s two more for you though.

            ” It is sign you choose to be ignorant about science. And you wear that ignorance as a badge of honor.”

          • Ann Kah

            Get an education first. A few years of chemistry and biochemistry, some physics, geology, biology and zoology, comparative anatomy, genetics, paleontology, etc. Then spend your summers in the dusty basements of museums to see all the thousands of transitional forms, and go on a few fossil digs. Make sure you get a course on scientific methodology and one on ethics.

            THEN you might be capable of debating the topic, but until then, it’s as rewarding as trying to teach a hamster to play the piano.

          • Chris

            “THEN you might be capable of debating the topic, but until then, it’s as
            rewarding as trying to teach a hamster to play the piano.”

            I object. That is a slur on all hamsters. 🙂

      • Harry Weaver

        This is your last post that I will see. I do not wish to converse with those who are so openly sarcastic and blasphemous. But your damnation is not from us. It comes from God. So are you led by the Holy Spirit? NO you are not. And you are blocked so I won’t see any more of your silly posts!!!! HA HA

        • Sentient Ape

          Oh No’s! How will I ever survive!

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      I wish your warning would be heeded but I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath. Here’s something you may wanna just C&P for future use when the spiritually-dead try to reference the Bible:

      When the spiritually dead try to read the Book of Life it’s like a blind man trying to read a road map before hopping in the car to drive. You have to get a heart transplant before you can have eyes to see.

      Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

      “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

      “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2nd Peter 3:16)

    • Chris

      Danger: Warning to those who warn others about anyone else’ ability to understand the bible. All you are proving is your ego worship.

  • Reason2012

    Objects drop to the ground: observable, repeatable, no belief required.
    Diseases spread: observable, repeatable, no belief required.
    Matter affects matter: observable, repeatable, no belief required.
    No matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, flies remain flies, and so on for all animals: observable, repeatable, no belief required.

    But the anti-science mythology that populations of fish could ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish? anti-science belief, nothing more. Behold the anti-science cult that fish to mankind evolution truly is.

  • SolontheWise

    The new full color book with 150+ ancient vase images in it, “Genesis Characters and Events in Ancient Greek Art” validates the Genesis account of our origins. The Greeks depict the same events and people as Genesis (with different names) except from the point of view that the serpent enlightened rather than deluded the first couple in paradise. It’s an astounding revelation. Google “genesis greek art”

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    “When we report on the good science behind stunning ingenuity in DNA repair enzymes, for example, we feel free to credit the Creator,” he stated. “When we report on the good science behind preservation of short-lived tissues still persisting in dinosaur and other fossils, we feel free to include the Bible’s recent Flood as a reasonable explanation. Today’s anti-Creator, anti-Bible attitudes clearly clash with this biblical history.”

    Well now, reporting on legitimate research in DNA repair enzymes is one thing, but then assigning the origin of the mechanism as created by God, is not science. It is part science with a wholy unscientific addition.

    Reporting on the research behind the preservation of short-lived tissue persisting in dinosaur and other fossils is a good thing, but assigning the origin of those fossils to a few thousand years ago in a “flood,” that covered virtually all the world is as far from science as one can possibly be.

    ICR uses real science to distort, mislead and placate millions of readers who have no formal knowledge or training in biological evolution. It’s easy to do when people are not educated in that particular field and all they know is what they were taught from the cradle to believe by parents with the same intellectual deficiency (not pajaritive). It’s a real money maker.

    • Shalom

      Nice photo of a fossil there.

      • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

        And your point is . . .?

    • airstart

      Speaking of money makers, Dawkins books don’t do bad either and they don’t even contain a hint of science in the origins dept. That is unless you think “panspermia” ” multiverse” “appearance of design” and bovine some how transforming themselves to whales or vica verse, has any semblance of empirical research associated with it. ICR may have some speculative aspects, the same as ID, but all of life has some speculative inclinations, or faith based assumptions. The problem with naturalists, is their presuppositions that everything that is or ever will be happened by unguided, mindless chance, with almost no empirical evidence to substantiate their claims. At least Christians have an ancient historical narrative, that’s never been refuted by the science community.
      As for Dawkins and his ilk, exactly what they are doing is what you accuse YEC of doing. Macro-evolution is a philosophical belief system as much or more than Christianity.

      • Chris

        “Speaking of money makers, Dawkins books don’t do bad either and they
        don’t even contain a hint of science in the origins dept. That is unless
        you think “panspermia” ” multiverse” “appearance of design” and bovine
        some how transforming themselves to whales or vica verse, has any
        semblance of empirical research associated with it.”

        Source please.

        “Macro-evolution is a philosophical belief system as much or more than Christianity.”

        Evidence please.

        • airstart

          The source is Dawkins’ or any other evolutionary books, read some of them, their sources are their own philosophy. They may through in a few examples that supports their claims, but none that takes their claims out of the realm of “it could have happened this way” or I believe such and such must have happened to produce this results”.
          Science can’t even be done with out a philosophical under pinning of a belief that natural laws are always consistent, can be measured, and predictions can be made. The philosophy that is used in historical science, can’t be observed, repeated or reproduced in a lab. All research is done in present and can only be extrapolated into what “may” have happened in the past to produce a given effect. Historical / forensic Science can only be interpreted by the observed effect. The universe is here, life is here, if any of these evolutionist/ uniformitarian geologists, theoretical astrophysicists could actually create life or the universe from nothing (ex-nihilo), or make a human out of a bacterium, that would be empirical research. Simply because Dawkins believes (philosophically) that God doesn’t exist, and evolution, doesn’t mean he can empirically prove it. It’s a philosophical belief system, like a religion. It’s silly to make demands for references, they have none.

          • Chris

            “The source is Dawkins’ or any other evolutionary books, read some of
            them, their sources are their own philosophy.”

            Just a couple of points:

            1) The theory of evolution is a theory in biology.

            2) I have studied philosophy at a university level. In what sense is evolution – which holds that genetic diversification leads to different forms of life – a philosophy?

            “They may through in a few
            examples that supports their claims, but none that takes their claims
            out of the realm of “it could have happened this way” or I believe such
            and such must have happened to produce this results”.”

            Incorrect. Science [and biology is a science] deals in probability. After over 150 years of research evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. Several lines of evidence supports it. Rather funny when you think that these several lines of evidence all point in exactly the same direction.

            “Science can’t
            even be done with out a philosophical under pinning of a belief that
            natural laws are always consistent, can be measured, and predictions can
            be made.”

            In that sense you are correct. Science is philosophy + evidence.

            “The philosophy that is used in historical science, can’t be
            observed, repeated or reproduced in a lab. All research is done in
            present and can only be extrapolated into what “may” have happened in
            the past to produce a given effect. Historical / forensic Science can
            only be interpreted by the observed effect.”

            Incorrect. If a crime is committed then the more evidence which points to one conclusion the more certain the investigator can be of the conclusion. Can the conclusion ever be absolutely sure? No, but then science doesn’t work on absolute surety but on probability. Science aims for 95% probability or higher.

            “The universe is here, life
            is here, if any of these evolutionist/ uniformitarian geologists,
            theoretical astrophysicists could actually create life or the universe
            from nothing (ex-nihilo), or make a human out of a bacterium, that
            would be empirical research. ”

            I’m afraid you’ve bought into Ken Ham’s con. Science can work on both a theoretical and practical basis. For example science understood what created lightning for centuries before it could reproduce it. In criminology you don’t need to reproduce a crime, you merely need to examine the evidence. Allow me to illustrate my point. A murder is committed. No one was seen committing the murder [no direct observation] but we have the victims body with several stab wounds on the victim’s back. The bloody
            knife is found next to the victim and its blade shape and length matches
            the stab wounds on the victim. There are fingerprints on the knife, and traces of DNA on the knife, both match a suspect named Fred. Additionally bloody footprints lead from the scene of the crime to Fred’s home. The footprints are of a shoe size matching that of Fred’s shoes and additionally blood covered shoes are found in Fred’s house.
            In addition to all that the knife found at the murder scene matches those found in Fred’s house.

            Does the murder have to be recreated? Of course not. The evidence merely has to be observed and the other possibilities eliminated.

            “Simply because Dawkins believes (philosophically) that God doesn’t exist, …”

            Atheism has NOTHING to do with evolution. Collins and Bakker are both Christians and both are scientists involved in research involving evolution. Now a particular scientist can certainly be an atheist, agnostic, etc, but the theory of evolution requires no such conclusion.

            “…and evolution, doesn’t mean he can empirically prove it.”

            Science doesn’t deal in proof. It deals in probability.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Excellent response.

          • Chris

            Thank you.

          • airstart

            Your scenario (science based on probability) if you pour 10 gal of gasoline in your garage and toss in a match, it will probabaly explode and burn so it would follow that if you have a cow that likes to wade in the pond, it will probably turn into a whale in a few million years.
            So science understood what caused lightening centuries before they reproduced it, then it follows that some day science will recreate the universe, or since we sort of understand the nano-machines and the genetic information that makes up living cells, so we’ll be able to create new people in a lab.
            I guess all this forensic science didn’t work for the LA police dept, OJ was found not guilty.
            Evolution/ Naturalism is designed to eliminate a creator. One of the scientists you mentioned (Collins) became a theist after following the evidence. Francis Crick was an atheist until he saw the evidence in DNA. It’s intellectually dishonest to claim to be a naturalist, evolutionist or humanist –“and” a theist, much less a Christian. Either God created the universe or He didn’t. You have a very naive attitude for a philosophy student. Biology is the study of living organisms, philosophy is how/why are they alive and why do we care?

          • Chris

            “Your scenario (science based on probability) if you pour 10 gal of
            gasoline in your garage and toss in a match, it will probabaly explode
            and burn so it would follow that if you have a cow that likes to wade
            in the pond, it will probably turn into a whale in a few million years. ”

            You do realise that evolution doesn’t assert that any animal transformed into anything don’t you? Just incremntal changes over thousands of generations. Secondly the similarities between animals are many and varied, including genetic. You know – that science stuff which can show who the father of a child is. That’s the one.

            “So science understood what caused lightening centuries before they
            reproduced it,…”

            Correct.

            then it follows that some day science will recreate the
            universe, …”

            Why does that follow? Because science can reproduce A natural process it doesn’t follow that it will ever be able to reproduce ALL natural processes. Your assertion does not follow.

            “…or since we sort of understand the nano-machines and the genetic information that makes up living cells, so we’ll be able to create new people in a lab.”

            Well they can already do that to some extent. Heard of cloning?

            “I guess all this forensic science didn’t work for the LA police dept, OJ was found not guilty.”

            Irrelevant. If good lawyer can convince a jury to ignore evidence then they convince them. That has NOTHING to do with the validity of the evidence.

            “Evolution/Naturalism is designed to eliminate a creator.”

            Then why are their Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, who accept both evolution and the existence of God?

            “One of the scientists you mentioned (Collins) became a theist after following the evidence.”

            Irrelevant. He accepts evolution. Whether he accepted theism before or after is irrelevant.

            “It’s intellectually dishonest to claim to be a naturalist, evolutionist or
            humanist –“and” a theist, much less a Christian.”

            Incorrect. I would argue that it’s intellectually dishonest to believe in creationism and claim to be a Christian. After all the ONLY reason creationism exists is because its proponents can’t accept the idea that they could be mistaken. In other words they are ego worshippers.

            “Either God created the universe or He didn’t.”

            The formation of the universe has NOTHING to do with evolution. That’s the big bang theory. Most Christians who accept both would argue that God created and the big bang is HOW God created. In fact when it was first proposed the astronomers who heard it thought it was an attempt to smuggle God into the formation of the universe since it seemed to strongly suggest such a God’s creative act.

            “You have a very naive attitude for a philosophy student.”

            Really why? Because I question everything? it’s called skepticism. Look it up. Because I accept evidence? It’s called epistemology. Look it up.

            “Biology is the study of living organisms, philosophy is how/why are they alive and why do we care?”

            Not even close. Philosophy has NOTHING to do with how things are alive. That is part and parcel of science. Evolution doesn’t deal with why things are alive either. It deals with the diversification of life after it began.

            As far as why we should care about life that is a topic in ETHICS. The ultimate reason for someone being alive is a topic in religious philosophy. Notice I mentioned ULTIMATE reason. The direct reason is a subject for science.

          • airstart

            Evolutionist / atheistic naturalists apply the theory of evolution to everything, including cosmology.
            Reproducing natural processes; yes but reproducing supernatural processes not going to happen in this world. Did you ever wonder why natural processes exist, or how the came to be? This is the philosophy of science.
            There are misguided Christians who do, in fact, believe in theistic evolution and billions of years, but they have compromised their faith and the clear, unambiguous narratives of the Bible. There is disagreement among numerous evolutionists also. The big bang theory may have some Biblical validity, except in the sequence of events. It’s a naturalistic theory, not a historical narrative. If big bang, as naturalists describe it, was an event in the finite past, it does open the door to a “divine foot” as a famous atheist wrote.
            Ken Ham can even annoy me with his radical dogmatism, but until so called science can come up with a more rational explanation for the existence of the universe, I side with Ken Ham, at least he’s got a scientific education. That’s more than you can say for Nye, he’s just another atheist who wouldn’t believe in God if Jesus Christ attended one his propaganda sessions.
            You mention ethics, I would ask you, as an atheist, what’s the source of your ethics? If there’s no law giver outside of human reasoning, ethics, morals are simply someone’s opinion. You get to make up your own. It sounds like the golden rule (He who has the most gold, makes the rules.)
            Atheism /naturalism is still a bankrupt philosophy. When taken to it’s logical conclusion, there’s no meaning or purpose for the universe in general and no meaning or purpose for life in particular. The whole thing is simply a random, haphazard, meaningless mess, that’s going to die entropic heat death sometime in the future. It’s your philosophy, your choice however pathetic and simplistic it may seem to me.

          • Chris

            “Evolutionist / atheistic naturalists apply the theory of evolution to everything, including cosmology.”

            I’ve already answered this. When a cosmologist uses the term ‘evolution’ the cosmologist means change over time. Biology online defines evolution as “Evolution pertains to the sequence of events depicting the gradual
            progression of changes in the genetic composition of a biological
            population over successive generations. Accordingly, all life on earth
            originates from a common ancestor, which is referred to as the last
            universal common ancestor, some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.”

            Explain why that would be of interest to a cosmologist. It isn’t is it?

          • airstart

            Most scientists that buy the evolutionary hypothesis see no intellectual contradiction in making a seamless transition from star dust residue from a self creating cosmos to human beings.
            May be a few that will espouse some kind of extraterrestrial creation theories, but without a cogent explanation of the origin of the extraterrestrials.
            It’s not disputed that the cosmos is fine tuned for life on earth, but the evolution community offers no explanation of who, what, or how the fine tuning is accomplished.
            The age of the earth or the cosmos can’t be determined by observational science or lab experiments. It’s origins, like any other historical event, can’t be empirically verified. With no written records,it is merely interpreted in the present.
            No known historical records have ever been uncovered older than 10,000 years, and even the age of these historical accounts are questionable.
            You’ve failed to address my inquiry about ethics, morality, philosophy of human life and recent finds of un- fossilized T Rex tissue.

          • Chris

            Oh dear oh dear.

            “Most scientists that buy the evolutionary hypothesis see no intellectual
            contradiction in making a seamless transition from star dust residue
            from a self creating cosmos to human beings.”

            First no one would claim the universe created itself. That would be logically contradictory. Unsurprisingly that’s just another misrepresentation of science from creationist leaders. Secondly don’t listen to any scientist speaking outside their discipline. In other words what a cosmologist thinks of evolution or a biologist thinks of the big bang is irrelevant. They’re not trained in those disciplines. Now if they start speaking about their own discipline we better listen.

            “May be a few that will
            espouse some kind of extraterrestrial creation theories, but without a
            cogent explanation of the origin of the extraterrestrials.”

            What you seem to be referring too is known as panspermia. The idea that life was carried here from meteors or comets. At the moment as I understand it [and remember I’m just a layman] there is insufficient evidence to say with any certainty how life began on Earth. This has NOTHING to do with evolution though.

            Allow me to explain. Let’s say there was proof beyond doubt that God created the first forms of life. Scientists would still hold that life evolved from there. Evolution doesn’t need any particular theory on the origin of life. It can stand by itself.

            “It’s not
            disputed that the cosmos is fine tuned for life on earth, …”

            incorrect. I’ve heard one cosmologist contend that if the cosmos is fine tuned then it’s fine tuned for the existence of black holes since there seems to be fare more of them than inhabited planets.

            “…but the
            evolution community offers no explanation of who, what, or how the fine
            tuning is accomplished.”

            If there is a who then that’s the job of philosophy. If there is a how then that’s the job of physics. If there is a what then that’s the job of cosmology. None of those questions are answered by biology.

            “The age of the earth or the cosmos can’t be
            determined by observational science or lab experiments.”

            Actually it can. There are a number of methods that science uses to determine the age of the Earth. ALL of them point to an old Earth.

            “It’s origins,
            like any other historical event, can’t be empirically verified.”

            If you mean absolutely verified then you are correct. Science deals in probability remember? Science has shown the age of the Earth with a fair degree of probability.

            “With no
            written records,it is merely interpreted in the present.”

            A theory isn’t an interpretation, it’s an explanation. The idea that theories are merely interpretations of facts is pushed by creationist groups like AiG because they want their wacky ideas to be seen as on a par with science.

            “No known
            historical records have ever been uncovered older than 10,000 years, and
            even the age of these historical accounts are questionable.”

            Why would historical accounts matter? People can tell whoppers but the evidence doesn’t lie. Science uses evidence not personal accounts. It also uses inference. For example if ‘A’ is correct then we should find ‘B’ or ‘C’. We find B & C therefore A is correct.

            In science the evidence is examined and then someone suggests an explanation. If their explanation is correct then certain types of evidence should be found. Other scientists will go out of their way to disprove the suggested hypothesis. If they find the evidence the hypothesis suggests must exist then it isn’t proven. It just becomes the accepted theory. other evidence must fit with this explanation. Additionally the explaination must work. If it fails in any of these aspects then it is abandoned. One scientist – I forget who – described science as ‘a series of beautiful ideas murdered by a set of cold, hard brutal facts.’

            “You’ve
            failed to address my inquiry about ethics, morality, philosophy of
            human life”

            I apologise. I wasn’t aware you had raised any. May I ask you to please repeat your inquiry? This is my meat.

            “… and recent finds of un- fossilized T Rex tissue.”
            Oh that’s an easy one. I’ll do the research and get back to you.

          • Chris

            In your last post you referred to “recent finds of unfossilized T Rex tissue.”

            This is a great example of creationist claims. It helps illustrate exactly what I’m talking about.

            in 2008 a youtube channel called ‘the truth group’ claimed:
            1) Almost intact T-Rex found in 1990
            2) Contained what seemed to be blood cells and haemoglobin
            3) 2002 soft tissue found inside a T-Rex bone.
            4) What appeared to be intact red blood cells were found.
            5) Other types of cells like osteocytes were found.

            Now let’s see how much of this is actually true.
            All of these claims are based on a thorough misunderstanding of a paper by Mary Schweitzer entitled “”Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone” — Schweitzer, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 1997″. Mary Schweitzer is not a creationist and is a reputable paleontologist. She was merely reporting her findings.

            She doesn’t claim there was any soft tissue inside the T-Rex. She described her find as ‘transparent soft tissue vessels’ which ‘floated freely in a demineralized solution’. In other words NOT MEAT!
            So number 3 is wrong

            She makes no mention of finding red blood cells in the dinosaur. All she describes are round red micro-structures. She also makes no mention of haemoglobin just heamoglobin breakdown products. So number 2 and 4 are wrong as well.

            She never claimed to have found osteocytes either. She says she found microstructes almost identical to modern osteocytes found in modern ostriches. It’s possible that they were once osteocytes like fossils were once bones. Now they’re not. So number 5 is wrong

            So they got one claim right. The T-Rex fossil was found in 1990. Yet despite this lousy showing the truth group’s announcement has been repeated and repeated by creationists. Even after they have been shown how wrong they are. So are the creationists who repeat the truth group’s claim liars or merely utterly incompetent? I’ll leave the conclusion up to you.

          • airstart

            I guess the big question is how did they (the unfossilized tissue) 65 million years?
            The evolution community are not above out right lies, check out “pildown” Hackel’s embryos, and Nebraska man. It’s in their genes.

          • Chris

            “I guess the big question is how did they (the unfossilized tissue) 65 million years?”

            You mean the residue of biological products which broke down over that time? The answer is contained in the paper I mentioned. ALL the residue products were found in bones which had been buried rapidly and were unbroken. Essentially they were sealed in a hermetic chamber for millions of years.

            “The
            evolution community are not above out right lies, check out “pildown”
            Hackel’s embryos, and Nebraska man. It’s in their genes.”

            Bwahahaha. Piltdown was a fake. It’s not accepted anymore. Know why? Those same scientists you claim can’t be trusted became suspicious of it and retested it.

            Haekel’s drawings weren’t fakes. The vast majority were accurate and have now been replaced with photos. He didn’t have any evidence to support two and was, as a result disgraced.

            Nebraska man was the result of a paleontologist who found a pig’s molar and thought it was from a human. NO OTHER SCIENTIST agreed. He did, as any reputable scientist would, and did further research. The result was he admitted he had been wrong.

            So of those three one was a fraud the other two were mistakes from the early years of the 20th century, over ninety years ago. Would you like to discuss the HUNDREDS of creationist lies? That’s right HUNDREDS!

          • airstart

            You illustrate my point beautifully, all the examples were fake, lies, and were in text books for generations, so the evolutionists, even today are not above lying to students, when you look at all this effort by evolutionists through the years to promote their atheist agenda, there’s no reason not to question/ challenge them today.
            Creationists base their findings on the Bible. In fact they start with the Bible and try to discover it’s truth in the natural world, using the same methods the atheists use. The method hasn’t failed yet. To imply that creationists lie, is indirect confrontation with the Creator, and basically calling Him a liar by implication. Go there if you dare, but I won’t.

          • Chris

            So if scientists lie so much why did they discover that Pildown man was a fraud? Why did they doubt Nebraska man? Why did they cast doubt on Haekel’s drawings?

            “Creationists base their findings on the Bible.”

            Is that why they’ve been caught out in HUNDREDS of lies? Tell me, when have they admitted any of their lies? Even one? I’ve heard one creationist with a valid degree who listened to a lay creationist talk about how the sun goes round the Earth. Did he stop the guy? Nope! Just let him keep spouting off something that was obviously wrong.

            The fact that you trust proven con men says something about your character. Perhaps you’d better take a hard look at yourself.

          • airstart

            I’m not interested in most of what evolutionists call science . What specific lie are you accusing creationists of?

          • Chris

            “Did you ever wonder why natural processes
            exist, or how the came to be? This is the philosophy of science.”

            No it isn’t. Philosophy of science deals in what makes a hypothesis scientific. What you are talking about is known as methodological naturalism.

            It is defined as “Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.”

            “It’s your philosophy, your choice however pathetic and simplistic it may seem to me.”

            Now I have been respectful until now. Obviously that was a mistake on my part.

          • airstart

            No disrespect meant, I was merely expressing my opinion of the naturalistic worldview, in general.
            I think we have an evolution of the gaps also. The theory is full of gaps and inconsistencies. If there’s not a naturalistic explanation for something, I guess it just can’t happen.

          • Chris

            “No disrespect meant, I was merely expressing my opinion of the naturalistic worldview, in general.”

            You’ll have to define your terms. There is methodological naturalism which is what science uses. Why? Because it ends an investigation before it starts. Allow me to provide an example. Why is the sky blue? God did it. Why is the grass green? God did it. Not only does such a reply end the investigation but it gets scientists no closer to finding out the immediate cause.

            Philosophical naturalism – which i think you are confusing it with – asserts that all that exists is nature.

            “I
            think we have an evolution of the gaps also.”

            If, by this you are suggesting that evolution has gaps…of course. That’s why it is being modified e.g PuncEq

            “The theory is full of gaps
            and inconsistencies.”

            No it isn’t. That’s another lie from the con artists at AiG. Try getting you answer from scientists. Try Robert Bakker. He has a facebook page, is a Pentecostal minister, and a paleontologist. He has no problem with evolution. Ask him your questions.

            If there’s not a naturalistic explanation for
            something, I guess it just can’t happen.

          • Chris

            “Your scenario (science based on probability) if you pour 10 gal of gasoline in your garage and toss in a match, it will probably explode and burn so it would follow that if you have a cow that likes to wade in the pond, it will probably turn into a whale in a few million years.”

            Firstly it’s not my scenario. Science works on probability. You don’t have to accept what I’m writing. You can google such articles as:

            1) Science, Probability, and the Proposition

            2) The Place of Probability in Science

            3) Probability Science – in medicine and in physics

            Secondly the two examples you gave have NOTHING to do with each other except probability. If that’s what you were trying to argue then you are correct [both physics and biology use probability] but your use of the term ‘so it would follow’ implies because one thing happens then the other thing must as well. Such an argument is a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur.

            It seems I had not made myself clear in my last post so I will attempt to rephrase. You had argued that something has to be recreated for us to know it. I countered by arguing that all we have to do is study the evidence and gave as an example a murder. In my example there was a mass of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. Evolution likewise has a mass of evidence – from geology, paleontology, genetics, etc, all pointing to the same conclusion. The type of argumenbt I was using is known as an analogical argument.

            Thirdly you do realise that evolution doesn’t assert that any animal transformed into anything don’t you? It merely asserts incremental changes over thousands of generations. I suggest you watch a video on youtube entitled ‘evolution made easy’. It will explain the process far more comprehensively than I ever could.

          • airstart

            The absurdity I used is to demonstrate that what’s being taught to gullible students (Evolution theory) is fairly representative of the cow to whale story. I understand and possibly, you do also, what the term evolution really means, but that’s not what’s being promoted in the public education venue. That’s why I distinguish macro-evolution from micro-evolution, you could call micro, speciation or adaptation, but it doesn’t produce completely different, more complex creatures. It can’t happen, even if there has been 4.3 billion years of earth’s existence.
            The mass of evidence is against macro-evolution, regardless what evolutionists spout. The probability for microbes to man evolution are about 1 X 10 to the 188th power, well past the realm of probability. These numbers are based on valid, peer reviewed research, they are not restricted to young earth creationists.
            Interbreeding can expand species and some hybrids remain fertile, but they don’t cross species lines, without genetic tampering, and even then it’s usually fatal. Interbreeding between lions and tigers can produce ligers or tions, but they’re still cats.
            The type of argument I used is deductive. There are no valid transitional forms in paleontology, there are incremental changes within a species, but they (incremental changes) have never been demonstrated to increase genetic information, produce a more complex organism, or a different kind of animal. Natural selection only sorts genetic information that is pre-existent, it does not create new information. Antibiotic resistance and cycle cell anemia are examples of natural selection. Although both can be beneficial in adverse environments, neither is beneficial to the overall survivablity. The pathogen in a antibiotic free environment can’t compete with normal pathogens while the individual suffering from cycle cell only has an advantage in a mosquito infested environment.+ in a malaria free environment.
            You state that evolution doesn’t assert that any animal transforms into anything,(assuming you mean transform into a different animal), you are incorrect. That’s exactly what the evolution in biology texts asserts, that’s what atheistic naturalists like Dawkins assert, that’s what they want every Christian to buy into. It’s like the aggressive LGBT community asserts. You believe what we do, you endorse our worldview, or we will hurt you. Creationists and ID scientists experience this constantly. If the atheist/naturalists can’t drown them out they will exile them from academia.

          • Chris

            “The absurdity I used is to demonstrate that what’s being taught to
            gullible students (Evolution theory) is fairly representative of the cow
            to whale story.”

            Except that no biologist is suggesting any such thing. So your argument is what is known as a strawman. It can also fairly be taken as an example of the misrepresentations which the creationist leaders will spout.

            “I understand and possibly, you do also, what the term evolution really means, but that’s not what’s being promoted in the public education venue.”

            Well actually evolution isn’t being taught in the public school system in the US for a reason which may surprise you – opposition by creationists. The moment a teacher begins to teach evolution the creationist parents kick up all kinds of hell and the children have been taught to disrupt the class or ask inane questions like ‘were you there?”

            “That’s why I distinguish macro-evolution from micro-evolution, …”

            Macro evolution is merely the same process as micro evolution progressing to the point where it results in so many changes that the organism can no longer be considered the same species. To claim micro evolution is real but not macro is like saying “I accept that if you save enough penning you can reach ten cents but you can never reach a dollar doing the same thing.”

            “The mass of evidence is against macro-evolution, …”

            That’s a lie taught to you by creationist leaders. You’ve bought their con. In fact there are a number of examples of evolution changing one species into another.

            ” The probability for microbes to man evolution are about 1 X 10 to the 188th power, well past the realm of probability.”

            Another creationist lie. STOP BUYING THEIR CON! If this wasn’t a lie then every creationist would be coming to the same result. THEY DO NOT! Every one says ‘evolution is improbable” then they don’t produce their work as to HOW they got their figures and then produce differing results.

            “These numbers are based on valid, peer reviewed research, they are not
            restricted to young earth creationists. ”

            No it isn’t. Quote the peer-reviewed article.

            “Interbreeding can expand species and some hybrids remain fertile, but they don’t cross species lines, without genetic tampering, and even then it’s usually fatal.”

            Except it’s already been observed. The videos I listed provided examples of that.

            “Interbreeding between lions and tigers can produce ligers or tions, but
            they’re still cats.”

            You’ve just jumped from species to kingdom. You’ve moved the goalposts.

            “The type of argument I used is deductive.”

            No it wasn’t. A deductive argument provides two premises and a conclusion. If the premises are true and valid then the conclusion must be true and valid. The conclusion did NOT follow from the premise nor was one of the premises valid. Therefore your conclusion is unsupported. Go to a site called ‘Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy’ and look up deductive argument.

            “There are no valid transitional forms in paleontology, …”

            Another creationist lie. Boy you really have bought their con haven’t you? Just go to google and type in ‘transitional fossils’ you’ll find hundreds of examples.

            “…there are incremental changes within a species, …”
            Correct. Until such changes accumulate to the point where the organism can no longer be considered the same species. If you’d gone to the video I cited you’d know this.

            “…but they (incremental changes) have never been demonstrated to increase genetic information, produce a more complex organism, or a different kind of animal.”

            Already been answered in the video I cited. You never watched it did you?

          • airstart

            I live out in the sticks, but not in the frontier, I’ve got limited data so I don’t watch videos. Besides I’ve seen em all, they’re all , like the news, slanted to the producer’s pet ideology.
            You’ve validated my point, one must add pennies to accumulate a dollar, so evolution must add information to change an amoeba into a fish. None of the observed data demonstrates that this has ever happened.
            Thanks for the refresher on tax’ology, it’s been a few years, my premise stands, just change the nomenclature to family. The whole system is conjured up by predominantly evolutionary theorists and it’s not even agreed on by all of them. The disagreements are not isolated to creationists, they are even more severe in the evolution community.
            Every “so called” transitional fossil has been refuted, usually by other evolutionists. You didn’t give an example (of a transitional form) for me to research. I usually keep up with these presumed transitional forms. The last one I know of is archaeopteryx, soundly refuted, it’s a prehistoric bird, complete with flow thru bird respiratory system and feathers. Even the star evolutionist Steven Gould dreamed up a theory called “punctuated equilibrium” because there are no transitional fossils. The sudden appearance of all created kinds is an effective refutation of macro-evolution.
            A deductive argument; Premise (1) Macro-Evolution is false…. Premise (2) There are no fossil evidences to support Macro-Evolution…. Premise (3)Macro-Evolution has never been observed. Conclusion, it doesn’t happen and never has.

          • Chris

            First you claim that you can’t watch videos then you claim you’ve seen them all. Contradiction?

            Then you refer to ‘taxology’. What? The term is taxonomy.

            You then write “just change the nomenclature to family.”

            You then write “You didn’t give an example (of a transitional form) for me to research. ” The videos I suggested gave over one hundred. However if you prefer to read about them try:
            1) ’12 Elegant Examples of Evolution’ at Wired dot com
            2) Some More Observed Speciation Events from Talk Origins
            3) Speciation in Real Time Article – Understanding Evolution from a Berkley site

            You then write “The whole system is conjured up by predominantly evolutionary theorists
            and it’s not even agreed on by all of them. The disagreements are not
            isolated to creationists, they are even more severe in the evolution
            community.”

            First all science starts as conjecture [known as a hypothesis], then it is checked against the evidence. Then it is run through peer review. If no evidence is found against it then it is accepted as a theory. Evolution has been checked and rechecked over 150 years. Some changes have been made to the theory but, by and large, the central tenets have remained strong.

            You then pointed out that scientists disagree. Really? Scientists disagree. That’s it?
            As to disagreements among scientists it comes down to the mechanism which drives evolution. No scientist [unless they’re a creationist] doubts evolution happens because it can be observed. The question then becomes why is it happening? That’s where the disagreements come in. Stay away from creationist sites and go to science sites like:
            Live science
            1) understanding evolution [a Berkley site]
            2) evolutionary biology [a university of Nevada site]

            or if you prefer lay sites try:
            1) Talk Origins
            2) Live Science
            3) Scientific American

          • airstart

            I have a worldview, as do evolutionists and atheists, and I reject macro-evolution out right, so I’m not going to waste much time reading their propaganda. I doubt that they, or you spend much time reading the Bible, or studying theology. Like I previously stated, we make our own choices and we pay our own consequences if our choices are incorrect.
            If my worldview is wrong, I’ve lost nothing, if yours is wrong you’ve lost everything. If you don’t want God in this life, you won’t want Him in the next. If you don’t believe in the next life, why do you bother with this one? Atheism is a bankrupt philosophy. It’s purposeless, meaningless, hopeless existence with no future beyond worm food. God even created the worms.

          • Chris

            “I have a worldview,…”

            Correct.

            “as do evolutionists and atheists, …”

            Incorrect. Scientists, as a group, do NOT share ANY world view. They come from virtually every country in the world. Politically they range across the entire spectrum. Religiously some are atheists, some are Christians, some are Buddhists, some are Muslims, and so on. Their cultures are also totally dissimilar. Why would any group like this develop EXACTLY the same world view?

            “…and I reject
            macro-evolution out right, so I’m not going to waste much time reading
            their propaganda.”

            So don’t confuse you with the facts your mind is made up. You’ve bought a con and you don’t care. Great. I won’t waste any more of your time discussing science – a subject you don’t care about. Let’s discuss the weather instead. Nice where you are?

          • airstart

            Few evolutionists are Christians of any flavor, however there are some compromised liberal Christians from the mainstream protestants and liberal Catholics. I identify with the Evangelical community, we have a few compromised members also. Like all other worldviews we’re not in lock step.
            What you refer to as facts, do not specifically support or refute macro-evolution. You and all the rest of the community are entitled to your own interpretation / opinions, but not your own facts. You see, what I reference is called objective truth, not interpretations or opinions.
            If you reject the concept of objective truth, your interpretations are fairly worthless. To use an example of objective truth, I state objectively, the planet earth is a spherical mass suspended in space. You may disagree, but you can’t refute it, since we have empirical evidence that proves it.
            I cannot empirically prove that God exists, or that He created the cosmos. In the same sense, you can’t disprove it. I accept the historical context of the Biblical authors who could prove it by face to face encounters, the same as any other historical accounts about civilizations that once existed, or events that have been recorded by other ancient authors.
            So if you reject the historicity of the Bible, and the existence of the God it describes, why would you accept the historicity of ancient Babylon, Egypt, or Ur and the gods they described?
            In the context of history, it was all written by a bunch of humans who didn’t have access to electron microscopes, digital imagery, geostationary satellites, or mass accelerators. But the gods of the pagans are gone and forgotten, while the God of the Bible has never been shown to be in error either in predictive, prophetic claims or the Biblical record of the historical events .

          • Chris

            I’m sorry but you’re pronouncements have become increasingly ignorant and ill informed.

            The VAST majority of Christians accept evolution. According to wikipedia 58% of Catholic, 54% of Orthodox, and 51% of mainline protestant Christians accept evolution. Among non-Christians it’s even higher. 81% of Buddhists, 80% of Hindus, and 77% of Jews accept evolution. It’s really only Muslims, and Fundies who are against it.

            If you’re going to make up your own facts please leave.

          • airstart

            Your numbers sound fairly realistic, since about 50-60% of Catholics are Biblically illiterate, and about 50% of main line protestants don’t believe the Bible, and the majority of the Jews are still waiting on their Messiah, while Buddhists are essentially atheists and Hindus are pagans.
            I’ve already stated that I’m an Evangelical, not a fundamentalist, a Protestant, or Catholic. You left these groups out (Fundamentalist , and Charismatics). The Fundamentalists are too busy adhering to legalistic rule keeping & don’t seriously embrace the defense of the Faith, while the Charismatics occupy their worship activities speaking in “unknown tongues”, jumping over pews, and convulsing in their “spirits”.
            Unfortunately there are even a few Evangelicals that buy the theistic evolution story, and the 16,8 billion year old universe,but don’t we all have our misguided children?
            It’s strange you don’t mention your misguided children, like Crick and Collins, and Behe. They may be deists, but they blatantly reject Darwinism/ Neo-Darwinism.

          • Chris

            “If my worldview is wrong, I’ve lost nothing, if yours is wrong you’ve lost everything.”

            Ah, the old Pascal’s wager. Trouble is if both of us are wrong – God exists but God isn’t what either of us expect – then we have both lost everything.

            “If you don’t want God in this life, you won’t want Him in the next.”

            I’m sorry…what? First I’m a Zoroastrian and believe in the existence of God. Secondly atheists lack a beliefe in God. It has NOTHING to do with wanting or not wanting God.

            “If you don’t believe in the next life, why do you bother with this one?”

            I don’t know if an afterlife exists. If it doesn’t I want to get the most I can from this one.

            “Atheism is a bankrupt philosophy.”

            You are welcome to your opinion as the atheists are welcome to theirs. But if creationism is your religion of choice I find it totally unappealing. It has resulted in you buying a con game and turning away from reality. That’s a tragedy.

            To me the world around us fills me with wonder. When I look up at the night sky i am filled with awe.

            “It’s purposeless, meaningless,…”

            It certainly does appear to be like that. Yes.

            “…hopeless existence with no future beyond worm food. God even created the worms.”

            To me hope is a lie we tell ourselves to make us feel better. Reality is to be faced head op and accepted. Once we accept reality then we have three choices – change it, accept it, or leave. That’s the only way to serenity and is the way of stoicism.

          • airstart

            In the interest of clarification, not wanting (God) namely the God of the Bible, I don’t want any of your gods, either.
            Pascal’s wager, pretty good, I’m impressed, what about “Occam’s Razor”why turn a simple explanation for the existence of the universe into a complex web of unproven hypothesis.
            Creationism is not a religion, it’s one aspect of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and multiple others.
            Your religion seems to be steeped in fatalism. Have you never heard of the “serenity prayer”? God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. I had a friend who believed hope was a lie, she committed suicide. The Bible is the best example of the reality of God, hope, and guarantee of an after life far superior to anything you’ve experienced in this one. To me, God is the ultimate reality, the definer of reality, and the Creator of reality.

          • Chris

            So many mistakes I don’t know where to begin.

            Pascal’s wager isn’t an explanation for anything it’s a philosophical argument for the existence of God.

            Creationism IS it’s own religion. It even has it’s own conception of God – usually a holy book – with the creationist leader as the only one who can correctly, and infallibly interpret it.

            Stopicism isn’t a religion. It’s a philosophy and an ancient one at that. First formulated by Zeno and popularized by Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.

            I have heard of the serenity prayer. It’s used in most 12 step programs and is based, in part, on STOICISM.

            Stoicism isn’t fatalistic since fatalism holds that if something is going to happen to you it will no matter what you do. Stoicism holds that the way to serenity is to see reality for what it is and then either change it, accept it, or leave. That’s the opposite of fatalism isn’t it?

            “I had a friend who believed hope was a lie, she committed suicide”

            Your point being..? To a stoic there’s nothing wrong with suicide. Suicide is one version of the third option.

            The rest is merely your opinion. You’re welcome to it.

          • airstart

            The dictionary definition of religion pretty well covers humanism, naturalism, Darwinism, also.
            God can do anything that is logically possible, this excludes evolution as far as I’m concerned. The logical impossibility would be more relevant to creating a square circle, but the creation narratives state God created all the different kinds of animals, not single cell organisms then evolved them into multi cell complex animals.
            Stoicism; My point being that to exit / leave a reality, one chooses not to deal with,implies suicide.
            The same could be said about Christianity. It’s truth, yours or anyone else’s disbelief doesn’t effect it’s truths. My opinions do not matter, but the truth does, esp when it comes to eternal consequences.

          • Chris

            “The dictionary definition of religion pretty well covers humanism, naturalism, Darwinism, also.”

            ok. Lets see if it covers Evolution.

            Religion is “”a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
            universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman
            agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances,
            and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
            affairs.”

            Does evolution deal with the cause of the universe? No!
            Does evolution deal with the nature of the universe? No!
            Does evolution deal with the purpose of the universe? No!

            Why? Because it is a theory in BIOLOGY!

            What supernatural agency does it posit? What devotion does it employ? What rituals does it use?

            You’ve gone beyond making up facts into outright lies. And we are done. Goodbye.

          • Chris

            Watch the videos and then we can continue the conversation.

      • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

        . . . Dawkins books don’t do bad either and they don’t even contain a hint of science in the origins dept. That is unless you think “panspermia” ” multiverse” “appearance of design” and bovine some how transforming themselves to whales or vica verse, has any semblance of empirical research associated with it.

        Quite clearly you’re one of those I mentioned who’ve had no objective study in evolution since your statements reflect absolutely no understanding of evolution.

        In the first place, mulitverse hypotheses are theoretical. Theoretical physics has made interesting advances in that field. And this part of science should not be dismissed. Our present knowledge of the universe was once theoretical. Math has a way of proving or falsifying hypotheses.

        Nuclear energy was once theoretical physics. Medical science has greatly advanced the human condition with medicines and cures through good research. What advancements in medicine has the Bible bestowed upon us besides demon possession and how to cast them out?

        Critical to the scientific method is predictability and independent verification.

        When ICR speculates on when a fossil came was formed, it stops there. The dating of a fossil, of course, most often can be verified via independent analysis. But ICR does not do that, preferring instead to stay with the speculation or introduce a just enough sophistry–inspired by ancient, prescience text–to give the reader doubt about real physics and then denounces the real physics that proves it wrong. But ICR followers never check the objective research.

        Where ICR’s speculation/assertion cannot be independently verified, the dating by real scientists can and is independently verified or falsified. Many hypotheses have been falsified via the scientific method. How many of ICRs hypotheses/conclusions have?

        The problem with naturalists, is their presuppositions that everything that is or ever will be happened by unguided, mindless chance.

        This proves that you are again speaking from complete ignorance. You’ve never read Dawkins’ books but presume to make an authoritative comment about them. The fact is that he has repeatedly stated that evolution does not proceed by chance. It’s now up to you to know why he says that.

        • airstart

          I have researched evolution, I’ve read their research papers, their multiple books. That which you call objective research is not even possible. Macro-evolution has never been observed. Geneticists (both evolutionary and creationists) all agree that mutations and genetic adaptive responses do not turn amphibians into mammals. That most mutations are deleterious, and change nothing, but do cause an information loss, not a gain, and the few that actually effect the homology / anatomy are generally harmful. More complexity requires more information not less. Evolution should be a hypothesis just like multiverse. It’s never been observed,(your idea of evolution as small cumulative changes over billions of years ultimately results in a new more advanced organism) sorry it don’t happen in the real world. It appears it has never happened in the past either.
          Dating is a phony game based on uniformitarian assumptions. Absolutely nothing exact about it. Even C14 has problems, and it is based on observed scientific data of sometimes known origin. Radiometric decay is a fact, but that’s where the facts end and the speculation begins. All of it is based on assumptions about the sample, assumptions about isotope make up at origin, and uniformity of the isotope content over presumed billions of years .
          All of this is based on the geological assumptions of uniformitarian/ evolutionary paradigms and billions of years. It’s all (including creation science) historical / forensic , not repeatable, not empirically or verifiable, but evolution is presented as facts based on research that can’t be accomplished in the present.
          I own two of Dawkins’ books, I haven’t read them lately, but his idea of appearance of design omits a designer unless one considers evolution it’s self to be a designer. That being said, if macro-evolution were observable,(which it’s not) it still is presented as a mindless, directionless, haphazard chance. His books and all the rest are filled with “just so stories” that rank right up there with the big bang theory, and the quantum fluctuation theory.
          To believe that the universe looks designed, one must at least acknowledge the need for a principal of design or a designer that doesn’t include randomness . Randomness does not create organization, it does result in mass disorganization, however. Intelligence, and information are required to organize anything.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Macro-evolution has never been observed.
            You present yourself as knowledgeable, but continue to make absurd arguments. You made a completely untrue statement about one of Dawkins’ main points. But you imply that you’ve read his books. Was that a lie or have you NOT read his books? In fact, he’s stated his position on evolution by accident many times in interviews and debates. Apparently, you’ve not heard any of this or simply listened selectively. Apparently all you’ve done is read the arguments of young earthers.

            But again, you insist that speciation does not occur because we haven’t seen it (actually we have in a laboratory setting, but because the specimens were small, I suppose you would call it “micro” evolution). What do you suppose “micro” evolution would do with species over millions of years of “micro” changes?

            One side note: Speciation occurs mostly when a splinter group becomes isolated from the main group. Over time, and living in different environments, the two groups become incapable of producing offspring with each other, even if they look very much alike.

            Sir, the definition of biological evolution/speciation is a change in the gene frequency over time. That does not man a few weeks or even a few years or even a few hundred years.

            So, by your strange estimation, if it can’t be seen, it didn’t happen. Your creation hypothesis, by the way, was not seen and is in no way predictable or independently verifiable. It is a religious view very much like the over 3,000 other ancient creation beliefs in the world today. Your’s is no different. Can’t test yours, and can’t test any of the others.

            So, do you deny Plate tectonics and stellar evolution as well? You have to if you accept ICRs promos.

            That most mutations are deleterious, and change nothing, but do cause an information loss, not a gain, and the few that actually effect the homology / anatomy are generally harmful.
            That’s only partly true, as are most YEC arguments. It’s all in the art of sophistry.

            That most mutations change nothing, some simply are weeded out of the gene pool and some are deadly, some are beneficial as well and natural selection will “select” those that benefit in a stressful environment–choosing for the mutation most suited for that environment, especially if it enhances the phenotype, making them more fit for the environment.

            Absolutely nothing exact about it. Even C14 has problems, and it is based on observed scientific data of sometimes known origin. Radiometric decay is a fact, but that’s where the facts end and the speculation begins. All of it is based on assumptions about the sample, assumptions about isotope make up at origin, and uniformity of the isotope content over presumed billions of years.
            C14 dating has been calibrated via dendrochronology and is considered effective for dating objects no older than 60,000 years.

            From actionbioscience:.

            Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
            When the accuracy of one dating method is questionable, other methods are used to verify or refute the original results.

            Creationists must do mental and verbal gymnastics in their attempt to make this deniable, but they don’t have to work hard at it because the believers will believe virtually anything they say without evidence.

            And, btw, talkorigins dot org is an excellent site for reading both sides.

            I own two of Dawkins’ books
            I suggest that you read them with an open mind.

            Lastly, I was, as a young man, solidly in your court, but I had somewhere acquired two traits that opened my eyes; a strong sense of curiosity and personal honesty. I found that the Bible contained too many very questionable passages and logical fallacies, mostly internally inconsistent statements.

            It impelled me to return to school and get a much better education. A free free and educated mind is a wonderful thing.

          • airstart

            I’ve watched his debates, I’ve read his books, I’ve watched his interviews. Dawkins has used the term “appearance of design”. He. like all other evolutionists declares evolution to be a fact, but they misuses the word evolution and uninformed people simply apply a molecules to man meaning.
            I made no statement about speciation, it is a fact I don’t question, but it’s not bacterium converting into amphibians or amphibians changing into mammals. You can eventually get a chihuahua from wolves, but it will still be canine, it will never cross genus into a primate. Selective breeding, mutations and adaptive changes do not create newer better, more complex organisms. The naturalistic science assume the millions of years, they have no empirical data to demonstrate it. As for C14 and dendrochronology, they can’t even agree on seasonal tree ring growth, and it’s rarely used because of it’s short half life, presumed millions of years, or contamination.
            To offer an example for other elemental radio active decay rates, Mt St Helens samples have been dated by labs as 80,000 to 3 million years. They were formed in 1980. The samples were blind, introduced to lab with no estimated age. The isotope ratios are all they can determine, they extrapolate age based on known decay rates in the present.
            You accuse creationists of doing verbal/ mental gymnastics. Read a few “just so stories” authored by honest evolutionists. They are filled with terms like,(we believe it happened such and such way, we think so and so caused this, it probably occurred this way) they call this science.
            Maybe your evolutionary scientists should explain why there are soft tissue, & red blood cells, still pliable, found in T Rex bones that are presumed to be 60-70 million years old. Maybe they could account for the fact they’ve never observed star formation, only star destruction, or why we still have a moon that regresses 2 cm annually, or maybe why the earth still has a magnetic field after 4,3 billion years.
            You might try reading some evolutionary narratives more carefully to see if they have any operational, observed experiments to validate their claims. I’ve already admitted that creationists don’t, but we do have a historical narrative (Genesis) inspired by the one whom was a witness to the past.
            The whole naturalistic worldview is a logical fallacy. I hope you haven’t rejected your own theism because of a fine secularist academic career /education. Most universities offer multiple degrees in opinions of the liberal atheist professors, based on relativistic worldviews rather than objective realities of the world. Jesus is the one who said “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free”.