Atheist Activist Group Complains to School District After Teacher ‘Casts Doubt Upon Evolution’

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — One of the nation’s most conspicuous professing atheist organizations recently sent a letter to a Missouri school district to lodge a complaint about a science teacher who reportedly had been teaching students from a biblical Creation worldview instead of an evolutionary worldview.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) submitted the complaint to the Hickman Mills C-1 School District after being informed that a seventh grade science teacher at Smith-Hale Middle School had been teaching a young earth and other beliefs adhered to by Christians.

“We understand that one of his unit tests included questions to cast doubt upon evolution and our current understanding of the age of the earth,” the group wrote.

Among the reported questions, which students were to characterize as true or false, were the statements “Transitional forms have been found in the fossil record for all animals” (false), “Catastrophe supports sudden species appearance and a younger earth” (true), and “There is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans may have coexisted” (false).

FFRF opined that it was “wildly inappropriate” for the teacher to be conveying religious-based beliefs to students and to question evolution.

“Teaching that there is a scientific controversy about the validity of evolution is akin to teaching astrology with astronomy or alchemy besides chemistry,” it wrote. “Representing unconstitutional discarded misconceptions as scientific facts does a great disservice to the scientific literacy of Smith-Hale Middle School students.”

“No controversy exists in the scientific community regarding the fact of evolution,” the group claimed, “and the teaching of alternative theories or a controversy is not only inappropriate and dishonest, it is unconstitutional. … Such a practice alienates those who practice other religious faiths, those who are nonreligious and those who believe that science and religion are compatible.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The district responded on Monday, and while it could not comment on personnel matters, it stated that the questions posed by the teacher did not align with state standards and are therefore “unacceptable.”

“The Hickman Mills C-1 School District has prescribed curriculum that is aligned with standards established by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). All teachers are expected to teach the prescribed curriculum and are not allowed to develop and teach curriculum outside of what has been approved by the school district,” the response from Superintendent Yolanda Cargile read.

“The test questions you highlighted in your letter are not aligned with DESE standards and consequently are not acceptable and will not be utilized in our schools,” it stated. “I don’t anticipate any future issues with the use of curriculum outside of what the district has prescribed.”

As previously reported, John 1:1-5 outlines that Christ is the creator of all things.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made,” it reads. “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Romans 1:20 also declares, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • JPT

    After thousands and thousands of years and thousands and thousands of divine spokesmen, a single unifying theme from the Bible emerges: It is all made up, every bit of it the product of ancient human ignorance.

    Nothing else makes sense.

  • Robin Egg

    Atheists are just never happy about anything are they.

    • Raygun Mike

      Lets just say we’re never happy when someone tries to inflict on our children crackpot superstition and call it science.

      • Drake

        If you can’t ask questions or bear peer review, it isn’t science.

        • Netizen_James

          Just so. Note that you can’t question Scripture, you’re just supposed to accept it. Thus, Scripture is not science, and nobody should pretend otherwise.

          • Drake

            Actually, lots of people question scripture, even Christians. Scripture doesn’t pretend to be science. Ultimately, it comes down to whether you trust what men say more than the Word of God– you have to work that out for yourself. But– there is a scientific way to do that because Scripture is a road map to God.

            Either there IS a God, or there is NO God. Both cannot be true (law of contradiction). If there IS a God, there are attributes of God by which you can know God (by definition). The Bible lists many attributes of God, and also how to approach Him – no other book in the world contains that information in abundant detail, and if you seriously pursue it , God will honor your effort and reveal Himself. Hence there is a viable result to put to the test.

            “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

            “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.” (James 1:5-7)

          • Netizen_James

            There is no ‘Word of God’ because all the texts we have were written by mere men. So the dichotomy you present is a false one. Mere fallible men wrote every word of the works you define as ‘Scripture’. If there were a REAL creator-deity, that being would have provided incontrovertible empirical physical evidence of that being’s existence, and clear directions on what was expected of us creatures. Like ‘Kidders Teletype’ in the marvelous story ‘Microcosmic God’ by T. Sturgeon. But no, we have no such incontrovertible evidence, we don’t have Kidder’s Teletype. We have lots of stories – stories, myths, legends, tales. We have much evidence of people attributing the voices in their heads to supernatural beings, much evidence of people making up tales regarding historical figures (e.g. the story of George Washington and his father’s cherry tree – A story everyone knows, is false, but we tell it anyway.) but that’s about all we’ve got.

            Given that there is no evidence that which you call ‘Scripture’ is the Word of God, you are attributing a divine source to the work of mere mortals, which is at best foolish, and at worst heretical.

            Yes, either at least one deity exists, or no deities exist. Which of those contentions is suggested by the existing body of objective empirical evidence? Is there ANY empirical evidence whatsoever of ANY deity? No, there is not – only fallacious ‘begging the question’ reasoning of the form ‘god created reality’, ‘reality exists’, therefor god exists’.

            Is there any empirical evidence that the deity YOU happen to believe in actually exists, while the deities that OTHER people believe in do not? No, there is no such evidence for that contention either. You could be in danger of Hel for refusing to believe in Odin. Or in danger of being reincarnated as a cockroach because you refuse to believe in Vishnu/Shiva/Ganesha. This is why Pascal’s wager is fallacious.

            If there were such a thing as God, and in particular such a thing as the ‘Holy Spirit’, then how can you explain all the variations of doctrine, even among those who identify as Christians? You can’t be all listening to the same ‘spiritual radio’ and be hearing such radically different things. Some Christians accept and celebrate the love of same-gender couples, while others reject and shun those involved in same-gender sexual relationships. Some Christians feel that eating meat and using tobacco or ethanol are sins, while others do not view those as necessarily sinful acts. Some consider gambling, or even dancing, to be sinful. Surely an omnipotent deity could do a bit better at getting a consistent version of The Message through to the entire set of believers, eh? You can’t all be right. But you can all be wrong. The most simple explanation is usually the best: there is no spiritual radio, and none of you are talking to God, you’re just talking to yourselves.

            There is no empirical evidence for spirits, souls, ghosts, angels, demons, deities, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, chakras, fairies, naiads, dryads, elves, magic or any supernatural anything. There is a good reason that NOBODY was ever able to win the Randi Foundation’s Million dollar prize for any empirical evidence of any ‘paranormal’ anything. Nobody even came close. That’s because none of those things are real. There is no faith healing. There are no miracles.

            Can you explain why God hates amputees? You’d be the first if you could explain why no faith healer has ever been able to restore a fully functioning limb to someone who’s had that limb amputated. Ever. Go figure.

          • Drake

            Thanks for taking the time to write all that. In reading it I sense you have a lot of emotional baggage (especially anger) that may be clouding your objectivity. Since you haven’t experienced the Holy Spirit, you don’t understand that the Holy Spirit can (and does) influence mere men to communicate the Word of God.

            If you want real empirical evidence for spirits and demons, all you have to do is go spend time in places where demonic cultural worship is prevalent, such as Haiti or parts of Africa. If you hunt for it long enough you can find a place where the activities of natives will make your skin crawl.

            The universe itself is proof of the supernatural – even if you have only the Big Bang to believe in. ‘Nothing’ doesn’t explode to create everything – that defies the laws of physics and therefore is outside of the physical natural realm and is therefore supernatural. Look at the history of the recent Jewish wars from the perspective of the Jewish people, and you will find that they believe in miracles.

            Sure, there are a lot of inconsistencies among believers. That is NOT proof that God does not exist. He delights in individuality and uniqueness. But His judgment is ultimately final. It is His creation, not ours, and His rules we all must play by, whether you believe in Him or not. We have choices to make, and freedom of choice, and we all must live with the consequences of our choices. And sometimes we suffer because of the consequences of the choices of others.

            Yes, there is suffering in the world. God knows it- His own Son went willingly to the cross to suffer and die on our behalf. If I were in charge of the universe, things would be different, but I’m not. The difference between you and me is I have searched for Truth, and found it. I have tested it and followed the map and dug the treasure. My faith is already vindicated. I sincerely wish for you to come to understand the peace and joy that that brings.

            God doesn’t hate amputees. Maybe some people do, and the devil does – he only wants to kill and destroy. The peace and joy of knowing God comes from the fact that Jesus rose again from the dead which proves that He is God and has the power to restore, heal, and raise the dead. Most of us will have to wait until eternity to see the benefits of that. I can wait because I have the joy and peace that enables me to hold it together until then, thanks to Jesus.

      • But you’re perfectly okay with teaching children something you claim to be undeniable, unquestionable fact, but which has never been witnessed or proven as ever actually happening. Add to this the endless array of “errors” and flat-out hoaxes like Haeckel’s embryo drawings, Piltdown/Java/Nebraska/etc. Man, “Ida”/”Lucy”/”Ardi”/etc., and the imaginary idea of “abiogenesis” (formerly known as “spontaneous generation”), and you have something that should NEVER be taught to anyone, particularly young children. But then, how else are you going to get more atheists produced?

        • Ed Collins

          Your examples in no way prove Evolution to be false. Think it’s not true? Collect your data – have it peer reviewed – collect your Nobel prize.
          What ? It hasn’t happened in 150 years? No worries – maybe another 150 will still see you proved WRONG! LOL

          • Skywatcher57

            You can prove it to be false Ed! In front of all of us here, please tell me where matter, life, and emotions came from? If there was a “big bang”, where did the materials come from that caused the bang? Where did the science come from to see this come to pass? Lastly, but not least, were you there to witness this, or are you blindly accepting something as truth because it has been banged into your head enough times that it MUST BE right? There’s the big bang, buddy!

          • DrIndica

            Emotions and morality are products of evolution functioning as a survival mechanism of the human species.

          • Skywatcher57

            If you really believe that, then I have a bridge in the Sahara Desert to sell you. Check out Ravi Zacharias on YouTube and see how he addresses your statement with sound logic and reasoning. Just type in the key words “morality” and “Atheisim” when you go to Ravi Zacharias International, and you’ll reach several very good videos on the topic, where he’s addressing some university student bodies, that he leaves speechless!

          • namelessghost

            You mean the Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias? lol

          • Skywatcher57

            Yes, that’s exactly who I mean, and he can talk you under the table within seconds because he knows what he’s talking about. Even if you leave the Christian component out of it, he still mows down evolutionists with the same question I pose: Where did matter, life, morality, and emotion come from? It takes more faith to believe I came from a rock that had to have an origin than it does to believe in the Creator.

          • Netizen_James

            Matter didn’t have to ‘come from’ anywhere, it has always been.
            Life is an inevitable product of physical properties of matter/energy.
            Emotions are expressions of instinctual drives.

            There you go.
            What you got?

          • Skywatcher57

            You’re so sharp, that I don’t know how I can compete with that! LOL Where did matter come from? To say it “didn’t have to come from anywhere” is a cheap and poorly constructed cop-out! Come on! If this crap is being shoved off on us as fact, you had better have a better answer than that!

          • Netizen_James

            Why are you assuming there was ever a time without matter? Where is that presumption coming from?

            Your book? What use is an ancient book, written by fallible men that you can’t even name? You claim your book is ‘divinely inspired’? First you have to provide evidence that something ‘divine’ exists at all, which you cannot do and you know it.

            It’s no cop out. If you can show even the slightest bit of actual objective empirical evidence that there was once a time when matter didn’t exist, feel free to try. But of course, you don’t care about evidence. You don’t need evidence. You decry and despise evidence. Because those with faith need no evidence. Whether their faith is in YHWH/Jesus or Odin/Thor or Zeus/Hercules or Jupiter/Heracles, nobody with faith wants to hear anything about ‘evidence’ – especially not objective empirical evidence.

            Riddle me this SW – do you know that there are eight witnesses who provided signed testimony that they saw Jo Smith’s magically missing golden plates? Does that qualify as ‘evidence’ for you? Are you convinced of the truth of the Book of Mormon by that evidence? No? Even though that’s FAR stronger evidence than we have for the existence of Jesus as an historical person?

          • namelessghost

            1. Evolution is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable traits. It doesn’t address morality, emotions, or the origins of life.

            2. There is no such thing as an “evolutionist”.

            3. A Christian apologist cannot leave the Christian component out of it.

            4. Christians are the ones who believe we came from a rock (dirt).

            5. It does not take faith to know that evolution occurs. You can actually see it with your own eyes.

          • Netizen_James

            If you have to point to youtube to let other people make your arguments for you, then that simply indicates that you’re incapable of making your own arguments.

            DrIndica is correct. Morality evolved.
            This is why stealing assets from your neighbor is always ‘bad’, but ‘looting resources from the enemy’ is usually ‘good’.
            This is why killing your neighbor is always ‘bad’, but killing the ‘enemy’ in war is ‘good’.

            Morality evolved among primitive hunting/gathering tribes of pre-human primates. This even explains altruism, which even fairly bright people like Lewis and Collins couldn’t manage to grok as a product of evolution, because they lacked the imagination to grok that evolution happens to GROUPS, not individuals. Being seen as ‘heroic’ by the tribe is a gain. Being seen as ‘cowardly’ by the tribe is a loss. Simple game theory explains the rest.

          • Skywatcher57

            No, Drindica is not correct, but to go along with you for a short ride…if “morality evolved”, where did it evolve from? As for your defense of killing, either for protection, or murder, you’ve just paraphrased what the Holy Bible says! Good job! Keep up the great work!

          • Netizen_James

            Morality evolved from the necessity of tribal cooperation among proto-human bands of hunting/gathering primitive primates. Tribes which demonstrated cooperation and cohesion survived. Those which were incapable of sufficient levels of cooperation and cohesion did not.

            That which contributes to the survival odds of my tribe is moral.
            That which detracts from the survival odds of my tribe is immoral. Very simple.

            What Great Teachers like Jesus were saying is that this old instinctual morality is no longer applicable to modern humans. That there are no more ‘tribes’, and that we are to treat EVERYONE as a member of our tribe, treat EVERYONE as our neighbor. There is no more ‘us and them’, there is only us – the siblinghood of humanity. Every man is your brother/father/son/uncle, every woman is your sister/mother/daughter/aunt. We must all learn how to live together, else we will certainly die separately.

            If you think I defended murder, you need some reading comprehension lessons. If you think my description of killing the enemy in war being a good thing is Biblical, you need to read the Gospels again. Jesus never once countenanced any killing of any sort. Jesus was a pacifist. According to Jesus, it’s better to let yourself be killed than it is to kill someone else – this is what ‘turn the other cheek’ was about, and don’t let anyone fool you into thinking it had anything to do with what hand someone would be striking you with – that’s just nonsense bs made up by quisling priests trying to justify serfs dying for the profits of the nobles. Jesus would NOT consider killing the ‘enemy’ in war a noble, heroic or good thing. Killing another person is a sin. No matter who is doing the killing, or why. (note carefully that ‘persons’ are capable of consciousness, unlike embryos or brain-dead accident victims.)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Evolution doesn’t even try to answer the questions of where matter or life came from, and it has nothing to do with the Big Bang either.

          • Skywatcher57

            Oh PLEASE! I’m not some young and unlearned adolescent who hasn’t done his due diligence! You made it very obvious to everyone that you jumped on the evolution bandwagon without even knowing what it is you’re talking about. Stop wasting our time!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re the one who doesn’t know what it is you’re talking about if you think evolution deals with such things as the origins of life or the Big Bang. Like I saw you yourself say somewhere else, evolution means “development”. The development of life, not the origin of it.

            Actually, I think I figured this out a while ago: When creationists such as yourself talk about and complain about “evolution” (or even “EVILution” as I believe I saw you write it) what they’re really talking about would be best described as a something along the lines of a strong-atheist/materialistic/naturalistic worldview. THEN what you’re saying would actually make some sort of sense. That kind of a view CAN go hand-in-hand with acceptance of evolution, but it doesn’t have to. After all, plenty of theists out there accept evolution.

          • Netizen_James

            SW57, how is it that you’re pretending that there was ever a time when ‘matter, life and emotions’ did not exist?
            Got evidence that there was ever such a state of the universe such that no matter existed? Or are you just making stuff up?

          • Skywatcher57

            “Or are you just making stuff up?” You are so funny! I leave that to the evolutionists, and to date, they’ve been doing quite a convincing job for those who cannot follow a line of thought with an open mind.

            Do you have evidence that there was ever a “big bang”? Were you there to observe and to document it, with actual date? I didn’t think so!

            Cooleridge doesn’t make a lick of sense in that statement. Christ is Truth, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me.” John 14: 6.

            A historical Caesar, Pilate, asked Him, “What is Truth?” The better question would’ve been, Who is truth, as Truth was standing right in front of him. To love Christ is to love Truth; Christianity is the exercise of following that truth to the best of one’s ability. He picks up where we can’t.

            I have both…Biblical inerrancy and Truth, as they are one and the same; see: John 1: 1, which coincides with the verse I cited above for you.

          • Netizen_James

            there is more evidence that there was a big bang than there is evidence of a Garden of Eden, or a worldwide flood, or an exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt. There is ZERO evidence for any of those things, and LOTS of empirical observations that suggest a big bang. There may not have been a big bang. I don’t ‘believe’ in that the way you ‘believe’ that there’s a magical sky deity who cares where you stick your dong, mind you. I merely accept that as one possible explanation for all of the existing observations.

            Note that there are ZERO observations which even SUGGEST or IMPLY the existence of any deity, any angels, or demons, or ghosts or spirits or souls. All of those things are equally imaginary, equally lacking in anything like empirical support.

            No, the Bible is not Truth. There is NO evidence to support the nonsensical idea that earth was created before the sun, or that there was ever a ‘void’ in the first place into which God manifested a universe. There is NO evidence of a 6-day creation, no evidence of a creator, none of those stories has any factual basis whatsoever. The stories sound just like some bronze-age goat herder would have made up. Except for the Noah story which was clearly stolen from the Summerian story of Ziusudra. Surely, as someone who has studied the Bible, you’re aware of all this, yes?

        • Richard Forrest

          and flat-out hoaxes like Haeckel’s embryo drawings No, Haeckel exaggerated the similarities between vertebrate embryos to support what was then the current model of evolution which is summarised by “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny”. That model was rejected by science well over a century ago, and has no relevance to current evolutionary theory. The similarities between embryos are real, and modern textbooks prefer to use photographs rather than drawings. That creationists tout this as evidence that we are using Haeckel’s drawings is a mark only of their ignorance or dishonesty.
          Piltdown A forgery perpetuated on evolutionary biologists over a century ago, and which has never been cited as evidence after the fraud was exposed by scientists.
          Java Java man is a fossil of one of the most widespread and common early human species, Homo erectus. Are you claiming that all thos hundreds of fossil are forgeries?
          Nebraska A pig’s tooth initially misidentified as that of an ape in 1922 (not an early human), misrepresented by trashy journalism as evidence for early man in the Americas, and correctly identified by scientists a few years later.
          “Ida”/”Lucy”/”Ardi”/e
          In what way are these either errors or hoaxes?
          “Ida’ is an extremely well-preserved fossil primate from Messel. The original paper in ‘Nature’ claimed it was closely related to human ancestry, but other researchers are not convinced by this and have presented alternative taxonomies.
          ‘Lucy’ is one of the most complete skeletons of an early hominid. Contrary to the outright lies promoted by creationists, the specimen is not made up of elements from different skeletons.
          “Ardi” is Ardipithecus, an early hominid whose relationship to modern man is unclear, but is represented by a substantially complete skeleton.

          Why not educate yourself in the subject rather than regurgitating uncritically from creationist sources? Such sources are neither honest nor reliable.

        • Netizen_James

          Wrong. We have observed speciation due to selection pressure in both the lab, and in the wild.

          That’s evolution right there. We’ve SEEN it happen. You can’t claim that it’s never been witnessed or proven, we’ve SEEN it happen.

        • Blue

          Haeckle’s drawings!? Seriously?

          Do you have any clue how much has been learned about embrylogy since Haeckle. We now have photographs of embryos of thousands of creatures at every stage of development.

          It makes no difference whatsoever whether Haeckle’s drawings 150 years ago were or were not accurate.

      • Skywatcher57

        So, let me see…you’d prefer Islam would you? That’s a false religion that’s being heavily foisted upon children in the prison/school system. Are you crying out to have it removed from your local school? If not, why not? If it doesn’t kill you, it will take you back to the Dark Ages…without a weapon in your hand!

        • Netizen_James

          Where are you getting this BS propaganda that public schools are ‘foisting’ islam on students?

    • Guzzman

      No citizen, regardless of religious viewpoint, should be “happy” about government disregarding the Constitution. It is unconstitutional to promote creationism in public schools because creationism (aka creation science, intelligent design) is religion, and religion cannot be promoted by publicly-funded, government entities (see Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987).

      • Skywatcher57

        I hate to tell you this Guzzman, but evolution is now the religion of the Liberals, and has been for many years. If a teacher is going to present a THEORY as to the origins of our world and universe, a critical thinker and wise person would suggest, “Let’s look at ALL the possibilities, not just one single theory.” To do otherwise is not science, it’s brainwashing and censoring…never a good thing.

        • ZappaSaid88

          Creationism and ID aren’t science and have no place in a science classroom. It’s just that simple.

          • Skywatcher57

            I hope you oppose Islam in the classroom with such religious zeal and vigor… You’re half right, I’ll give you credit! They are not what we call science today, but by the old standard and trustworthy science, we see that they are relied upon quite heavily for their conclusions! The pseudo-science we have today has no business being in the classroom. Truth should always be welcome in the public forum, no matter where it’s presented.

          • AlienFactor

            Truth needs facts, and creationism provides none.

          • Skywatcher57

            None that you want to look at, so please, don’t bother me anymore. The evidence is all over the place! Take a look at your own body and stop for a moment to consider how fearfully and wonderfully made it is! Good day!

          • AlienFactor

            Typical. “I lost the argument so I am going to run away”.

            Typical. “Look around, that is proof of god” when all it is proof of is that we live in a natural world governed by rules based in science – includinv evolution.

            I am not going to pray for you, wishing you would find enlightenment outside of your bible. But if you do, because I’ve sown the seed that hopefully will lead you to science and reason, well then “You’re welcome”.

          • Skywatcher57

            No, Alien, I didn’t run away as you erroneously purport; answering all these mindless comments is killing my legs, and I have a business to run. We’ve exhausted this vein of “conversation”, and I have to keep moving around, lest blood clots invade.

            The answers to your questions are out there, if you will set aside your cowardice, prejudice and bias, and look at the opposing camp’s evidence with an open mind. Have a good day! Will see you soon, and we’ll see who was right or wrong!

          • AlienFactor

            I accept your challenge, and will review all your evidence.

            [A few seconds later]

            Done.

          • Netizen_James

            Teeth that rot out by age 40 if you don’t care for them.
            Eyes that can’t focus on either near or far things past age 40 for many, and can’t ever for many more. Eyes that are subject to cataracts, and retinal detachment.
            Dangling leftover pieces of intestine (the ‘appendix’) that don’t seem to serve much if any function today, other than as a place for gut-bacteria to hide out.
            Bones that start dissolving in women after they can’t have kids any more.

            Clearly, if we were designed, the designer failed every engineering class ever. No, we were not designed. We evolved. That’s obvious to anyone with open eyes. Evolution doesn’t give a crap about individuals after they’ve reproduced – MOST species die shortly after they can no longer reproduce. Thus, all of the evidence points to our being evolved organisms, just like all the other organisms around us.

            Further, we have OBSERVED evolution both in the lab and in the wild. We KNOW that speciation can be caused by selection pressure, we’ve SEEN it. All you have to do is open your eyes. But you seem to prefer your blindness, and you’re welcome to it. Just leave my kids out of it.

          • Blue

            We oppose all religions and religious opinions* in the classroom. It is christians who are establishing the precedent for teaching religious belief as fact, including Islam. You might want to think that through.

            This includes atheism. A teacher cannot tell students religious belief is wrong. They teach the Theory of Evolution because it is supported by evidence. But a teacher cannot say “since evolution is accurate, you should change your religious belief.”

          • Skywatcher57

            Your own statements condemn you. You said, “They teach the THEORY of Evolution” while others from your camp say they don’t! Which is it? You folks might want to get together and get your stories straight. Just sayin’, and by the way, I highlighted the word “theory” for you. I memorized the scientific definition of that word many years ago, and it’s still the same today as it was then…a hypothesis that hasn’t been proven. End of discussion, and have yourself a nice day, I am!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, so only THAT definition of “theory” can be correct?

            All right then….let’s look at a few other common uses of the word “theory” to see how that would work.

            Heliocentric theory says Earth and the rest of the planets in the solar system revolve around the Sun. You’re telling me that that is a “hypothesis that hasn’t been proven”?

            Music theory describes the study of the practices and the possibilities or music. By the definition you want to use, that would either mean, that music is an unproven hypothesis, or that those “practices and possibilities” are unproven….which would be odd, considering some of them date back from at least a thousand years ago.

        • DrIndica

          You are confusing theory with hypothesis. Theory is a description of observed phenomena. As in, shown to be true.

          • Skywatcher57

            You’re sadly mistaken. Theory is merely a NON-proven conjecture that has no foundation, such as your statement. Let’s not play with semantics, but adhere to what we know to be tried and tested truth.

          • Enniscorthy

            No, that is not what “theory” means in a scientific context. DrIndica is correct.

          • manwithnoname

            Uh….wrong! Conjecture, supposition, speculation…these are synonyms for “theory”.

          • AlienFactor

            Not in the scientific community, where theory takes on a meaning far more encompassing than conjecture ot speculation.

          • manwithnoname

            Yeah, not surprising, since they want to “sell” their ideas as something “more” than the definition supports, so they arbitrarily define and expand the definition of Theory!

          • AlienFactor

            Look who just used a capital T for Theory! Baby steps, but you jyst progressed in the right direction. A scientific Theory is something that says “everything we know and understand, every piece of evidence we know of, fits this overarching idea that not only explains what we know but also offers predictability about what we don’t.”

            Completely different from “I have a hunch.”

            Theories are debated, tested, attempted to be disproven, until the scientific community agrees. And then it is still tested, over and over again, as new circumstances are discovered. “Do they fit the Theory? Do they prove the Theory wrong?” (All it takes is one instance to prove a Theory wrong.)

            It is anything but arbitrary.

            And the best thing? Your opinion doesn’t matter unless you have proof that shows the Theory is wrong.

          • Enniscorthy

            Synonyms for only ONE definition of theory. Look it up on Merriam Webster to see for yourself, and see the link I gave Skywatcher.

          • Netizen_James

            So you think that gravity is simply conjecture and speculation?
            Really?

          • Skywatcher57

            You show your ignorance of semantics quite readily. I don’t use science for my definitions; I use a dictionary. That might be how the word, “theory” is defined in these libelous textbooks, but that is not the dictionary definition, and over half a century ago, we relied upon dictionaries for our definitions. They aren’t meant to be doorstops, but to increase learning. Check out the word “theory” in your dictionary. If you’re looking for the truth, there can only be one true definition, right?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you’re looking for the truth, there can only be one true definition, right?

            Take another look at that dictionary. You’ll find words very often have several meanings. (that line in Stairway to Heaven is no lie!) That doesn’t mean only one of them is true; it depends on the context it’s being used in. When scientists speak of a theory, they don’t mean the definition you’re thinking of, a guess or hypothesis. Look at it this way: There are theories of gravity. Do you think the existence of gravity is only a hypothesis?

            Another thing… I just looked up “theory” on a dictionary website. Do you know there’s actually several more definitions than the two we’re talking about?

          • Skywatcher57

            With all due respect, I don’t know how old you are, but I’m probably old enough to be your father. When I went to school and took science, we had to memorize what the word “theory” meant according to the textbook. I remain unmoved.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            With all due respect, I don’t know how old you are, but I’m probably old enough to be your father

            Older doesn’t necessarily mean wiser.

            When I went to school and took science, we had to memorize what the word “theory” meant according to the textbook.

            If your teachers taught you that the definition of theory in a scientific context is something along the lines of “unproven hypothesis”, you were taught wrong. Look it up yourself; I’m not just making it up. Or look at it this way: Einstein came up with his theories of relativity over 100 years ago. They are some of the most spectacularly well-confirmed theories in science, with many different useful applications as well. (your smartphone wouldn’t know where you are if we didn’t account for it, for one thing) Yet we still refer to them as theories.

          • Netizen_James

            So when we speak of ‘the theory of gravity’, you think that this means that gravity isn’t a proven fact, and that you can jump off a building and not fall?

            No, gravity, just like evolution, has been thoroughly demonstrated with objective empirical observations. The theory of gravity serves to create a model and a framework which explains all the observations made to date, and provides for making predictions. (Note carefully that we still don’t know exactly HOW mass exerts gravitational attraction. So just because there are still people working on the details doesn’t mean gravity is baloney!) Similarly, the theory of evolution serves to create a model and framework which explains all the observations made to date and provides for making predictions. Were you aware of all of the examples of evolution’s predictive validity? Of things that we guessed were so because of evolution, that turned out to be exactly as we’d guessed when we observed them?

            If you were to show us a bird hatching out of a fish egg, then you would disprove evolution. Can you do that? Didn’t think so.

            Can you come up with ANY empirical objective observation that would disprove evolution? Didn’t think so.

          • Skywatcher57

            Do you actually read what you write, or just throw a bunch of words out there? Your following statement is so ludicrous and dangerous to you position, that it’s laughable:

            “If you were to show us a bird hatching out of a fish egg, then you would disprove evolution.”

            Too funny! That’s the mindset of evolution! You have just proven what the Holy Bible says, “…after its own kind”! Thank you, for supporting my position!

            If you know how to read, I never said “gravity is baloney”. Stick with what’s being said.

          • Richard Forrest

            “If you were to show us a bird hatching out of a fish egg, then you would disprove evolution.”

            Too funny! That’s the mindset of evolution!
            As a matter of idle curiosity, are you truly this ignorant and utterly opposed to the idea of learning about the subject, or are you just trolling?

          • Netizen_James

            Gravity is a theory, just like evolution.
            If you think that evolution is false, because it’s ‘just a theory’, then that means by extension that you think that gravity is baloney, because it’s also ‘just a theory’.

            No, you clearly misunderstand what evolution even IS if you think that evolution says that a fish egg can hatch a bird.

          • Enniscorthy

            I’m using the dictionary. Look it up on merriam webster online. The scientific meaning is “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena, i.e. the wave theory of light”. One of the other separate definitions says a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument of an unproved assumption. Also see this link from Scientific American: www(dot)scientificamerican(dot)com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

          • Skywatcher57

            I don’t trust a whole lot of anything I read online, and for very good reason. Therefore, I’m using my trusty Merriam Webster dictionary on my desk which says,

            “an organized body of ideas as to the truth of something, usually derived from the study of a number of facts relating to it, but sometimes entirety a result of exercising the SPECULATIVE IMAGINATION // knowledge of a science or art derived from such study and SPECULATION (cf. PRACTICE) ?? a general body of ASSUMPTIONS and principles, the theory of democracy // a group of mathematical theorems presenting a comprehensive and systematic view of a subject, the theory of probability // a conjecture, have you any theory as to who could have done it?”

            Enniscorthy, do you not recognize the buzzwords in your definition? “assumed” and “unproved assumption”? Those two words alone, should really grab your cognitive processes by the chain and trip you up.

            Your definition said, ” “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
            principles offered to explain phenomena, i.e. the wave theory of light”.”

            Right there you have shot evolution down! Congrats! For a rock to produce life, or for a bunch of matter to explode and to produce all the various life forms, etc. isn’t even remotely “plausible”! For proof, go outside, take the back off your watch, throw its guts up into the air and run like the wind to catch each and every piece in the back of your watch! Be very careful, because you only have one crack at this! Life depends upon it! You must catch EVERY little piece and spring, and they MUST all fall into place and work exactly as they did before you tossed them into the air! How plausible is that? It’s not! To take it one step further…can this watch reproduce itself?

            The science of probability says that this is totally off the chart for such a probability to EVER happen! If you have a lick of self-respect and pride, you’ll have to agree with them until you can do it. Just remember…you only have one chance to get it all right! Oh yes, if you’re really good, you might want to infuse life into it! Have fun with that!

            Aside from that, I’m glad to see that you use a Christian dictionary! Did you know that Merriam Webster was a Bible-toting Christian, a believer in Christ? Enjoy your day!

          • Enniscorthy

            If you trust your good old Merriam-Webster, then you have to trust what I said, because that’s where I got it from. Why are you electing to believe only one of its definitions about what a theory is, and ignoring the others?

            “Enniscorthy, do you not recognize the buzzwords in your definition? “assumed” and “unproved assumption”? Those two words alone, should really grab your cognitive processes by the chain and trip you up.”

            Skywatcher57, do you not recognize that the buzzwords you refer to are a part of the definition of theory which does NOT pertain to the scientific one I have pointed you towards? I’ll just repeat what I said earlier: There is MORE THAN ONE definition of “theory”. You don’t get to pick which one you want to use.

          • Skywatcher57

            “You don’t get to pick which one you want to use.” I don’t, but the textbooks do though, eh? Clever! Very clever! I see how the rules of this game go…

          • Enniscorthy

            All I said was the scientific definition of “theory” is not the standard dictionary definition of it. Which is true.

          • Blue

            Words have meaning in context.

            The game called football in Britain is not the same as the game called football in the US.

            If I am discussing a football goalie, it would be ignorant to say “football does not have goalies.” If I am discussing pass interference in football, it would be ignorant to say “there is no such thing as pass interference in football.”

            When a scientist is discussing Atomic Theory or Germ Theory or the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity, they are using the scientific meaning of the term.

          • Blue

            Merriam Webster
            Usage Notes

            This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory
            In scientific reasoning, they’re two completely different things

            As anyone who has worked in a laboratory or out in the field can tell you, science is about process: that of observing, making inferences about those observations, and then performing tests to see if the truth value of those inferences holds up. The scientific method is designed to be a rigorous procedure for acquiring knowledge about the world around us.

            In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it’s a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

            ….

            The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was “a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory “doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

            While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said “to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up.”

            Note, Ken Miller quoted above is a Christian and is the author of a Biology textbook.

            If you are going to rely on Merriam Webster, you should read the entire discussion.

          • AlienFactor

            Dictionary dot com lists the scientific definition of theory first, and then the more common lay interpretations.

          • DrIndica

            Buy a dictionary professor.

          • Skywatcher57

            Is that the best you’ve got? I have one, AND I know how to read it! Don’t interject if you don’t have anything of any value to say! I wide-open-ended statement like that merely proves your lack of scholarly ability. Having all this knowledge really is quite a struggle to contend with; it came from years of study. Do you know anything about that, or are you merely capable of slinging insults? End of story!

          • DrIndica

            When you are able to understand the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis, I will engage in rational discourse with you. Until then, it is as if talking to a child.

        • Guzzman

          To label biological evolution a “religion” is preposterous. You lack understanding of how science works or how scientific theories are formulated, tested, and validated. Evolution is an observed fact. Life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

          But why has life changed? That’s where theory comes in. Evolution theory based on natural selection was postulated as an explanation for what has been observed. Evidence from various disciplines such as biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, paleontology, and radioisotope dating has confirmed the validity of evolution theory based on natural selection. None of these scientific disciplines have any basis in religion.

          • Skywatcher57

            Guzzman, I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you, not that I can’t, mind you! I’ve seen the world’s best university professors in debates with Creationists who wiped the floors with them! Every time, they could NOT answer the simple question, where did matter, emotion, and the spark of life come from? Until they humble themselves and admit they don’t really know, then I give them no time of day or trust in anything that have to say.

            Evolution has NO proofs on any level, apart from man’s meddling in the breeding “program” through hybridization. Again, I will state that evolution on all of its levels is religiously adhered to by those who have been lied to and deluded, therefore, it is a religion. Bye bye!

          • Guzzman

            You cannot argue with me because you have no argument and lack even a basic understanding of what biological evolution entails.

            You wrote, “…the world’s best university professors in debates with Creationists could NOT answer the simple question, where did matter, emotion, and the spark of life come from?”

            You don’t even know enough to differentiate the study of biological evolution from abiogenesis or cosmology. And creationists have presented no scientifically validated theories for biological evolution, abiogenesis, or cosmology, so I seriously doubt they ever won any debates with actual scientists specializing in those disciplines.

          • Skywatcher57

            Guzzman, you sound so convincing to a lot of folks from your camp, I’m sure. There are debates all over YT where Creationists are debating professors and scientists and they can NOT answer that one simple basic question. Until that is answered with proof, they cannot win the argument. While I type this, a Scripture verse comes to mind that describes those who are not in God’s family: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1: 22.

            “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God”. Psalm 53: 1
            I’m moving on, because I have a life that needs tending to and all you want to do is hear yourself speak and argue. At the end of the day, you have fun standing in the presence of Almighty God, trying to convince Him He doesn’t exist. You won’t need many words! I hope you wake up long before that happens!

          • Guzzman

            You said you were finished “arguing” with me and yet three comments later, you have yet to present any scientifically validated research to support creationism. Your lack of understanding of scientific methodology is astounding.

            Scientific research is not based on debates and YouTube videos. It is grounded in observable phenomena. Theories are posited to explain these observable phenomena. Those theories are tested empirically and the results are written up and submitted to peer review. Peer review is a brutal process that looks for any weaknesses in the study methodology, inferences, and conclusions.

            Creationists have not done any of the work necessary to meet scientific standards. Holding debates and posting videos online are not fundamental aspects of science. Creationists hold debates, post videos, and write self-published books in order to circumvent the peer review process. The courts have availed themselves of expert witnesses to review these videos and these self-published materials and have concluded creationism is grounded in religion, not science.

          • Netizen_James

            Evolution is a fact, just like gravity.
            Matter/energy simply is. There is no evidence that there was ever a time when matter/energy did not exist. No evidence that there was ever ‘nothing’. (note that even within the ‘big bang’ theory, the concept of ‘before’ the big bang is undefined.)

            There is no such thing as the ‘spark’ of life. Life is an inevitable consequence of physical forces. Phospholipids form bilayer membranes simply due to their physical properties – no magic involved. Life began in a perfectly mundane fashion some 4 billion years ago or so, and hasn’t stopped since.

            Emotion is simply the expression of an instinctual drive in a being with consciousness. Fear is the primary emotion – we are instinctively fearful of things that can prevent us from being reproductively successful – like dying! The various forms and flavors of ‘love’ are various expressions of our instinctual drives toward pair-bonding (romantic love), child-rearing (filial love), and social-bonding (‘agape’ love). All of these instinctual drives have one and only one purpose – reproductive success – the driving force of evolution.

            No creationist has ever once even come close to winning a debate with a real scientist on the basis of real empirical objective evidence. Most scientists know better than to bother placing religion nonsense on the same footing as observed science. And note well that even then, Bill Nye wiped the FLOOR with Ken Ham.

            There is, literally, TONS of evidence for evolution. We have OBSERVED evolution happening both in the lab and in the wild. What evidence do you have? Objective, empirical evidence that is. Not just dusty scrolls of the myths of bronze-age goat herders….

          • Skywatcher57

            So, going with your theory, where did “consciousness” come from?

          • Netizen_James

            Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex neural network. Heck, even birds exhibit consciousness. Consciousness exists in any organism which shows clearly differentiable sleep/wake states.

            We are not too far away from creating consciousness in electronic equivalents to a neural networks – no more than 200 years from now at the outside, I’d guess. Probably a lot sooner. Presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first, of course. We already have systems which would pass a ‘Turing test’ administered by laypeople – where laypeople conversing via text-message with a computer simulation would be unable to determine that they were communicating with software, rather than a person.

            At that point, the question for you will be ‘do robots have souls?’ And when you answer ‘no, of course not’, the reasonable follow up question will be ‘how do you know?’ Which of course you will be unable to answer. You don’t even know whether dogs or horses have souls, because there’s no objective empirical evidence that ‘soul’ isn’t an word that refers to an imaginary thing – like ‘hobbit’ or ‘lightsaber’ or ‘unicorn’ or ‘phaser’.

            Presuming the truth of bronze-age myths is no way to suss out reality. Reality will only sussed through objective empirical observation, and logical reasoning. Science done properly is inherently revolutionary and anti-authoritarian – which is why many don’t like it. Change is scary. Responsibility is scary. Much more comforting to imagine a loving SkyDaddy who is looking out for everyone, and will take care of everything. But hard truths are still better than comforting myths.

          • Tim Matter

            Re: Skywatcher57- How is it helpful to learning anything if your science has the same answer to every question? Where did everything come from? God did it. Where did consciousness come from? God did it.
            You also have one explanation to explain away bad things. The devil messed up the good things God made.
            A little short on details. At least science has a detailed explanation starting with the Big Bang, which by the way, was first thought of by a Catholic priest. Not hardly an atheist scientist.

        • AlienFactor

          You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is. It is not a guess or hunch.

          • Skywatcher57

            You can keep your insults; I’ve heard them all before, and I’m probably as well educated as most on here. A theory is a speculation that hasn’t been proved. End of story! Ring somebody else’s bell.

          • Arlenj

            Are you by any chance a graduate of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University?

          • Skywatcher57

            No, not even American, just spent a lot of time looking into this subject, and paying close attention to other attentive seekers who wanted to know the truth based upon good solid science and Biblical exegesis.

          • Netizen_James

            If you’re not an American, then you have no clue about our important legal doctrines concerning the separation of church and state, and shouldn’t be involved in discussions regarding what public schools in America should be teaching children.

            Go paddle your own gnu!

          • Skywatcher57

            It’s people just like you, haughty and arrogant, that give the rest of the great Americans such a bad name! I don’t recall seeing this blog stating anywhere, “Americans ONLY”, did you? I have as much right to be on here as you do, so loosen up a little! Much of our news is American propaganda, and unfortunately, like America, too many people are drinking the poisoned Kool Aid.

            There are very trustworthy news sources that I follow, on both sides of the border, and I carefully weigh out what I’m reading and hearing. I don’t get my news from one source only. You might want to try to broaden your horizons a little, son, and stop being so childishly arrogant! I won’t be responding to anymore of your remarks, so save yourself the time.

          • Richard Forrest

            As a matter of idle curiosity, do you think that lexicographers all over the world for the past century or so are in cahoots with the anti-Christian atheist conspiracy to suppress “real” science (i.e. a dogmatically held literal interpretation of the Bible on which a small minority of Christians insist) in favour of “atheist” science?

            Just curious.

          • Skywatcher57

            That’s a very good question, Richard! For centuries, we have had liberals and conservatives who have been at war with each other, so to speak. It’s fair to say, as you suggest…there ARE lexicographers all over the world past and present, who are in cahoots with the New World Order. They make it no secret, and have been in cahoots to change society, preparing it for the rule of the one world dictator, whom the Bible calls the Antichrist.

            For those of us who know the Book, we are seeing the steps literally happening more and more each day as we approach that horrible time in our world’s life. In fact, lexicographers are currently working on lexicons for the counterfeit NWO bibles that infiltrated our churches, schools, hotels, motels, courts, etc., since the ’50’s. That doesn’t make them right, but they are the majority now, because there are so many per-versions of the Holy Bible out there, giving people false doctrines, false hopes, and preparing them for their own demise.
            Further proof of this are the Georgian Guide Stones and the “17 Sustainability Development Goals” put forward by the UN.

            Their first goal is to eliminate global poverty; short of extermination of the poor (to be determined by the UN), how else can they achieve this evil goal? This is where evolution comes into play again, just as it did in Hitler’s day. If you do not meet all the criteria, you’re exterminated. In my country (Canada) assisted suicide is permitted, which is another genocidal building block upon abortion. We are now being told that our population is so low (due to aborting generations of our babies), that we MUST take in immigrants to make up the difference. The real goal is infiltration and domination for Allah (the moon god). I have no issue with fair and balanced immigration, except our Prime Minister is a professed Muslim, and immediately after coming into office, he appointed a Somalian-born Muslim as our Federal Minister of Immigration. He did that to ensure that only Muslims get in, barbarians who do NOT assimilate, but dominate. Detroit City is a prime example of that. This is evidence of evolution and the New World Order conspiracy (not theory) at play. Forgive me. like old Sophia, “I digress!”

            The complete and accurate title of Charles Darwin’s thesis proves this, “On the Origin of Species (or more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)”

            I took that from Wikipedia, and it is correct. Did you get the last part of that long title, “…or the preservation of favoured RACES…”?

            Wouldn’t you say that from the title alone, that the evolutionary theory was and is being so strongly promoted is extremely RACIST? This title is being cleverly spoken of in its “shortened form”, so that people will not declare it to be a racist work! So you see, people need to stop regurgitating everything they’ve been told, and actually do their own digging.

            Much history, etc. online is being revised and rewritten by lexicographers, etc., but thankfully, there are still a number of us old diehards who still possess copies of the original unadulterated works that we can refer to.

            You are right, the dogmatic Christians who once believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible are a minority. It wasn’t always that way, but as children are being born to ungodly and unChristian parent(s), they move away from the “ancient landmarks”, as the Bible calls them. They become more biblically illiterate and move away from the morals, ethics and beliefs of their forefathers. In turn, they pass the ungodliness and ignorance on to their children.

            As nature would have it, many solid Bible-believing Christians die each day, and that too, makes us a minority. Therefore, the world is in the mess it is in today. I would prefer to be in the minority that is correctly reading and interpreting God’s Word and be saved, than those who are not! Christ said, “Enter you in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it.” Mt. 7: 13, 14. The majority is not always right, as we see at the voting polls on both sides of the border.

            Consequently, we have anarchy brewing because every person is a law unto themselves, as the Bible says. “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes”…lawlessness! That results in confusion and chaos, as the politically correct faction are promoting. We older sled dogs who held to our religious God-fearing (reverential) convictions are quickly being outnumbered by the liberals and the Muslims, and soon, there is coming a day when that will result in very bloody and bitter fruit…due to ignorance…and following the pack. For the record, I’m not racist nor do I hate ANYBODY! I don’t like the idea that our governmental leaders are too stupid and blind (if they are) to allow our enemies to flood unabated into our countries. In my province, in the news today, a 75 year old couple are being deported because they erred on a minor immigration point many years ago! Another friend of mine had her passport application denied because on it, she said her hair was gray; it’s white now. All they had to do was look at this woman’s picture on the document and they would know it was her! We have to have all kinds of documentation to prove who we are, but our enemies do not! That is a major conspiracy that is going to gravely affect us all! And, I’m very literal about that!

            I, and many others, still hold to the literal interpretation of the Holy Bible because proper hermeneutics (interpretation) demands it. When I see it literally coming to pass, I’m wise to continue with my literal interpretation, wouldn’t you say so? In light of what I just said in my previous paragraph, I can see Rev. 20: 4 coming to pass LITERALLY…beheading for one’s faith. By the way, those who do not embrace the barbaric and culture of the Dark Ages will also be beheaded. It’s all in the Qur’an, which I have; there’s nothing peaceful about it anywhere, and people all over the world are embracing these people and their way of doing things. One may call this, “evolution”, but I and many others call this clever societal engineering, planned genocide.

            For many years, there was a faction of Christendom that got away from the basics, as humanism and secularism crept into the Church, and they allegorized almost everything in the book, trying to avoid God’s judgment of them. By doing this, they fell heir to it, and that judgment is closer than most would dare to believe. That’s a long answer to your short question, but I like to cover all the bases.

          • Netizen_James

            No, that’s simply false. When we talk of ‘the theory of gravity’, that’s not talking about a speculation that hasn’t been proved. We we talk of ‘germ theory’, that’s not a speculation that hasn’t been proved either.

            Evolutionary theory is in the same place as gravitation theory and germ theory and the heliocentric theory. These are models of reality based on so much data that it would be perverse to deny them.

            “The formal scientific definition of “theory” is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)…One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.” (US National Academy of Science)

        • HelenaConstantine

          You just don’t know anything about science. A Theory is the best available explanation, the one that explains all the facts (otherwise it would be called a hypothesis, not a theory). there isn’t another theory about the origin and development of life besides evolution. Saying that a supernatural being created life through magic is not a theory, or even a hypothesis. There is no evidence that magic or the supernatural exist.

          • Skywatcher57

            I strongly disagree, Helena! Have you ever loved or been loved? If so, then you have experienced God: The Holy Bible says, “God is love”; He is so emphatic about us knowing who and what He is that He told us twice in I John Chp. 4: vs. 8, 9: “God is love”…pure and unconditional love.

            There is all kinds of evidence as I’ve already given to Amy; check it out! It’s all around and within your own body! Sadly, more of you believe in a calorie, something you cannot see, than you do in God who has given you the spark of life and your emotions to boot! You can believe you came from some lifeless rock; I’ll believe that I am the product of a very loving and creative God! End of story!

          • AlienFactor

            If he is so emphatic abot us knowing him, why doesn’t he just show up every now and then to help out in times of dire need, when intervention would help the most? Because he can’t.

            An really, you have not offered up a single piece of evidence, anywhere, to either prove god and creation or to disprove any science.

          • Skywatcher57

            That’s a very good question! He DID show up, and that’s why we celebrate Christmas and Easter…you know…those two holy days you get paid for that you don’t believe in. You see, even if you are correct, and the world possesses a few lunatics, the whole world couldn’t possibly be deceived by the same lie! Further to that, people wouldn’t be willing to lay their lives down for a lie, would you? We have the historical accounts of Christ’s ministry, crucifixion, death, and resurrection. We also have historical accounts as to how the Apostles died in defense of their faith in Christ. In fact, a Jewish Roman historian by the name of Josephus wrote about him at great length, as did other historians.

            Part 2 of my answer is, why would God want to stay where He’s not wanted? Where He’s been literally kicked out and replaced with paganism and evil? He DOES show up for those of us who are members of His family, because daily, we invite Him to do so. He is a perfect gentleman, and will only stay where invited and welcome. Don’t believe me? Try Him out and see!

            Let’s say Christians are wrong about their beliefs, theoretically speaking of course, enjoying miracles and blessings along the way… then why is it so important for non-Christians to want to exterminate and to mock and persecute them? Why not just let them live and let live, as you folks desire? I’ll tell you why…we have the truth, and rather than accept the truth that there is a Judgment Day coming, it is easier and more popular to try to decry that fact, so one can continue living a life of debauchery and / or self-servience without repercussion, so they theorize.

            You see, AlienFactor, if we didn’t have the truth, you wouldn’t be wasting your time arguing with us, trying to prove something that is impossible to prove.

            I’ve proven my point much more than you even attempted to prove yours! The Holy Bible says, “God is love”, I John 4: ver.8, 16. Only a fool would say love doesn’t exist! If you’ve ever experienced love on any level, you’ve experienced God. Love and morality don’t just suddenly evolve from a chamber pot of slurry or any other material matter. It has to have an origin.

          • Bob Johnson

            “Further to that, people wouldn’t be willing to lay their lives down for a lie, would you? ”

            Does this mean that ISIS has the Truth? Many warriors have died for their belief.

          • Skywatcher57

            To Whom it may concern,

            I’ve been frozen out of my account because I inadvertently mistyped my email address. How do I correct this, please?

            Thomas

          • Bob Johnson

            try this – https (colon) //help (dot) bdisqus (dot) com/customer/portal/articles/920909-login-help

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you were frozen out of your account, how did you post that here??

          • Skywatcher57

            You’ll never believe this…God answered prayer!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Heh, I suppose I should have known you might say that.

          • Bob Johnson

            Typical. I provide a link and God gets the credit.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Amen

          • Skywatcher57

            He answers my prayers all the time, and that’s one of the reasons I stand up so vigorously for Him. He’s truly fantastic! In fact, I could go so far as to say, He’s really right out of this world! Pun intended. Blessings!

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Blessings to you. Good pun.

          • AlienFactor

            Christmas and Easter have their roots in pagan celebrations that the early church co-opted in order to entice more people to join. Yhey could follow this new religion and still keep their old traditions.

            It is important to recognize this, as it leads to the next level of understanding Christianity. Every aspect of your religion has been manioulated by man, to serve man’s purposes. Whether it was which stories to include or exclude, which translation to adopt, which ritual and celebration to follow – or not. It is all man-made.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You see, even if you are correct, and the world possesses a few lunatics, the whole world couldn’t possibly be deceived by the same lie! Further to that, people wouldn’t be willing to lay their lives down for a lie, would you?

            Look at it this way: There are a multitude of different religions, often with very contrasting ideas about things. If I, as an atheist, am right and all of them are wrong, or if you as a Christian are right and all but one are wrong, either way there’s a lot of people out there, billions at least, who are wrong. Or to put it another way, there are at least 3 billion people in the world in religions other than Christianity. Do you have a problem with believing they are all wrong?

            Love and morality don’t just suddenly evolve from a chamber pot of slurry or any other material matter. It has to have an origin.

            It seems quite logical to me that both love and morality evolved for purposes of the preservation of life. Love, because it promotes attachments to mates and family and offspring, and morality because it promotes stable societies, which people thrive in. I mean, try to imagine if humans had never had any love or any morality. I think we wouldn’t have lasted too long.

          • Netizen_James

            You don’t need to ‘believe in’ a calorie – a calorie is just a unit of measurement.

            A calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise 1g of water 1 degree Celsius (4.1868 joules). The calorie measurements you see on nutrition labels are actually Kilocalories, indicated by the capital C.

            No, there is no objective empirical evidence for any sort of deity, more less specifically for YHWH the God of Abraham and Isaac who is worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. No, love is just an emotion – an instinctual drive presenting to our conscious mind. Neither life nor emotions are due to any supernatural or ephemeral spirit in the sky. These are both perfectly mundane physical phenomena.

            There’s no evidence of a worldwide flood, no evidence of Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, no evidence of an exodus, no evidence of a Passover, no evidence for Adam and Eve, no evidence for ‘original sin’, and thus no need for a ‘Savior’. It’s all just myths. You’re welcome to them – no worries there. Everyone has a right to believe whatever damnfool myths they’d like. But don’t push them on my children using my taxdollars. That’s just wrong. Do you want your public school teachers telling *your* kids that if they don’t behave, they’ll get reincarnated into insects? No? Then perhaps it time for some of that ‘doing unto others as you would have others do unto you’ business. Or do you think that there are *exceptions* to Jesus’ Golden Rule?

          • Skywatcher57

            You talk so very eloquently about those things you obviously know nothing about. Try telling the people of the Middle East that their very carefully kept history isn’t evidence of those things you’ve mentioned above! They’d laugh you to scorn! Secular history books of the past, prior to Darwin’s involvement all spoke of these events as very real with substantiated events and physical and scientific evidence. I’m out of here, Neitzen; I have a life to live. I’m getting dizzy from all the circular thinking that has gone on here, and NOT one of you answered my question, “Where did matter, life, emotion, and morality come from? Even for science, there has to be a Law Giver, to set the laws of nature into play…So long!

      • DrIndica

        Every morning I meditate on at least three things to be “HAPPY” about, and have still never seen any empirical confirmation of a supernatural deity.

    • Ken

      They are only happy when making someone else unhappy.

      There’s a name for that.

  • bowie1

    The Ebenezer Scrooge of Atheism have spoken…you must not question the orthodoxy of evolution or else you will burn in the atheist hell (read: lawsuits)!! I was under the impression science was about asking questions!

    • james blue

      It is perfectly acceptable to question evolution, but it has to be scientific, not faith based questioning.

    • Reason2012

      Anti-science like fish to mankind evolution needs such tactics to defend it, actual science does not.

    • Tangent002 ✓

      “There is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans may have coexisted” (false).

      That’s not a question, that’s indoctrination.

  • james blue

    Well that teacher chose the wrong class to teach. Creationism no more belongs in a science class that the theory of evolution belongs in a theology class

    • Drake

      Except that evolutionism is a religious belief, not a scientific one. It requires blind faith to accept evolution since nobody has ever seen it happen, and it cannot be shown to occur in a laboratory. The only evidence for evolution is Hollywood movies, cartoons, drawings, and false assertions.

      • james blue

        Sigh

      • Netizen_James

        That’s simply false. We have observed speciation as a result of selection pressure both in the laboratory and in the wild. We have SEEN evolution in action.
        It’s real, it’s true, it’s science – get used to it.

        • Drake

          ‘Speciation’
          is NOT the same as Darwinian evolution – whereby an animal of one kind
          changes into an animal of another kind (ie dogs to whales; theropods to
          birds). Not all things termed ‘evolution’ are equal.

          Consider that after 100+ years of fruit fly study (speciation in the lab), the resulting variants are incapable of surviving in the wild – they cannot compete with unaltered fruit flies. Unaltered fruit flies won’t even cross-breed with the altered ones, so they can only survive in the laboratory. So much for ‘survival of the fittest’. There is a limit to how many mutations a genetic system can tolerate, and virtually all mutations are detrimental.

          • Bob Johnson

            Sigh

          • Drake

            Consider this: If fruit fly studies had shown what they’d hoped for, namely that they can create a whole new kind of superfly by simple selective breeding, it would have been all over the news ages ago, and in every textbook to this day. A process for adding only beneficial mutations through selective breeding is not viable due to the laws of thermodynamics.

          • MarkSebree

            And which laws of Thermodynamics are you referring to? They primarily state that they only apply to closed systems, and the Earth is NOT a closed system. It has gigawatt of energy being poured into it every second of every day from the Sun and the rest of the universe.

            Additionally, the Laws of Thermodynamics do allow for regions of decreased entropy (increased order), so long as the closed system as a whole does not decrease in entropy

          • Drake

            Is a fruit fly a closed system? No, but it IS a system of interlocking systems that are also each comprised of interlocking subsystems. All those systems and subsystems work together in such a way that if you alter one of them, it throws off the rest, impeding the functionality of some attribute necessary to the viability of the fruit fly. All the genes of fruit flies come from viable fruit fly parents, and their parents, and their parents, and so on up the line. Where does something other than a fruit fly produce fruit fly genes? And if a fruit fly produced genes that were NOT fruit fly genes, that would be a mutant, and not viable.

            There are some really sad but informative videos on Youtube that show what happened to children born after Chernobyl, and the horrible mutations they experienced. If you want to argue a closed system vs. an open system, that is a moot point. Conclusive evidence shows that mutations are bad, and populations don’t thrive when they predominate.

    • Please formulate a repeatable test for evolution to prove that it’s science. Thank you.

      • Richard Forrest

        Take a population of organisms and examine their genetic makeup.
        Subject them to environmental stress over many generations.
        Examine the genetic makeup of the resultant populations.

        If there is a change, evolution by natural selection has occurred. That is using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it.

        It’s been done over and over again. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the subject,

        No matter how much you may wish it otherwise, evolution is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory. If that contradicts your religious dogma, perhaps you should examine the epistemological basis of your beliefs.

      • james blue

        Sigh

  • Michael C

    [FFRF] submitted the complaint to the Hickman Mills C-1 School District after being informed that a seventh grade science teacher at Smith-Hale Middle School had been teaching a young earth and other beliefs adhered to by Christians,.

    Yeah, no.

    Young earth creationism is not a belief system required by Christianity. There are millions of Christians who have an understanding of the science behind the the accepted age of the earth and how evolution works. These Christians believe that God created the universe and everything in it and they accept that the universe is billions of years old and all life on earth has evolved over the course of billions of years. They believe both.

    Christianity and scientific understanding are not in opposition to each other. …unless you want them to be.

    • Drake

      Sadly, many Christians are indeed compromised in their beliefs.

  • Reason2012

    The ‘dates” by atheists continue to be shown to be an absolute farce. For example, soft tissues and remains of red blood cells continue to be found on fossils “dated” hundreds of millions of years old, proving they instead can only be thousands of years old.

    Not to mention science shows that evolution doesn’t do what fish to mankind evolutionists demand it does. it’s observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that evolution there are barriers evolution stays within. For example that no matter how many generations go by (in the lab or in nature): ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria, canines remain canines, felines remain felines and many more such barriers.

    Scientists should be trying to find out why there are barriers that evolution cannot cross and try to define these factual barriers. Instead, fish to mankind evolutionists throw out science on the matter to instead give reasons to *believe* there are NO barriers, then call their reasons to believe “evidence”, which is really anti-science.

    Science is perfectly compatible with belief that God did what He said He did – the only conflict is atheists that push their anti-science belief systems off as science when they are shown to contradict science.

    • Raygun Mike

      Wow! You actually managed to miss the mark on everything you just said.
      I especially liked the bit where you claim its the atheists pushing anti-science belief systems. Please, please, please read some real science books and stop trying to dumb down others with this nonsense.

    • Chris Hall

      You can rail against evolution all you want, but the only way you are ever going to replace it is by coming up with a better theory. By better I mean the new theory will have to make more accurate predictions and explain the evidence we do have more satisfactorily than the theory of evolution. The Biblical creation story simply doesn’t do that.

      • Reason2012

        I never said a word about God. Belief in God has nothing to do with the fact that fish to mankind evolution is anti-science – but it does have to do with why some push this anti-science fish to mankind belief system: their obvious need to try attacking the truth of God, which they show by bringing up God when others do not.

        So no, throwing out science to instead push a fish to mankind belief system does not require we come up with a “better” anti-science belief than fish to mankind evolution. It just requires that fish to mankind evolution be exposed for the anti-science it is, and that science be restored, coming up with theories as to why evolution can only function withing certain factual barriers – barriers that are observable, repeatable, verifiable – a.k.a., science.

        • Chris Hall

          I’ve never heard of any experiment that has shown that these barriers exist, could you point me at some of the papers?

          • Drake

            Genetic barriers do exist. You might be interested in Geep research (these are goat-sheep chimeras) that show that DNA from different species is immiscible – parts of the animal have sheep DNA and parts have goat, but there is no true blend of the animals. And the animals can breed, but only produce sheep or goat offspring based on the DNA of their sex organs.

          • Chris Hall

            These chimeras are artificially created hybrids with all sorts of weird characteristics, I don’t see how that relates to what we are discussing. When goats and sheep do mate “naturally” the offspring is generally not viable, and rarely when they are I’d be stunned if it were fertile due to the differing chromosomal count.

            Nobody is claiming that new species arise due to unrelated animals mating and forming new species, that’s not how speciation works. New species arise when populations of animals become genetically isolated and over time drift apart, lots of time means lots of differences with no evidence of some magical barrier stopping the drift.

          • Drake

            I wasn’t referring to speciation specifically. Speciation occurs- but it occurs through the loss of genetic information over time. The example is used to show that the actual genes themselves are not compatible between animals, and this is evidence that Darwinian evolution cannot be taking place. Further evidence of genetic barriers has been discussed in great detail in the book ‘Genetic Entropy’ by Sanford, which talks at length about accumulated mutations and Haldane’s Dilemma. A very interesting read.

          • Richard Forrest

            Speciation occurs- but it occurs through the loss of genetic information over time.
            Really? And on what scientific evidence do you base this assertion which is flatly contradicted by any competent biologist.
            The example is used to show that the actual genes themselves are not compatible between animals,
            Really? And on what scientific evidence do you base this assertion which is flatly contradicted by any competent biologist. Are you just making this up? We share most of our genes with our closest relatives. In what way does that support your assertion that they are not “compatible”?
            . A very interesting read.
            No doubt, but have you bothered to find out how the scientific community have responded to Sanford? Read their critiques of his book? Made the effort by educating yourself in the subject to find out if those critiques are valid?

          • Drake

            So what you are doing is stating that someone who disagrees with you cannot be a ‘competent biologist’. Seems you’ve already made up your mind, but close-mindedness isn’t very scientific.

          • Richard Forrest

            No, I’m asking you to provide evidence that you are correct and the textbooks and all those scientists are wrong.

            That’s not closed-mindedness, it’s common sense.

            I await with bated breath the evidence which supports your assertion that speciation occurs though “loss of genetic information” and that genes are not compatible between animals, (which will come as a great surprise to the geneticists who regularly insert genes from one animal into another without ill effects).

            Making unfounded assertions you are unable to support is not much of an argument.

          • Drake

            All you need to do is look at the 100+ years of fruit fly studies. Yes, they can alter the genetic structure of fruit flies through inbreeding and radiation & etc., but the resultant mutated flies cannot compete with unaltered flies. They can only continue to exist in the lab under controlled conditions.

            Wolves or coyotes to pet dogs is another example. You can breed for desirable characteristics, and over time wind up with variants such as poodles, terriers, or chihuahuas. But AKC purebreds lack the genetic information to make wolves, and purebreds can’t compete with wolves or coyotes in the wild.

            Both of the above are examples of limitations of speciation. On the extreme side, dogs do not have the genetic information necessary to construct feathers or flukes.

          • Richard Forrest

            No, those are demonstrations that if you alter the genetic make-up of populations of organisms in way which reduces their fitness in respect of the environment from which you took the population, they won’t thrive.

            “But AKC purebreds lack the genetic information to make wolves,”

            Really? And the evidence from which you draw this conclusion is…?

            Dogs have a rather large genome, a consequence of the duplication of their entire genome in their evolutionary history. This is a phenomenon called polyploidy. That gives them a bigger set of genes to play with when it comes to generating variation, and is the reason why dogs are significantly more morphologically diverse than cats. This is also why, if domesticated dogs become feral they revert rather quickly to a more ancestral form.

            I suggest that you need to learn something about genetics rather than accepting uncritically what you read in creationist sources.

            Now, how about answering my question rather than attempting a side-track.

            To remind you, that would be “the evidence which supports your assertion that speciation occurs though “loss of genetic information” and that genes are not compatible between animals, (which will come as a great surprise to the geneticists who regularly insert genes from one animal into another without ill effects).”

          • Drake

            You wrote: “No, those are demonstrations that if you alter the genetic make-up of
            populations of organisms in way which reduces their fitness in respect
            of the environment from which you took the population, they won’t
            thrive.” So, can you show how to alter the genetic make-up of populations of organisms in any way that ENHANCES their fitness in respect of that environment? I can think of ways that enhance a population in one way, but in every such case, there is always a detrimental side effect in some other way. (A simplistic example is that you can’t step on nails and get tetanus {benefit} if you have no feet and must always sit in a wheelchair {detriment}.)

            “To remind you, that would be “the evidence which supports your assertion
            that speciation occurs though “loss of genetic information” ” – this was directly addressed by the fact that you can breed wolves to poodles, but you can’t breed poodles to get wolves.

            “genes are not compatible between animals” – ok, this is a little more challenging. Definitions are needed here. By compatibility, I specifically mean through the natural breeding process. Sheep and goats may have mixed offspring (mules), but there are natural genetic barriers that prevent these offspring from having reproductive viability. Also, you can insert genes from one species into another, but again, those genes are not carried to subsequent generations without limit – they become recessive, diluted, and dormant since the original population didn’t need them to begin with (why keep what you never use?). From there it is a natural step to lead into Haldane’s dilemma, but no doubt that would be another rabbit trail.

            As far as polyploidy genetic traits go, why do dogs have that benefit and not cats? Are cats inferior? If so, why are there still cats, if ‘survival of the fittest’ holds? Since you bring up this difference, it seems rather profound to me that these factors would be exhibited in one branch of the supposed evolutionary tree but not another. How can you say that dogs and cats had a common ancestor, as evolution infers?

            Perhaps it is you that accepts evolution without thinking critically about the numerous problems it has.

          • Richard Forrest

            I can think of ways that enhance a population in one way, but in every such case, there is always a detrimental side effect in some other way.
            …and the evidence you have to support this assertion is…?

            that speciation occurs though “loss of genetic information” ” – this was directly addressed by the fact that you can breed wolves to poodles, but you can’t breed poodles to get wolves.

            You need to learn the difference between and unfounded assertion and evidence. Where is the research, carried out by geneticists (who are after all the people who actually study such processes) which concludes that speciation occurs through “loss of genetic information”?

            Also, you can insert genes from one species into another, but again, those genes are not carried to subsequent generations without limit –
            Actually, there is plenty fo evidence which contradicts this assertion. Why not learn about it from non-creationist sources? We have crops whose yield in improved by the insertion of genes which are stable over many generations.

            As far as polyploidy genetic traits go, why do dogs have that benefit and not cats? Are cats inferior?
            No, they are different.
            f so, why are there still cats, if ‘survival of the fittest’ holds?
            Because evolution is a process which leads to the increase in diversity of life., It is not a linear process. Read a basic textbook on the subject!

            Perhaps it is you that accepts evolution without thinking critically about the numerous problems it has
            …writes someone clearly utterly ignorant of the subject!

          • Drake

            You say: “You need to learn the difference between and unfounded assertion and evidence.” But what you don’t realize is that every assertion you make also needs to have evidence to support it. You say that there is evidence to support it. Do I take you at face value and assume that you are correct? That would be blind faith.

      • LynnRH

        It does if you believe in the Holy Word of God. True Christians believe by faith because He says to. And that is all that matters to me.

        • Richard Forrest

          Nothing to do with science then. Glad we’re clear about that, though its somewhat ironic that you communicating your rejection of science on a device made possible by its findings.

    • Richard Forrest

      The ‘dates” by atheists continue to be shown to be an absolute farce.
      What about the dates derived from the evidence by scientists who believe in God, and who believe that God does not lie in his creation?
      For example, soft tissues and remains of red blood cells continue to be found on fossils “dated” hundreds of millions of years old, proving they instead can only be thousands of years old.
      And the scientist who first made this discovery is a Christian who does not question the age of the earth uncovered by science, and is hurt by the lies creationists promote about her findings.
      Not to mention science shows that evolution doesn’t do what fish to mankind evolutionists demand it does. i
      Actually, it does. We have several different strands of evidence which all lead to the same conclusions about human ancestry. Try educating yourself in the subject.
      For example the observable, repeatable, verifiable fact that no matter how many generations go by (in the lab or in nature): ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria, canines remain canines, felines remain felines and many more such barriers.
      ..and if you did educate yourself in the subject you’d know that this demonstrated only your utter ignorance. The nested hierarchy of life was discovered long before there was any scientific explanation for why living organisms could be organised in such a way. That’s why humans are apes, primates, mammals, synapsids, tetrapods, lobe-finned fish, craniates, eukaryotes and so on.

      Scientists should be trying to find out why there are barriers that evolution can only work within and try to define these factual barriers.
      Scientist know perfectly well that the evolution of populations of organisms is constrained by their genetic inheritance and the rates of incidence of mutation and other sources of variation such as lateral gene transfer. There’s a huge body of literature on the subject.

      Educate yourself.

      Instead, fish to mankind evolutionists throw out science on the matter to instead give reasons to *believe* there are NO barriers, then call their reasons to believe “evidence”, which is really anti-science.

      ..and if you did, you’d realise that you have been lied to by creationists not just about evolutionary biology but of the nature of science in general.

      Science is perfectly compatible with belief that God did what He said He did – the only conflict is atheists that push their anti-science belief systems off as science when they are shown to contradict science.

      This is a flat (and frankly dishonest) inversion of what is actually happening. Creationists are demanding that science supports their religious dogma and that it should be taught as science in science classes. At the same time they are demanding that we should redefine the fundamental nature of science to accommodate the supernatural, and for no reason other than that they can claim scientific support for their dogma.

      This is an issue of science not because that is what scientists (regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of them) demand, but because that is what creationists demand. The fact – as is evidenced by your post – that they can promoted their claims only by lying to their adherents demonstrates only the moral bankruptcy of their cause.

      • Reason2012

        Notice you haven’t refuted a single thing. You just repeat “Creationist” “Educate yourself” and other ad hominem, and offer up reasons to throw out science and believe fish to mankind evolution anyway.

        I’ll stick with science.

        Whether one believes in God or not, it’s observable, repeatable, verifiable fact (in the lab or in nature) that no matter how many generations go by: ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, bacteria remains bacteria and many more such barriers. I.e., fact that evolution doesn’t do what evolutionits claim it does, but instead somehow can only work within certain boundaries.

        Evolutionists throw this out and instead demand there are NO boundaries and can only give reasons to believe in that anti-science instead.

        Science deals with things that actually happen (for example: objects dropping to the ground, diseases spreading, matter affecting matter) – then theories about HOW that might be happening. Right or wrong, that’s science. Evolutionists twist science to be about things that do NOT happen, that contradict what DOES happen, then just offer up reasons to believe in that anti-science instead and hope no one notices. Then they attack God, belief in God, or Christians, as if that has something to do with it when it doesn’t. Ad hominem is all they can fall back on, which just yet again shows how anti-science they truly are, on top of anti-God emotional hate as they can’t seem to avoid expressing that as well when it has nothing to do with the topic.

        • Richard Forrest

          Advising someone to educate themselves is not ‘ad hominem’. it is a perfectly reasonable response to ignorance.

          I’ll stick with science.
          Then I suggest that you start by reading some textbooks on science. Start with those related to the field of biology.

          ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, bacteria remains bacteria and many more such barriers. I.e., fact that evolution doesn’t do what evolutionits claim it does, but instead somehow can only work within certain boundaries.
          Quite so, and if they did not it would falsify evolutionary theory!

          This is the sort of ignorance which makes me suggest that you educate yourself.

          Evolution is constrained by the ancestry of the organism: it can only occur by the accumulated changes to the genetic makeup of populations, and in that process most of the genotype remains unchanged. That’s why we share 98% of our genes with our closest relatives, and a decreasing proportion the more distant the common ancestry. That’s why are primates, placentals, mammals, synapsids, tetrapods and fish. Its called a nested hierarchy, and was discovered long before there was any scientific explanation for why living organisms can be classified in this way.

          Evolutionists throw this out and instead demand there are NO boundaries and can only give reasons to believe in that anti-science instead.
          So can you give me an example of an “evolutionist” making such an assertion? Or do we simply have to take your word for it?

          Science deals with things that actually happen (for example: objects dropping to the ground, diseases spreading, matter affecting matter) – then theories about HOW that might be happening.
          Quite so.The genetic makeup of populations of organisms change under selective pressures (and for other reasons), a phenomenon for which the term “evolution” was coined by the scientists who study it. Evolutionary theory provides explanations for how this happens. As is the case with all theories in all fields of science it is subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands.

          Evolutionists twist science to be about things that do NOT happen, that contradict what DOES happen, then just offer up reasons to believe in that anti-science instead and hope no one notices
          And can you provide an example of an “evolutionist” referring to something which doesn’t happen, or do we yet again simply have to take your word for it?

          Then they attack God, belief in God, or Christians, as if that has something to do with it when it doesn’t.
          i suggest that if they attack God or belief in God it’s a response to people claiming such beliefs demanding that their religious dogma be taught as science in science classes. This of course ignores the evolutionary biologists who have strong religious beliefs, and see no contradiction between their scientific findings and their beliefs.

          Ad hominem is all they can fall back on, which just yet again shows how anti-science they truly are, on top of anti-God emotional hate as they can’t seem to avoid expressing that as well when it has nothing to do with the topic.
          Writes someone who has gone right off the topic into a rant against atheists and “evolutionists” rather than offering any support for his accusations of deceit against others.

          • Reason2012

            Quite so, and if they did not it would falsify evolutionary theory!

            Yet they DO claim populations of fish ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into amphibians, things we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            So can you give me an example of an “evolutionist” making such an assertion?

            So you now pretend they did not claim there was one life form and it’s the ancestor of all life, that there are no boundaries to evolution?

            That populations of fish in the past did not evolve over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish: amphibians?

            That populations of amphibians in the past did not evolve over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider amphibians: reptiles?

            That populations of reptiles in the past did not evolve over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider reptiles: mammals?

            I suggest you read up on what they are claiming before you try to defend it – unless you’re being dishonest on purpose to deceive, which is really par for the course for evolutionists.

            In either case, thank you for proving my point.

          • Richard Forrest

            Try reading for comprehension rather than jumping to conclusions. Amphibians are, biologically speaking, fish. Humans are fish – and try reading Niel schubin’s “Your inner fish” for a good account of the evidence from which this conclusion is reached. Learn what the term ‘nested hierarchy’ means.

            We have an excellent transitional series of fossils representing the evolution of tetrapods from lobe-finned fish. Read Jenny Clack’s “Gaining Ground” for an excellent description of these fossils.

            Making unfounded accusations of dishonesty against others doesn’t add weight to your arguments. It doesn’t make you look particularly honest either.

        • Netizen_James

          just because you don’t understand science, or what ‘species’ means is no reason for you to cast insults and aspersions on those who do.

  • Reason2012

    Proof the Earth cannot be anywhere near as old as atheists need it to be.

    #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

    #2 Bent Rock Layers

    #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

    #4 Faint Sun Paradox

    #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

    #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

    #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

    #8 Short-Lived Comets

    #9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

    #10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

    1) Net gain of 19 billion tons of sediment per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would only need a few million years, not billions of years.

    2) Rock doesn’t bend, it cracks and breaks. Yet rock layers of the same thickness, thousands of feet thick, that evolutionists claim each layer took millions of years to be deposited are BENT, not cracked or broken.

    3) It’s scientific fact that red blood cells cannot survive more than a few thousand years. Yet they find them in bones mistakenly claimed to be tens of millions of years old, proving those bones are merely thousands of years old.

    4) The sun is getting hotter, meaning it was much cooler in the past, too cool at the ages evolutionists claim for life to have been possible on earth.

    5) The strength of the magnetic field has been decaying overall – the earliest records are only 1820’s or so. As some put it “Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today.” This alone puts the age of the earth at best to be 20,000 years.

    6) Helium defuses so rapidly there would be no helium after, at most, 100,000 years, more so in hot areas where it defuses even faster. The deepest and therefore the hottest zircons (387 degrees F) contained far more helium than expected. All measurements are in agreement that all the helium should have leaked out long before now in the claimed age of the universe.

    7) The Earth was not supposedly formed when the imagined big bang happened. After a few hundred thousands of years, with a half life of 5,730 years, there should be none left, yet it’s found in abundance in “ancient” fossils.

    8) Comets burn up merely being anywhere near a sun, not just entering in an atmosphere. Scientists know comets cannot last millions of years, so they invent “oort clouds” as one “rescue device” where these imagined clouds make new comets.

    9) Again an imagined “the land became sea and vice versa” as a rescue-device, realizing the salt accumulation in the oceans would mean we could now walk across the oceans because the salt would be so thick.

    10) DNA breaks down quickly even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree it should not last more than a million years. Yet we find it in bacteria dated at 250 MILLION years. (A false dating of at LEAST 250 times the true date).

    What’s so interesting is every single time evidence refutes evolutionists beliefs about the age of the universe, they make it clear they have no intentions of ever abandoning their made up claims of the age of the universe as proven by them never even being willing to consider if they are wrong, but instead assume the evidence must be wrong and hence they fabricate rescue devices over and over and over again.

    • Amy

      The scientists disagree with you!

      • LynnRH

        I bet God doesn’t and He’s the only One that will matter in the end! LOL

        • Amy

          Which God?

          • The only one who exists and proved He exists numerous times, particularly in sending His Son, Jesus, a Person of the Trinity, to live as a human, die on a cross at Calvary, be buried, but be resurrected to full life three days later.

          • Amy

            We have no evidence that your specific Christian deity was ever resurrected. We know from medical science that this is impossible.

          • Skywatcher57

            Amy, we have lots of historical, geographical, and archaeological evidence. In fact, until recently, our calendars were marked “BC” (Before Christ) and “AD” (After Death) which proved this. Where do you think medical science and all other sciences came from ? Where do you think the brains came from to discover such sciences? God, that’s Who. Seeing that God was more than able to speak the worlds into place, why couldn’t He resurrect on the third day, to prove to us that He was God? He loved you that much, Amy, that He took YOUR sins upon Himself as well as your punishment, so you could have eternal life. That’s quite the Creator, I’d say! He loved me too, despite all my warts, wrinkles, and imperfections, and He’s never EVER let me down. He’s truly a remarkable person to get to know and to love! You should take HIm out for a test run and see how He really is! After getting to know Him for a little while, you’ll soon discover that with God, all things truly are possible!

          • ZappaSaid88

            “..our calendars were marked “BC” (Before Christ) and “AD” (After Death) ” – Our calendars have Thursday (Thors Day) as well, I guess Thor is a real god too. BTW, AD means anno domine (the year of our lord). it kind of undermines your already poor argument.

          • Bob Johnson

            Also , Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday – the Norse gods exists.

          • Blue

            Don’t forget Sunday, Monday and Saturday. By Skywatcher’s logic, clearly, we should be worshipping the Sun, Moon and Saturn as gods.

          • Skywatcher57

            Thanks, for lending more credibility to my already very credible statement, by clarifying the “AD!”! I’m glad that you too, recognize the “AD” meaning “the year of our Lord”. Just what “Lord” do you think that was referring to? I only know of one God called “Lord”. The other days of our week are named after false Roman / pagan gods, but that doesn’t make them real!

          • Blue

            Saying BC makes Jesus real, but saying Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday does not make Tui, Woden or Thor real? Wow

          • Skywatcher57

            I didn’t say that at all!

          • Amy

            The naming of our calender’s is a cultural event and is not evidence towards a being outside our Universe. Current science comes mostly from the enlightenment era when we discovered methods of testing our results. The brain is an organ in the body that allows the organism is work in macro landscapes.

            I really have no idea what a ‘God’ is because it makes no sense. Why would a man outside time and space want to have a relationship with me? If he did why was he so bad at communication that he had to use thousand year old books? Do you also not also see that someone speaking to you about an after life sounds like a cult? I do not mean that as an insult but that is what you sound like.

            If your deity was all powerful get his butt down here for some empirical testing. If time means nothing to ‘him’ then he should be able to fit it into his busy schedule.

          • “Why would a man outside time and space want to have a relationship with me?”

            Because He created you.

            “why was he so bad at communication that he had to use thousand year old books?”

            Because He didn’t need anything more after them.

            “If your deity was all powerful get his butt down here for some empirical testing.”

            God’s not a guinea pig and trust me, you DO NOT want Him to “get his butt down here” if you are an unrepentant sinner.

          • Amy

            Why would a being outside time and space create us?

            If he is bad at communicating then clearly he does not want a relationship.

            Well, I can not force a deity to exist. I guess if he ever feels like appearing he will so but until then he will stay in the fictional section.

          • BTW, please explain to me how to empirically test goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution. Let’s get some dinosaurs in here to be empirically tested!

          • Amy

            We have their fossils as well as their living ancestors birds! If we had that for a deity it would be a different ball game.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            . In fact, until recently, our calendars were marked “BC” (Before Christ) and “AD” (After Death) which proved this

            The only thing that that proves is that the people who came up with those calendars were Christians.

            For what it’s worth, I’m an atheist, and I use BC and AD.

          • Skywatcher57

            Too bad you don’t know history a little better. It wasn’t Christians who came up with the Gregorian calendar, it was pagans, Pope Gregory.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            As an atheist, I don’t get into the games of “so-and-so are REAL Christians, and so-and-so aren’t.” I don’t really care. Someone calls themselves a member of a certain religion, good enough for me.

          • Enniscorthy

            If he’s a Pope, clearly he wasn’t a pagan. Duh.

          • What is impossible for man is possible for God. We have the evidence of multiple testimonies to that resurrection by people who would not recant, even under penalty of death, what you claim is a lie.

          • Amy

            There is no reason for your ‘God’ to exist. Sentience seems to be a rare occurrence needed by some forms of multi-cellular life. Willing to die for a belief does not make it more valid.

          • Ed Collins

            Ya – and Superman is real ’cause I read it in a book.

          • Was that book actually a collection of multiple books by different authors who were imprisoned and/or executed to defend what they wrote about? No? Didn’t think so.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Amen

      • OldBut YoungMoney

        “Durr, science disagrees with you.” Really? That’s all you have to say? What do you say to prove someone wrong when they say science disagrees with YOU? Do you just say “no”? WOW, I’m impressed. LOL, you need to learn how to elaborate.

        • Amy

          He used a copy pasted link of conspiracy theories. Natural selection is the random mutation of genes with selection by the environment. Would love to know a better framework for biology.

          • tnelsond

            Random mutation of genes to get the information necessary to go from singlecelled life to man would take trillions of miracles. Selection works great when the information is already there,, but harmful mutations are way way more likely than beneficial ones. Natural selection is fighting an uphill battle.

          • Amy

            A miracle would be someone turning water into wine. Those type of magic tricks can not be explained by science. Single celled life becoming multicellular took billions of years worth of small changes to occur.

          • tnelsond

            I’m just saying that getting a small change that is both beneficial and an increase in information in the sense of going towards higher forms of life requires miracles because it defies probability.

          • Amy

            You can have lots of mutations that are neither beneficial nor harmful. Natural selection just picks the ones that actually do something useful.

          • Samwise

            No, small changes happen every day. Every generation of every species in the wild produces far more offspring than can survive. Each individual is genetically unique. Those with favorable variations produce more offspring on average, which means the next generation will have more of the favorable variations.

          • Skywatcher57

            Amy, something you obviously don’t know is that “single-celled” amoebas WERE single-celled in Darwin’s day because he had a very limited microscope. Technology has come a long ways since Darwin, and with telescopes MANY MORE times powerful than the one he used, they have since discovered that there are no single-celled anythings! Did you also know that Darwin confessed on his deathbed that he was sorry that he ever devised the evolutionary THEORY because it became a religion, and that was never his intent.

            By the way…natural selection NEVER produced another species; the manipulation and interference of man has! When left alone, every species reproduces “after its own kind”, just as God commanded… just as it has done now for thousands of years. Sadly, you’re the product of a number of years of successful brainwashing by the school system. I’m sure that if we had the teaching that pedophilia was normal, you’d rise up against it. So, why don’t you rise up against this deceitful THEORY that has never been proven and cannot be?

          • Amy

            The vast majority of life on this planet is single celled. Darwin had no idea about genetics but he helped discover the foundation of modern biology. There is always these tales of ‘death bed’ conversions but they are rarely accurate. Evolution is simply the random mutation of genes with selection done by the environment.

            Natural selection has produced the diversity of life we see on earth. There is no such scientific definition of a ‘kind’ only species. Meaning organisms that can mate with each other and create offspring. I am a product of pursuing higher education though evolution is the backbone of modern medical science.

            We know pedophilia is wrong because children can not consent. They imprint on their parents taking their words as trust. Morality deals with the well being of other sentient humans. None of which has to do with the theory of evolution being a fact.

          • Skywatcher57

            No, Amy, you are incorrect! Nano-biology has proven this time and time again! A cell is reliant upon other cells to help it to serve its intended purpose. The dating methods are proven over and over to be inaccurate. What do you do when a body is tested under this and the various parts of it all come up with millions of years’ difference in their age?! To a sound and logical thinker, there is something really wrong with that picture, but that is what is and has been happening all along! The studies are hidden away in vast warehouses, by hopeful hoaxsters that they will never see the light of day again! Is that honest science? NO!

            It is very easy to dismiss the truth as tales, when it upsets our world view, and I can appreciate that. Let’s put some bite into your bark…can you give me one example? I gave you one that is very well documented, Charles Darwin’s.

            Amy, if you knew the real reason for Evilution and the title of Charles Darwin’s book on the subject, you’d throw it down, burn it, and cry out with strong repentance! I don’t know what color your skin is, but here is the full title of his book: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

            His agenda was to find reasons to exterminate the undesirable “races”, which is a misnomer, as there are only two races: the Human race and the rat race! Cleverly, the evilutionists have repeatedly shortened the title of his thesis to deceive and to distract the masses for its real purpose: genocide!

            Amy, they weren’t really interested in what we’ve been taught; they were seeking reasons for eliminating whom the elite felt to be inferior. They had an agenda to create a “super race” of white, blonde, and blue-eyed people, and that’s still their agenda today! If you and I aren’t a part of that, we’re headed to destruction by our own kind! That’s not conspiracy; that’s in the title of Darwin’s thesis!

            As I said before Amy, natural selection has been influenced by man’s meddling. Zonkies (Donkey + Zebra hybrids) are not the result of natural selection; they’re the result of man’s curiosity and meddling. Every species is still bearing its own kind/species today, just as they have been for nigh unto 6,000 years.

            I feel badly that you put your faith and trust in medical science that is based upon evolutionary THEORY and cleverly perpetuated lies and censorship. You do know that a theory is something that has not been proven to be fact, right? You greatly err to put your faith in any kind or form of science that uses evolution as its basis when it cannot explain where matter, love, emotion, or laws come from! I don’t mean to be unkind, but there is no other way to say it, then to say that you are a product of successful brainwashing, void of critical thinking or the desire to really want to know the truth of the matter.

            Everything in nature, human and natural screams out there is an Intelligent Designer, and He has revealed Himself to us as “God”. One day, you will meet Him face to face, and you won’t have a chance to tell Him to get “His butt down here” for some experimental evidence gathering. He’ll be in your face, saying, “I believed in you, Amy, why couldn’t you believe in Me? I gave you all kinds of evidences but you rejected them. You rejected my love and forgiveness; now, I have to reject you. Don’t go there, Amy!

          • AlienFactor

            Look up speciation. A species separated into two distinct populations, will gradually over time develop into separate species as their allele distibutions become more and more unique to each population. That is evolution at work.

          • Amy

            Nano-technology has to deal with the scale of the silicon. There is nothing about it that would contradict our understanding of biology. You then try to switch over to dating methods which you know are accepted because of their strong peer reviewed record. There is a reason we do not teach the earth is six thousand years old and that is because there is no evidence for that claim.

            Charlies Darwin never converted to Christianity nor denied evolution. He was also for the abolishment of slavery but I have heard these apologetic all before. Your assertion that he was trying to use evolution to murder other races is vile. Not to mention ironic coming from someone who supports the bible and it’s condiment of owning slaves.

            Artificial selection is not the same as natural selection. They are often confused but dog breeds do not happen so fast within nature. Naturally these types of changes take millions of years to form.

            A theory is the highest mark within the scientific community. One uses facts to build a frame work that can be tested. Which is why understanding germs is so powerful! Though I am glad you are staring to use faith as an insult. Though you are correct in one manner; a deep brain washing has to occur to literally believe the world is 6,000 years old.

            There is no evidence for an ‘Intelligent Designer.’ All you would need to do is get him to come on down for a moment so we could examine his body. If he is such a supreme being I do know get why this would be so hard of a request? If he created some kind of test which made people believe for bad reasons then it seems like he would be a cruel evil deity that would need to be over thrown.

          • Blue

            Obviously, you have not read On the Origin of Species.

            Are you aware that language changes? Words that mean one thing in one generation can mean something different to another generation. To Darwin, “favored races” were species that prospered in the environmental niche they found themselves. It had nothing to do with human races or our use of the word 150+ years later.

            If you had read On the Origin of Species, you would know it does not mention human evolution except for one cryptic final sentence.

          • Skywatcher57

            If you had read it, you would be able to connect the dots to the Holocaust, so apart from yourself, who are you trying to fool. Henry Kissinger, a former war crimes criminal from that evil era also speaks to this. I don’t make things up, but I do listen and research a fair amount.

          • Blue

            Read it for yourself.

          • Tim Matter

            Skywatcher57- There are many more dots connecting Christian teachings to the holocaust. The church preached against the Jews from the beginning. Don’t you think centuries of anti Semitic teaching by their religion made the German people more accepting of disposing of all Jews than 80 years of hearing a new scientific theory?

          • Samwise

            “Mutation” does not mean being born with 3 arms. Mutations are just genetic variations, fur that is slightly darker or lighter, slightly better ability to get nutrients from food sources, etc. Whether any variation is beneficial depends on the environment.

          • DrIndica

            Random mutation does not explain evolution, although survival of the fittest does.

      • Skywatcher57

        No, Amy! Many scientists have been stepping forward in recent years saying, “There has to be an intelligent designer!” That also includes Richard Dawkins as of late! I don’t know how old you are, modern “science” is not credible science; it’s being manipulated and made up to meet an agenda to convince people that there is no God. The more they try to do this, the deeper they dig themselves into a hole. Today, the lies in the textbooks are being exposed at warp speed with stronger microscopes, telescopes, etc. The problem is that teachers who still possess critical thinking and strong personal conviction based on real science are being muffled and prosecuted by School Boards, funded by ignorant people who don’t know if their anus was bored, punched, or if they were formed around it!

        • Bob Johnson

          “”There has to be an intelligent designer!” That also includes Richard Dawkins as of late!”

          citation please.

          • Skywatcher57

            Check out Billy Crone’s expose` on Dinosaurs. It’s an excellent presentation on YouTube where atheist scientists and others make statements that show they are leaning strongly in the direction of the very real plausablity and necessary presence of an Intelligent Designer. This is a really exciting series that proves we still have live dinosaurs on the planet today! Check it out; you’ll be glad you did. You’ll see Richard Dawkins’ statement therein. It’s there for all to see.

          • Richard Forrest

            We do have live dinosaurs today. We call them birds.

            As a matter of idle curiosity, why do you accept uncritically the words of someone claiming to be a Christian rather than learning about the subject of evolutionary biology from people who have actually studied it? Not all evolutionary biologists are atheists. Some, such as Simon Conway Morris, Bob Bakker (who is a pentecostal Minister), and Robert Asher are Christians, and find no conflict between accepting the findings of science and their religious beliefs.

            I should add that I have had discussions with both Conway Morris and Asher about creationism, and they are opposed to it because of the deeply dishonest way it promotes its claims to scientific legitimacy.

            Do you not find that a reason to find out for yourself if creationists present science honestly?

          • Skywatcher57

            Please allow me to shock you, Richard. First of all, you DO NOT know what I have and have not devoted my time to in study. I’m climbing onto being 100 years old, and I’ve read and observed a lot in my day!

            You can study the concept of flatulence until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make it a tire, nor does it make it a truth because you talked to somebody else about it. Here’s the shock…I’m a former Pentecostal minister, and I don’t believe in “being slain in the spirit” or prosperity gospel (name it and claim it) as your Pentecostal friend may do; he no doubt is using a counterfeit bible too, and won’t want to hear about it, even though there are pages and pages of proofs for that statement. There is also a pastor in a United Church who is an atheist, as ox-moronic as that sounds; it doesn’t make her teaching correct or credible. Many people tend to lift passages out of context or grab a single verse and run with it, making a doctrine out of it, before seeing what the rest of the Bible has to say about that topic. May I encourage you to get your eyes off people, and do your own homework, looking at the real science along the way. Look at both sides, and this cannot be accomplished in a single evening or two minutes; it can take many days or months to look at all the evidences that are out there, coming from the mouths of solid scientists.

            I haven’t a single issue with real science and my Christianity walking together hand-in-hand, as you suppose. In fact, the Bible contains all kinds of scientific information, and some of it is prophetic, coming to pass as I type these words. One of those prophecies is a cashless society (Rev. 13: 16-18; 14: 9-11; 16: 2. Another one of those prophecies is artificial intelligence, as seen in the O.T. prophet Daniel, who wrote about an idol that speaks! I could go on and on; the point is, so many people put down the Holy Bible, speaking as experts when they have never EVER cracked its covers and read a verse or the book in its entirety. Couch theologians and liberal theologians just don’t cut the muster because they do not possess the Author of the Book within, the Holy Spirit. I certainly wouldn’t want to have to stand before a judge in court, who handled my case in such a reckless as some, would you?

            Just because someone doesn’t like someone else’s opinion or belief system, it doesn’t give them the right to self-righteously try to write it off without knowing what their code to life actually says, or looking at the evidences that support the opposing position. Then again, too many people go by hearsay and what they heard their parents, friends, and media spew in ignorance. Again, these people were not experts, and probably products of the same pattern. “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels…” Prov. 1: 5.

            Many years ago, I considered very gravely, your position and it was futile and hopeless. I opted for Intelligent Design, which is manifested everywhere we look, and He offers hope to all! Good day.

          • Richard Forrest

            First of all, you DO NOT know what I have and have not devoted my time to in study.
            Clearly not evolutionary biology or science in general, as the content of your posts demonstrate.

            Look at both sides, and this cannot be accomplished in a single evening or two minutes; it can take many days or months to look at all the evidences that are out there, coming from the mouths of solid scientists.
            I have done in considerable detail. From this I have concluded that creationism is deeply and systematically dishonest.

            , it doesn’t give them the right to self-righteously try to write it off without knowing what their code to life actually says, or looking at the evidences that support the opposing position.
            …writes someone who very clearly has not given any reasonable consideration to the opposing position!

          • Skywatcher57

            I’m not running away, Richard; I own and operate a business, and I don’t have anymore time to waste on this foolish banter. Nothing good is going to come out of it. I’ll see you on the other side.

        • Amy

          Now all we need is scientists coming forward with experimental evidence about which specific deity they are claiming exists. Richard Dawkins is not one of them but I am sure you could try and find someone to try!

          Science is not a body of knowledge but a methodology. A way of having your peers review the same data without confirmation bias. There is no massive conspiracy trying to muffle religious views. Evolution has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

          • Skywatcher57

            Amy, you are so wrong. One aspect of real science is observation, and it requires no experimentation as you purport. Just look in a mirror and look at your naked body…how is it possible that all your body parts came perfectly and precisely together to work together with just one kick of the can as a result of a big bang? Look at your organs, your reproductive system, your eyes, your ears, your senses…It is astronomically physically impossible for all these systems to suddenly appear and to work with just one chance to do so!

            And again, you are wrong! There are MANY conspiracies in play, hiding vast amounts of evidence that disproves evilution and proves the Holy Bible to be correct! Archaeology proves it to be true everyday, as they are always finding things that were mentioned in the Book! Mormons cannot do this with their phony books! Places that are named in the Holy Bible, ancient cities, towns, and villages are still alive and functioning today! Others are being discovered and dug up, again giving credence to the Holy Bible. Oil wells, diamond mines, hidden treasures and lost dynasties have been found with the help of the Holy Bible! It’s a treasure map, both for now and for our eternal destination. With so much evidence at our disposal, a wise person would stop and consider the evidence.

            By the way, the Smithsonian Institute is FULL of hidden relics and other evidences that prove the Holy Bible to be credible and relative for today! Other museums are purposely hiding valuable evidences also! The Muslims destroyed invaluable artifacts in their Museum of Antiquities for this very reason in the past year or so!

            Check out Billy Crone’s YouTube series on Dinosaurs, and be prepared to have your eyes opened! Scientists make very bold statements in this presentation, and they aren’t statements you’re going to like! Atheists also make statements bordering on their being almost persuaded to believe in an Intelligent Designer, as there really is no other way to turn. I may be wrong about Richard Dawkins; it’s either him or Stephen Hawking, but they are there!

          • AlienFactor

            It took many millions of years for our bodies to evolve to be what they are today. A lot of genetic trial and error along the way.

          • Amy

            My body being formed and the big bang are two entirely separate subjects. The universe started about 14 billion years ago. Around 4.5 billion years ago our solar system formed with the first signs of life. Billions of years after that the first multiceullar organisms began to evolve. Within the past few million years apes came unto the scene. Finally within the past 100,000-200,000 years humans have roamed this earth!

            There are no conspiracies but that is the trick with religion. It is always about forcing reality to confirm to your holy book. Listening to you make fun of Mormons is also amusing. As if there your theology has any more credibility then theirs. Anyone who believes in a literal Adam and Eve and a talking snake has got to be smoking drugs.

            Please start by providing evidence for a deity. That or please present a framework for biology that can be peer reviewed. The two subjects should not overlap so I am not sure why it becomes controversial for some theists. If you seriously believe that the Flintstones was a documentary then there is something wrong. In fact I would love to know how you get star physics in 6,000 years.

          • Skywatcher57

            Were you there Amy? What proof do you have for your position? So far, I see you trying to force your beliefs on myself and others on this forum. If we don’t agree with your line of thinking, (I can’t say reasoning, as it’s not apparent), then we are all kooks, lunatics, etc. You can’t have it both ways. By the way, I wasn’t making fun of Mormons, I was stating a fact. Not one of their prophets had a prophecy that was fulfilled! According to the Holy Bible, a prophet whose prophecies do not come to pass was to be put to death. Furthermore, their “scriptures” mention places that never ever existed. Anyway, I have better things to do than to argue with a fool. Good day!

          • Blue

            You have clearly read creationist discussions of evolution. These sources present a stawman that they quickly shot down, quote mining and conspiracy theories. By your own words, you show that you do not understand what scientists have to say, including the verifiable evidence they use to support evolution

            Are you willing to be intellectually honest?

            Read real sources on Evolution. I like the Berkeley evolution site, and talk origins. For books, I recommend Why Evolution is True (Coyne) over Richard Dawkins Greatest Show on Earth. Both are good, but Dawkins does more editorializing.

            Do you have enough confidence in your beliefs to honestly learn about the Theory you are rejecting?

          • Skywatcher57

            Please, don’t tell me what I have or have not read. I’m probably many years older than you and graduated from at least three times the number of colleges you have. Perhaps, you ought to evolve to the point where you can shed your prejudices and bias and grow a pair, so you can honestly and seriously look at the scientific proofs the Creationists and scientists are putting forward. I’m no fool; I always look at both sides and then allow critical thinking to come into play. It’s really not that difficult, when one has “eyes to see and ears to hear”. You’re really cheating yourself out of a lot when you cowardly refuse to do that exercise. Cheers.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I always look at both sides

            I have a problem believing that. Or maybe it’s that you’ve looked at the “side” of evolution through creationist-tinted glasses, because you’ve continuously demonstrated misunderstandings of what evolution IS.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          OK, I seriously want to know where you’re getting this idea that Richard Dawkins believes in an intelligent designer from. If you (or whoever you got it from) aren’t just making it up, that is. I’ve read several of his books and that would be a complete 180 for him.

          • Skywatcher57

            Due to the lateness of the hour last night when I posted that, I might have made a mistake on the name, King. It is either Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking. Check out Billy Crone’s 3-pt. video series on Dinosaurs; it’s on YT; and he quotes him! I was totally shocked when I heard/read it myself! What a major turnaround! As many atheists are aging, they are really taking the concept of eternal life much more seriously, and therefore, are studiously looking at the evidences for both sides. Obviously, this is what Stephen is doing, as he nears the end of his story.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Sorry if I’m really not too interested in sitting through probably at least a half-hour’s worth of YouTube videos to find a single line. If you make a claim like that, you should probably not do it without having the actual quote on hand, is what I’m saying.

            Okay, I did a little bit of Googling just now. It seems the main source of Hawking saying “intelligent design is highly probable” (which is what I’m guessing you’re talking about) is the site World News Daily Report….which is an admitted satire site. And then it looks like, inevitably, some other sites reported it as fact.

        • Blue

          No. Scientists have not been stepping forward to replace a natural, testable Theory with supernatural forces.

          In fact, while supernatural explanations are routinely replaced by natural explanations, there is not one natural explanation ever that has been replaced by a supernatural explanation.

          Lightning, drought, disease, earthquakes, birth defects etc. were once attributable to deities. No new knowledge arises from “god did it”. Everything we know about the natural world comes from “I don’t know. I wonder how this works.”

    • Tangent002 ✓

      Listing a number of arguments and expecting a rebuttal of every one of them is called a ‘Gish Gallop’. All of these arguments have been thoroughly debunked.

      • Ira Pistos

        No, they haven’t but you’ve certainly been indoctrinated to think that.

        • Tangent002 ✓

          If any of these ‘proofs’ of a Young Earth were at all credible, y’all would have been awarded a Nobel Prize by now.

          • Ira Pistos

            Really? When those in control of these bodies are in antipathy toward God and blinded to such truth by the god of this world?

            I think not. In fact, that every single atheist will swear by all that they hold dear that there isn’t a single shred of evidence that points to God I am most comforted by the veracity of God’s word.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            So now you are resorting to conspiracy theories? You’d make a great flat-Earther.

          • Ira Pistos

            Resorting to conspiracy theories? No. Nothing of the sort, if you read that in anything I wrote then it’s you who are the victim of such and in denial.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            You are claiming that the scientific community is turning a blind eye due to an ‘antipathy’ toward God.

            Science deals with empirical evidence, not faith claims.

          • Richard Forrest

            How do you answer the scientists who believe in God and are opposed to the claims of creationists for the scientific legitimacy of their religious dogma because they have found them to be deeply and systematically dishonest?

            This is not an issue of religious belief. it is an issue of science not because that is what scientist demand, but because that what creationists demand. The fact that they are incapable of promoting that demand without distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies undermines their moral values rather than that of scientists engaged in an honest investigation of the universe.

          • Skywatcher57

            “Demons also believe in God and they tremble”, James 2: 19. Anybody can say they believe in God, but do they bother to open His Word to see what His love letter has to say to them? Do they bother to open it up to discover the sciences that are disclosed within its pages? Do you know that our rules of hygiene, sanitation, how to handle the dead, etc., came from the Old Testament? So, when someone tells me they believe in God, I tell them, “That’s great! That’s a really great starting place, so why don’t you seek Him out and get to know Him personally? He loves you, and wants a personal relationship with you. He’s not just some abstract or cosmic bell-hop who is waiting for our beck and call. He wants to be your Heavenly Father.”

            Clearly, the scientists who say they believe in God are no better off than the demons, and I don’t trust them either!

          • Skywatcher57

            I, for one, didn’t apply, but thank you, for the encouragement! I must look into that, right along with Stephen Hawking who is leaning heavily to the side of Intelligent Design!

          • Richard Forrest

            He is?
            As a matter of idle curiosity, where on earth did you get this idea from? He has written rather clearly and extensively on the subject of religious belief and is a atheist who (if you bother to read his writings) finds not reason to inject supernatural intervention into science.

          • Skywatcher57

            Don’t be such a coward, Richard, and look at the source of evidence I’ve given to you. Don’t worry! Watching Pastor Billy Crone won’t send you to Hell! Without Christ, you’re already on your way…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            As I said elsewhere, I think he’s getting this idea from an admittedly satirical/fake-news website (World News Daily Report), that reported that Hawking said something like “intelligent design is highly probable”, then some other sources took that and reported it as fact, as so often happens.

      • Skywatcher57

        Easy to say, so where’s your proof! Come up with the proofs and I’ll come over to your camp! Anyone can make a foolish and unfounded statement as you have here, so back it up with some proof, please.

        • DrIndica

          Radio carbon dating, the fossil record and stratigraphic super-position.

          • Skywatcher57

            Proven to be scientifically inaccurate! Recently, a fossilized dinosaur skull was found, which according to evolutionists, was supposed to be so many millions of years old, plenty of time to decay, right? This still had soft tissue on it! See: Billy Crone’s 3 part YT video series on Dinosaurs, and be ready to have your paradigm shifted by honest scientists!

          • namelessghost

            You mean PASTOR Billy Crone? lol

          • Richard Forrest

            Recently, a fossilized dinosaur skull was found,
            No, it was is a femur, not a skull.
            This still had soft tissue on it!
            No, it had permineralised (i.e. fossilised) soft tissue deep inside the bone. When this material was soaked in acid for three days the resultant tiny piece remaining was resilient, showing that some proteins had survived the process of fossilisation. It is most certainly not the undecayed soft tissue which creationists claim about this find. You can find this out for yourself if you take a few minutes to find the Smithsonian web page about it. Google “schweitzer soft tissue smithsonian’ and it’s the first page.

            It’s worth adding that the scientist who made this discovery, Mary Schweitzer is a devout Christian. She has had excellent support from her professional colleague, who are as excited as she is about this extraordinary discovery. Nothing about this undermines in any way the ages of the rocks within which this fossil was found, or the geological time-scale which is the product of centuries of honest research by scientists.

            However, she is deeply disappointed by the dishonest way in which her findings have been misrepresented by creationists.

            Why would you chose to believe a preacher with no background in palaeontology rather than the researcher who actually did the work when it comes to reporting her findings?

      • TheKingOfRhye

        The acronym PRATT comes to mind.

    • Drake

      You forgot to mention the Moon, which is moving away from the earth, and that there is no plausible explanation for the Moon to exist in its present orbit – all the supposed models for the formation of the moon have serious flaws.

      And there isn’t any way for the initial stars to form: gas doesn’t coalesce or condense in a vacuum!

      • james blue

        You have heard of gravity?

        • Drake

          You missed it on both points:

          Star formation: Gravity is a very weak force. The gravitational attraction between gas molecules cannot overcome the heat generated by compression, unless there is an additional outside force, such as a container, exerting compressional force on the gas. Gas in a vacuum cannot form a star.

          Moon formation: i apologize for not making it clear that though the moon does exist in its current orbit, there is no viable scientific understanding of how or where the moon formed, then came to rest in its current orbit.

          • james blue

            google v=N-wCAfPCPWg

          • Drake

            Wow, an oversimplified hypothetical proposition that demonstrates, contrary to physics, that gases continue to condense in a vacuum while temperature continues to increase. I’m not convinced. Secular stellar physicists and cosmologists know better, and admit that this can’t happen! Investigate solar wind. The sun is actually shrinking because of its loss of hydrogen which is boiling off of or subliming from the surface due to heat. That hydrogen isn’t coming back! The sun is dissipating and has been ever since it formed. Even with its mass, and including the fact that the interior of the sun is cooler than its surface, it doesn’t have the gravitational energy to retain its hydrogen in the vacuum of space.

          • james blue

            I keep things basic for people such as yourself.

          • Drake

            Now THERE’s a non-scientific non-argument! What profound evidence you lack! Is that the best you can do? It appears you don’t explain things because you don’t understand them, and you don’t understand them because your belief system is based on imagination and not fact. I invite you to prove otherwise, but you’ll need to do so with real evidence, not with pathetic epithets.

          • james blue

            Like a birther there is no amount of evidence you will believe and I am a sane adult with way too many winters under my belt to think investing anything other than the minimal time worth while.

    • Richard Forrest

      As a matter of idle curiosity, have you ever bothered to find out how scientists answer these questions? Or are you just regurgitating uncritically from creationist sources?

      What you will find if you take the time and make the effort to educate yourself in these subjects is that creationist sources misrepresent, distort and lie about the science.

      • Skywatcher57

        Richard, are you sure it’s not the other way around? I’ve come through the school system and every five years the text books come up with the age of the earth being at least another 250 M years older than it was five years earlier! So, who’s lying or making it up as they go?

        Richard, it appears to me that Reason 2012 may have spend considerable time and energy into doing his homework. Don’t think for a minute that you can discredit him/her with an intellectually bankrupt paragraph or two!

        Can you solve the problem once and for all for me and those reading this, please? Where did the spark of life, emotions, and the matter come from that allegedly caused a “big bang”?

        • Reason2012

          All evolutionists can ever offer is ad hominem when presented with observable, repeatable, verifiable facts.

          • Richard Forrest

            I suggest that the boot is rather firmly on the other foot.

          • Skywatcher57

            You’re so right! They are clouds with no rain; birds without feathers trying to fly! They cannot answer a simple question that has only one possible answer: Where did matter, life, and emotion come from? They get backed into a corner each and every time. Their wilful ignorance is to be pitied because “the god of this world has blinded their eyes”.

            One only has to look at any one aspect of their body, whether it be an eye, an ear, their sense of smell, skin, heart, circulatory system. reproductive system, etc., and it quickly becomes very clearly obvious that there was an Intelligent Designer behind it all. Reason 2012, another proof to add to your list is strong proof of the worldwide flood, Noah’s Deluge, wherein today, we have all kinds of fossils of fish and shellfish high up on mountaintops. Throughout all my years of schooling, and experience, I’ve never heard, read, or seen these things living out of water, especially on mountains! It doesn’t take rocket science to deduce that they were caught there in the sediment when the flood waters receded! That’s sound textbook science! Blessings!

          • Reason2012

            Great points. May God bless as well!

          • Skywatcher57

            Thank you, and He does, Reason! I’m getting out of this debate, as it’s been taken over by mindless trolls who cannot answer that one single question…where did matter, life, and emotion come from!

          • Reason2012

            My experience is since they cannot address the facts, they instead obfuscate and get people off track, which I simply no longer get caught up in. Others will see the facts and realize how anti-science evolution is and how deceptive those who defend it are.

          • Skywatcher57

            Unfortunately, you are correct, Reason2012. That’s what years of successful brainwashing has done to the mindless zombies who refuse to think things through. I don’t mean that as an insult to them, but while sitting in a classroom, they blindly swallow everything they are told. Most of us did, until somebody helped us to awaken and to see the Light.

            They trusted their teachers to be moral and ethical, knowing what they were talking about, not realizing that they have also been taken over by the same system that is working on a daily basis to make victims out of them. It’s all about demoralizing and dumbing down the masses so that the New World Order and the rule of the Antichrist can come to fruition. It’s all a part of God’s great master plan to separate the wheat from the chaff.

          • Croquet_Player

            “mindless trolls who cannot answer that one single question…where did matter, life, and emotion come from!”

            That’s not a single question, that’s three questions. The very fact that you suggest it’s one question means you are already drawing conclusions because you’ve lumped them all together as having “one answer”. I’m sorry, but that simply is not a scientific approach. It’s great to ask questions, and we all should. But we don’t pick an answer first and work backwards. We ask the questions first, and see where the evidence leads.

        • Richard Forrest

          I’ve come through the school system and every five years the text books come up with the age of the earth being at least another 250 M years older than it was five years earlier! So, who’s lying or making it up as they go?
          Science revises its conclusions as new evidence and better methods of interpreting that evidence develop. Do you think that we should persist in promoting conclusions we know to be wrong?
          Richard, it appears to me that Reason 2012 may have spend considerable time and energy into doing his homework
          Actually it is very clear that he has simply copied and pasted from a creationist web site (I posted a link earlier but for some reason my post was removed) without bothering to find out if any of the claims he posted had been addressed. I also posted a link to a web site with addresses all the claims he posted in detail.
          You can find both his source and the refutations of its claims in about two minutes if you use google.

          Can you solve the problem once and for all for me and those reading this, please?
          I doubt that I can “solve it for you” because I have no doubt that no matter how compelling my argument or robust the evidence you will reject any explanation out of hand. For the sake of anyone with an open mind:
          Where did the spark of life,
          As the “spark of life” is not something we can measure of observe, and as atoms and molecules behave according to the same laws of chemistry regardless of whether or not they are part of a living organism or inert matter, the question is moot. You may chose to believe that life originated when God breathed life into dust, but as that belief cannot be tested using the tools of science it has no validity as a scientific theory. If we investigate the origin of life using the tools of science, we do so under the same assumption of naturalism as all scientific investigations.
          emotions,
          Evolutionary biologists explain this in terms of a model of evolution which treats organisms as systems for making as many copies of their genes as possible. We love our children because they carry most of the same genes as we do, and because that go out of our way to protect them and ensure their survival. It’s a cold, analytical way of looking at things which makes me uncomfortable on a personal level – I love my children and grandchildren very much – but if we sick to scientific explanations it’s pretty robust.

          and the matter come from that allegedly caused a “big bang”?
          What on earth has this to do with evolution? Ask a cosmologist. As I understand it, the evidence shows that the universe (as both time and space) originated from a singularity about 14 billion years ago and expanded very rapidly in its early days. Try reading Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow ‘The Grand Design”. It will stretch your mind trying to get your head around the concepts they explain.

          • Skywatcher57

            “Do you think that we should persist in promoting conclusions we know to be wrong?” That’s a very good question, Richard, so why do evolutionists do it? I answered that question for you in my last response.

            You said, “Can you solve the problem once and for all for me and those reading this, please?
            I
            doubt that I can “solve it for you” because I have no doubt that no
            matter how compelling my argument or robust the evidence you will reject
            any explanation out of hand”.

            My, my! Doesn’t that sound vaguely familiar to you? That’s “the pot calling the kettle black”! See, it works both ways; you’re doing the exact same thing!

            Let’s suppose the evolutionist’s hypothesis appears to be correct, and they continue to build upon it…with they have no solid foundation to build upon, the rest of their position crumbles! Of course reading the authors you suggest will stretch my mind “trying to “get (my) head around the concepts they explain.” The problem, Richard, is they don’t explain anything! They travel around in circular thinking, thereby losing their reader along the way, causing them to believe they just read something deeply profound, when the whole time, the author said little or nothing of any value!

            How do you know I haven’t read any of their works? Try reading the Holy Bible and let me know what you think; it’s all pretty clear there, and easily understood.

            I don’t love my children because they carry my genes, as you wrongly suppose. I love them because I wanted and needed them to give the fatherly love to that was in my heart. I was entrusted with their care and nurture, that God-spark within me! I love them because I have it to give to them, and who better? Based upon your hypothesis, I love them because they carry my genetic material. WRONG! That would mean nobody could love a child that they’ve adopted or fostered, and we know that’s not the case! Thus endth the lesson.

          • Richard Forrest

            That’s a very good question, Richard, so why do evolutionists do it?
            So, give me an example of an “evolutionist” promoting a conclusion they know to be wrong. Just because something contradicts your religious beliefs that doesn’t make it wrong.
            Let’s suppose the evolutionist’s hypothesis appears to be correct
            What on earth is the “evolutionist’s hypothesis”?

            he problem, Richard, is they don’t explain anything!
            And you know this without reading them because….?

            How do you know I haven’t read any of their works?
            Because you are clearly ignorant when it comes to the subjects they relate to.

            Try reading the Holy Bible and let me know what you think; it’s all pretty clear there, and easily understood.

            I have done, cover to cover and more than once. Far from being clear, it presents a very confused version of morality which changes radically between the Old and New Testaments. It also contracts itself in several places. This is why it can and has been cherry-picked to support many morally reprehensible movements, including genocide, imperialism, slavery and persecution of minorities. Some parts of the New Testament, in particular the sermon on the mount, provides a wonderful basis for moral behaviour. Other parts such as “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! ” are utterly abhorrent.

            What I find most objectionable in creationist literature is that in many cases the authors are promoting as facts tings which from knowing a wider context they must know to be false. I first encountered creationism many years ago when I was a member of a pentecostal church through Gish’s “Evolution – The Fossils say No!”. I already had a deep interest in fossils and had already amassed a fair collection, and thought that this would provide a rational framework for their nature which compatible with my beliefs. When I read Gish’s book, my overwhelming impression was not just that he was factually incorrect pretty well everywhere not because I had been brainwashed by “evolutionists”, but from my personal experience of collecting fossils in the field. In some cases i found it inescapable that some of those falsehoods were written in the knowledge that they were false. I call that lying.

            When I took these doubts to the other members of the congregation I was told very forcefully that I was wrong, and that unless i accepted uncritically the creationist arguments I would go to hell. I left that church because I could not believe in a God who lies in his creation.

            This is from Glenn Morton’s essay on why he left creationism:

            Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

            “From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”

            That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

            I don’t love my children because they carry my genes, as you wrongly suppose.

            You asked for an explanation, which in the context seemed to be a request for a scientific explanation. I gave you one, and even added the rider that it makes my uncomfortable. Bearing in mind that this whole issue is one of science, that seems reasonable. It explains why we love our own children more than we love those of our neighbours, or people we have never met. And as for loving an adopted or fostered child, that is because we do not look consciously at their genes, but because we respond to the close relationship. I love my grandson more than I would have thought possible before he was born, yet because my daughter is from my wife’s first marriage we are genetically unrelated.

          • Croquet_Player

            As people so often overlook, evolution addresses survival of SPECIES, not INDIVIDUALS. So there’s no reason why we cannot entirely and unreservedly love a child that is not our own direct progeny. Most of us would dash into the street to yank any unknown toddler to safety out of path of an oncoming truck. And there’s nothing about that small act of altruism that flies in the face of evolution. It entirely comports with evolution.

          • Richard Forrest

            it’s a bit more complex than that. If there are two children in the road about to be run over, I’ll save my own child at the expense of the other given that choice. Kin selection theory predicts that on the basis of our shared genes.

            However, we don’t have some sense which allows us to evaluate the degree of genetic relationship, so we have evolved behaviour based on such factors as physical closeness and constant interaction which are a good approximation for this. So we can love our fostered or adopted children just as much as our own. I have three grandchildren, only one of whom is actually genetically related to me but I can’t find any difference in the quite extraordinarily intense love I have for them. It surprised me just how strong those feelings are.

          • Craig Ewoldt

            Yes, read “The Grand Design” which aptly demonstrates that nonsense is still nonsense even when it comes from brilliant scientists. Hawking’s main thesis is that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” That is nonsense on several levels.

            First, he states that the universe is created from nothing and gravity. But gravity is not nothing. So he is saying that the universe comes simultaneously from nothing and something.

            Next he asserts that the universe creates itself. We can say that X creates Y, but to assert that X creates X is self contradictory and logically incoherent. He assumes the existence of the universe to account for its existence!

            Gravity interacts with matter, and if there is no matter, how can gravity create a universe? A law of nature depends on the prior existence of nature.

            So Hawking’s main thesis is not simply self contradictory, but self contradictory on three levels, a truly amazing feat.

            This is what happens when a scientist, however brilliant, rejects philosophy, as Hawking does. Then he goes on to dabble in it very poorly, and ends up with nonsense. I hope that if your mind was stretched by this nonsense, that it will snap back into reality.

        • Darwin C

          Funny how the textbooks never revise the age of the earth to thousands rather than billions.

          Refining 4,560,000,000 by 250,000,000 years is a 5.5% variation.

          6,000 years compared to 4,560,000,000 years is 99.9998684% wrong.

          An equal error rate would be to say that the US is 19 feet wide from coast to coast rather than 5,280 miles.

      • Reason2012

        Feel free to address it rather than just claiming it is but can never show it.

      • getstryker

        Tell us, are these the same ‘scientists’ that claim the world is ‘heating up’ or is it ‘cooling down’, I forget. The same ‘scientists’ that claim ‘everything came from nothing that exploded and made everything’? – those scientists? Tell us again all about how those ‘expert scientists’ misrepresent, distort and lie about their BS ‘science!’ Seems to me that ‘Reason2012′ asked some reasonable questions and made excellent points – You believe ’em – why don’t you get those answers and get back with us!

    • Ed Collins

      Great- now collect all your data – have it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

    • DrIndica

      Cherry picking tidbits to try to support your hypothesis is not science.

    • Arlenj

      It looks like you’ve been to the creation museum in Kentucky and copied the texts of the exhibit placards.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      7) The Earth was not supposedly formed when the imagined big bang
      happened. After a few hundred thousands of years, with a half life of
      5,730 years, there should be none left, yet it’s found in abundance in “ancient” fossils.

      That half-life means carbon dating is accurate to 60,000 years. There are other radioactive isotopes with much longer half-lives that are used to date things earlier than that.

      • Reason2012

        Talking about specifically Carbon-14 – there should be none left given its half life of 5730, yet we continue to find it in abundance in “ancient” fossils, proving their “dating” methods are a farce.

        • Bob Johnson

          Carbon-14 is constantly being created in the atmosphere.

          From “Howstuffworks”:
          Co­smic rays enter the earth’s atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.”

          This carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide used by plants making it useful to date organic material.

        • Richard Forrest

          yet we continue to find it in abundance in “ancient” fossils
          We do? And where has this finding been published?
          We get trace amounts of C14 in some rocks because as well as being a product of the effect of solar wind on the upper atmosphere, it can be generated by other radioactive elements such as uranium. Some rocks, in particular granites, are more radioactive than others so if you find fossils in sediments which contain erosion products from granites, you may well find trace amounts of C14. The quantities are very small, and have no effect on the dating of the rocks themselves.

          Dating rocks uses a variety of methods, not all of which are radiometric. There’s plenty of information out there if you bother to look on how it is done, which won’t make you look ignorant – as your reliance on creationist sources will do.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Cute….I see you eliminated the reference to carbon in the part of that that I quoted.

      Now it makes no sense, though. “there should be none left”…..none of what?

      • Reason2012

        I eliminated nothing. #7 Is talking about Carbon – 14. So it’s obviously talking about Carbon-14 just like you quoted. And no, there are still traces of Carbon-14 in the fossil itself that supposedly lasted even 100 million years , which exposes their dates as a farce.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I knew you were talking about Carbon-14 only because you mentioned it.

    • Darwin C

      Go to TalkOrigins dot Org. Use the Keyword Index or search feature. All of those have been addressed with references to scientific data and published papers.

      To say that scientists have not researched these issues is patently false.

      • Reason2012

        No, they dismiss them – that’s not “addressing” them. For example, making up imaginary oort clouds to dismiss the fact that comets can only last so long and yet they’re still around.

        TalkOrigins.com is not a science site. It’s run by evolutionists.

  • namelessghost

    The atheists are right. The school district agreed. That teacher’s curriculum is unacceptable.

    • Unacceptable….. to the doctrine of atheism.

      • Amy

        To biological science.

        • Evolution is not biological science. It’s dogma.

          • namelessghost

            Only to those who can’t think outside their religious box. To everyone else, evolution is one of the unifying principles that form the foundation of biology.

          • Amy

            Evolution is the back bone of modern biology.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Atheism has no “doctrine”.

  • Amy

    Anyone who believes the world is 6,000 years old is in a cult.

    • Vince

      Then don’t join the cult. What other people do is not your business.

      Atheists are pathological meddlers.

      • Amy

        Cultists should not be pushing their views unto children. He should teach the science and keep his views to himself.

      • james blue

        Atheists are pathological meddlers

        And religious folks are not?

      • Tangent002 ✓

        No one is stopping you from teaching your creation stories in your houses and churches.

      • Ira Pistos

        They hate God.

        • Tangent002 ✓

          No, they just think a public school science class is an inappropriate venue to discuss issues of faith.

          • Ira Pistos

            No. They hate God. Throughout history, prior to these last days, it was not only accepted buth the source of superior education and social order.

            They hate God.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            It is clear you are intransigent.

          • Ira Pistos

            As regards my loyalty to God, yes, I am.

          • Netizen_James

            God has nothing to do with the science of evolution.
            You can be loyal to God, and still understand that species evolve through selection pressure. You can be loyal to God and still understand that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, not history. A story intended to teach us things, not a factual account of humanity springing fully formed from the mud.

            Ignoring the fact of evolution because of your faith in God is no different from pretending that your faith in God requires you to believe that the sun orbits around the earth, rather than the other way around – which is what Galileo got sent to prison for trying to convince everyone of.

          • Amy

            During the early days of the church they were seen as crazy. It was not until the new Roman emperors converted that people took the religion seriously. Now as we understand the world better it goes back into being a crazy belie section.

          • Enniscorthy

            No one hates God. There is no reason for anyone to hate God. If you disbelieve in God, there is nothing for you to hate.

          • Croquet_Player

            You seem to overlook the fact that many deeply religious people accept the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution says nothing about any deities, or absence of deities. It’s simply the best answer we have, with supporting evidence, about how species change over time.

          • Netizen_James

            No, nobody hates God. That’s just stupid.

          • So, then it’s inappropriate to discuss evolution, because it’s believed in purely through faith. You can’t prove it happens or ever happened. You just say so and demand that everyone else, particularly young children, unquestioningly believe it or be severely punished academically.

          • Ed Collins

            We can prove Evolution. Can you prove ‘god’? NO!

          • Please prove evolution, then. To date, not one of you has. It’s a “just-so” story that people, and especially young children, are just supposed to accept.

            As for proving God, I don’t need to and I can’t anyway. To prove God, I would need to be God. That’s why He proved Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son and a member of the Trinity, who came to Earth to live as a man, die a sinners death on a cross, be buried, and be resurrected to full life three days later.

          • Darwin C

            The information is readily available.
            Google Berkeley Evolution. They have an excellent site addressing all aspects of Evolution.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            As for proving God, I don’t need to and I can’t anyway.

            If you don’t mind me asking, why not? Why should a belief in a deity be any different from any other belief? You don’t believe in other things without proof, or without at least reasonable evidence, right? You ask for proof of evolution, so why is a belief in God exempt from that? (I’m not saying we should believe in evolution on faith, I’m saying we HAVE evidence for evolution)

          • Spirit Plumber

            Would speciation in a macroscopic animal, caused by a beneficial mutation, observed directly in the last 50 years and documented accordingly, do the job for you?

          • Netizen_James

            Evolution has been proven. We have observed speciation through selection pressure both in the laboratory, and in the wild.

            What part of ‘evolution’ do you not understand such that you are assuming it hasn’t been proven?

          • Netizen_James

            That is simply false. Evolution has been observed. Evolution has predictive validity. We CAN prove that it happens, and can reasonably infer that it has happened before.

        • Amy

          How can you hate what does not exist?

      • Richard Forrest

        It is not atheists who are trying to push religious dogma into science classes. It is creationists.

    • Tens of millions of people believe that. Far fewer believe that God doesn’t exist. I think you need to re-examine which one is the cult.

      • Amy

        The ones who tell their followers the world is only 6,000 years old. That generally speaking is cult like behavior.

        • Oh, so the ones that tell their followers that the world is “billions of years old” without even one way to actually confirm that isn’t a cult?

          • Amy

            We have ways of dating rocks, fossils, stars and all sorts of physical matter! The universe is about 14 billion years old.

          • Enniscorthy

            How is counting genealogies in the old testament a reliable way of calculating the age of the earth?

  • Nidalap

    Most religions react badly to heresy against them…

  • awareoftruth

    The spirit of Antichrist.

  • ZappaSaid88

    “There is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans may have coexisted” (false). — The teacher should be fired for that question alone.

    • OldBut YoungMoney

      No he shouldn’t. That is a false statement.

      • MarkSebree

        OK. What OBJECTIVE evidence is there that dinosaurs and humans co-existed? Please support your claim.

        • OldBut YoungMoney

          How about the Incan stones that HAVE been proven legitimate? I’ve read up on them and seen videos on them by guys like “Beyond Science”. There are TONS of things the mainstream brushes off in the halls of academia, just for the same exact reasons people like you brush it off now, emotions. I would give you a link, but this site filtered out the last link I tried. YouTube should have his videos. Type in Beyond Science and then type in 5 clues that man coexisted with dinosaurs.

          • Richard Forrest

            How about the Incan stones that HAVE been proven legitimate?
            Really? Are you referring to the “Ica stones” which have been demonstrated to be blatant fabrications? The individual who promoted them is on record of saying that he faked them!
            Do you know what the word “gullible” means?

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            I don’t think we’re talking about the same incan stones.

  • JP

    Kids need to be taught the implications of evolution from the evolutionists themselves. Dawkins is great on this. Consider:
    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Evolutionary theory makes men out to be just meat machines.

    • ZappaSaid88

      I’ll take reality over false consolation any time.

    • Croquet_Player

      You are entirely missing the point that evolution includes things like altruism, empathy, cooperation, caring for young, or the group at expense of self interest etc. There is some ridiculous idea floating around (and it’s very popular) that evolution means “it’s every man for himself, it’s a dog-eat-dog world, and we’re all just meat machines.” And further, that this is some handbook for how we’re all supposed to behave. This is preposterous. It’s not about survival of individuals but survival of species. And it’s demonstrable that species fare better when they cooperate, share resources, etc. Honestly, I don’t know where people get these misconceptions.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Whatever the implications of evolution are, they don’t make it any less of a fact.

      • JP

        Do you think its a fact that evolution created the first cell?

        • TheKingOfRhye

          That question is nonsensical. Look, this is the definition of the word “evolution,” in a general sense without bringing anything scientific into the discussion….in other words, people used the term “evolution” before Darwin came around and this is what they meant, and what the word still means:

          the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form:
          “the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution”

          Or, someone might talk about, let’s say, the evolution of rock music, or the evolution of modern art. They’re not talking about how those things began, they’re talking about how they changed over time. (They could also talk about how they began, but if they did, they wouldn’t be talking about the “evolution” anymore)

          If you’re talking about how the first life arose, that’s, by definition, NOT EVOLUTION.

          • JP

            I didn’t define evolution but want to know how life began from non-life via the mindless-purposeless forces of nature. Do you know?

            So how does evolution change things? How does it “know” when to change a living organism?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I didn’t define evolution but want to know how life began from non-life via the mindless-purposeless forces of nature. Do you know?

            I’m no expert, but it’s believed that it happened via chemical reactions with organic compounds and a source of energy like lightning or radiation. I think, however, that that doesn’t necessarily preclude a belief in a god. Heck, doesn’t the Bible say God created life from dust?

            So how does evolution change things? How does it “know” when to change a living organism?

            Simple – natural selection. Organisms with beneficial traits survive to pass them on to their offspring.

          • JP

            Do you know that a cell is more complicated than a cell phone? A cell requires intelligence to build it. Why would you think that something more complicated (a cell) would also not require intelligence to create it?

            How does natural selection “know” when to create a heart in creature?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, that’s basically the old “design argument”…

            Just because something looks designed, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it IS designed. Also, I think that’s kind of a self-refuting argument…if you follow its logic, then the next question is “who designed the designer?” People here keep insisting that atheists and/or “evolutionists” have to answer questions of “where did this, that, and the other thing come from”…well, I don’t see why theists should be excused from that, then. Especially when they themselves often won’t take “I/we don’t know” as an answer.

          • JP

            Intelligence is the only adequate explanation that can explain how a cell was created from non-living material.

            No one designed God because God has always existed.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How does natural selection “know” when to create a heart in creature?

            Once animals evolve to a certain point of complexity, if they don’t have an adequate circulatory system, they won’t survive to pass that on to their offspring. Look at invertebrates, which don’t have hearts, or fish, who have simple hearts.

          • JP

            This doesn’t answer the question how evolution “knows”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It’s not a question of “knowing”. There is absolutely no “knowing” involved. The traits that are beneficial, the ones that the successful organisms pass on to their offspring, are not selected beforehand. It’s like this: Some organisms have traits that help them thrive and hence reproduce. Some don’t. Those ones don’t thrive, and either die before they can reproduce or at least don’t reproduce as much as others. And therefore, those nonbeneficial traits don’t get passed on.

            I won’t take credit for this myself, I stole it from rationalwiki, but here’s another way to explain it.

            In a nutshell, evolution by natural selection can be simplified to the following principles:

            Variability: individuals in a population display differences in form, physiology, and behaviour.

            Differential Fitness: differences between individuals confer different survival and reproduction rates.

            Heritability: differences in fitness can be passed on between generations.

  • Guzzman

    Federal courts have ruled that creationism and intelligent design are “religious views, not scientific theories.” It is unconstitutional to teach creationism alongside evolution science in public schools because creationism is religion, and religion cannot be promoted by publicly-funded, government entities (see Supreme Court of the United States, Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987).

    • OldBut YoungMoney

      That’s a decision that needs to be overturned.

      • AlienFactor

        Why? Science should be taught in science class, not religion. If you want to teach religion outside school that is your option.

        • OldBut YoungMoney

          No, what YOU deem science is what you want taught. Basically, what has been done is that left wingers like yourself have gotten a monopoly on academia, and so to keep your monopoly you use the force of the government to prevent any new or counter ideas from coming in. In addition, it’s truth to them and it’s THEIR children. What you believe is truth is not what they believe is truth.

          • Guzzman

            You’ve got it exactly backwards. It was the creationists who tried to use the force of law to coerce public schools to teach creationism as science (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987). That was shot down by the courts. Then the creationists relabeled creationism as “intelligent design”, and tried to force the schools to teach ID as science, but that didn’t fool anybody either (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).

          • AlienFactor

            If it is a ‘Truth’ let them offer proof.

          • Michael C

            Basically, what has been done is that left wingers like yourself have gotten a monopoly on academia

            Science does not have a political affiliation. It’s simply and examination of the facts. Scientific theories are not partisan. Almost every scientist understands and accepts the scientific explanations for the age of the earth and the evolutionary process, regardless of their political leanings.

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            LOL give me a break. Gee, who got all of the grants, for example, for 8 straight years to study something like global warming? I’ll tell you right now; it wasn’t the skeptics getting funds! are you SREIOUSLY this naive? Do you understand at all how academia works, who controls what, and what research gets funded and published and not?

          • Bob Johnson

            Most of the funding comes from DOD and DOE.
            Ever heard of DARPA

      • Darwin C

        How will you decide whose creation myths to teach as fact? The Norse creation myths are interesting, as are ancient Egyptian, Hindu, Japanese, Chinese and various Native American myths. The creation myth of ancient Hebrews is actually rather bland and quite silly.

        • OldBut YoungMoney

          It’s not your call to make. It’s the parents’ call. They’re not your children and your opinions don’t override other peoples’ opinion just because you say so.

          • Darwin C

            Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

            Parents decide which religious creation story, if any, their children will learn. This means christian creationism should not be taught in public schools.

            The facts about evolution should be taught, just like every other scientific theory. But teachers should express no opinion on what that means for anyone’s religious beliefs.

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            It’s not your call to say what should and should not be in schools Darwin. You just fundamentally misread what I said 100%.

          • Darwin C

            Your words “It’s the parents’ call.”

            Not principals.
            Not teachers.
            Not coaches.
            Not other students handed the PA system microphone.

            Parents decide which religious beliefs their children will be taught. The school may not and must not promote or discourage any religious belief.

            School employees, while on the clock, cannot discourage christian belief nor can they promote it.

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            That’s your belief Darwin! How many times do I have to say it! Your belief just because you believe it shouldn’t override the ACTUAL PARENTS’ beliefs about what schools should be teaching THEIR, not yours, children.

          • Darwin C

            How many times do I have to say it? I, too, am an “actual parent.”

            My right to influence the religious instruction of my children is no less than yours.

            And I do not want my children taught that Adam, Eve, the magic tree, or the talking snake were real. I do not want them taught unicorns or angels or demons or hell are real. I do not want them to pray to your deity.

            Parents may teach that to their children. But public schools paid for with my tax dollars will not teach my children that someone else’s religious beliefs is true.

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            Ok, so, let’s have a vote and see who’s belief should be the one that takes precedent! That’s the ENTIRE POINT of school board elections that you seem to want to usurp for YOUR views.

          • OldBut YoungMoney

            Not only that, but it’s also the entire reason we have any elections that affect what gets taught period.

        • glenbo

          >>”How will you decide whose creation myths to teach as fact?”<<

          Well said.
          Go to YouTube and search Richard Dawkins–What if you're wrong?

  • Skywatcher57

    It always disgusts me to see the evolutionary theory accepted and passed off as fact. To date, not a single evolutionist has been able to intelligently answer a simple question: Where did matter, the spark of life, and emotions come from? To date, as a rock collector, I’ve not heard a single rock cry out in pain when I crack it open! We believe in an Intelligent Designer, with copious amounts of scientific proof, while they believe we came from a rock! It takes more faith to believe the latter than the former. Liberals don’t possess much critical thinking ability, do they!

    • ZappaSaid88

      Evolution is the study of the changes in biological organisms over time. It has nothing to do with origins. And if you have so much scientific proof please publish your scientific study and collect your Nobel prize.

      • Skywatcher57

        With all due respect, your statement is foolish, as we both know that Evilution focuses upon origins; all else is secondary.

        • Enniscorthy

          No, Zappa is quite correct. Evolution deals with change. If it’s origins you want, the subject is cosmology, or abiogenesis.

          • That’s like saying if you want to study how houses are built, you just ignore where the materials for the house came from.

          • Enniscorthy

            No, because the materials for building houses doesn’t change over time.

          • namelessghost

            If you want to study how houses are built, you study construction. If you want to study how houses have changed over time, you study the history of architecture.

          • Skywatcher57

            You do realize that development can be seen as evolution, in the losest sense of the word, right? You do realize that there is a difference between this kind of evolution/development than engineering by human intervention, right? All too often, we are using the words, “evolved” and “evolution” out of context and too generally, without adhering to its pure form as modern science attempts to indoctrinate us with.

          • Enniscorthy

            Yes, but when you’re talking about how life began, evolution is not the subject you want.

          • Skywatcher57

            I don’t know why I reply to your ridiculous statement, but here’s one more…You might want to look at the school textbooks and talk to the university professors who believe this slop because for at least 12 or more years of their life, it was poured into them. “Repeat something often enough and they will believe it.” This is absolute proof. I’ve spent almost 20 years in the educational system and the textbooks, teachers, and profs all shove it down our throats that life DID start through an evolutionary process. Failure to teach this would cost them their job!

            I have a mighty powerful little booklet on the subject, and it’s written from a scientific perspective, with quotes from scientists who say evolution is nothing more than an improvable theory. Not only do they say this, but they back it up with fairly easy science and facts. I got it when I was in grade six and that was many years ago! If evolutionists would stop running off at the mouth long enough to earnestly look at both sides of the argument, they would see they lies they were forced to believe and drop their position in a heartbeat. Truth never changes. Enough said.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            quotes from scientists who say evolution is nothing more than an improvable theory

            Nothing but “quote mining” I bet.

          • Enniscorthy

            No, evolution deals with change over a very long period of time. And the reason SOME Christians (not nearly all) reject evolution is because it would force them to admit that a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is not possible. Catholics, the largest body of Christians, take no issue with evolution because they have no problem saying that a lot of the old testament is allegorical.

            But since you’re one of the group who doesn’t accept it (which must make being an evolutionary biologist REALLY interesting to people like you), then you should know it’s got nothing to do with origins. Once again, you want to look at abiogenesis or cosmology.

          • Skywatcher57

            How long did the mouth have to sit around and wait for the second cell to evolve so it could digest its food? How long before the rectum evolved? If I sit around for the next 250 m. years waiting for my wings to grow, I’d never get off the ground. See how foolish your belief system is?! The single-celled amoeba would die while waiting for the common sense to know what to do with its food. Enough of the circular thinking; I have more important things to do, and I’m NOT conceding!

          • Enniscorthy

            If that’s how you think evolution works, you are wayyyy off base. And don’t call that pile of straw MY belief system.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Are you trying to say single-celled organisms don’t exist?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You do realize that development can be seen as evolution

            Yeah, they are synonymous. That’s why, if you’re talking about evolution of life, you’re not talking about its origin, you’re talking about its development, aka evolution.

            It doesn’t mean someone studying evolution has to ignore any questions of the origin of life, it just means that if they do start dealing with that, they’re not talking about evolution any more.

    • Croquet_Player

      I’m curious to know how you arrived at the conclusion that people who accept the theory of evolution also “believe we came from a rock”?

      • Skywatcher57

        Trace it all the way back and that’s what it amounts to.

        • Croquet_Player

          I’m sorry to be so direct , but no, it doesn’t. (But apparently this is a widely held misunderstanding.) The theory of evolution is not about the origins of life, but about heritable changes over successive generations. But please don’t take my word for it. Pick up a (free or low cost) biology class at any local community college. People seem to be very convinced they are arguing against the “theory of evolution”, when in fact they’re arguing about something else entirely, thinking that’s what the “theory of evolution” means. Claiming that the “theory of evolution” means all life came from rocks, is simply absurd. No one is claiming this. No one is even suggesting it. This is why I’m asking, who told you that the “theory of evolution” means life sprang from rocks? I’m curious to know where this misinterpretation is coming from. The questions we have about the origins of life are very important, of course, but that’s not the questions the theory of evolution is addressing. I think we should at least all clearly know exactly what we’re talking about before we try to refute or support it. Don’t you?

        • Tim Matter

          I wouldn’t ridicule evolutionists by saying they “”believe we came from a rock” when you believe essentially the same thing, you just believe it was powdered rock. Genesis 2:7 ““The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

  • Ben Welliver

    Progressives always tells religious people that doubt is a good thing.

    As this episode shows, they don’t mean it.

    • namelessghost

      Except that the headline is misleading. The teacher did not actually “cast doubt upon evolution”. He ATTEMPTED to cast doubt upon evolution by teaching a biblical creation worldview and passing it off as science.

      • getstryker

        Interesting how ‘the state’ indoctrinates students with the ‘religion of evolution’, teaching an ‘everything from nothing worldview’ and passing it off as science!

        • namelessghost

          Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. If you want your kids to learn creationism, send them to Sunday school.

          • getstryker

            Yeah, so I’ve been told, and told and told. . . . . . ‘Science’ . . . supposed to be ‘testable, repeatable, etc., . . . when you can create ‘something out of nothing’ – come back and see me!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If evolution actually meant “creating something out of nothing” you might have a point…but it doesn’t.

          • getstryker

            The “POINT” is that you have to have “SOMETHING” to start with! You don’t!

          • MarkSebree

            getstryker,

            However, you also have to be talking about something that is within the scope of the subject under discussion. The Theory of Evolution is not concerned at all about how life started, only about how species change over generational time. Just as Cell Theory does not concern itself with where cells came from or the origin of life. It simply states that all life is made up of cells.

            What you seem to want to discuss is the Theories of Abiogenesis, not the Theory of Evolution. They are quite different. Abiogenesis concerns itself with the beginning of life on Earth, but does not concern itself with anything after that point. The Theory of Evolution concerns itself with how life and species changed over time, but does not concern itself with how it originally formed.

            And BOTH theories only concern themselves with what is already in place. Evolution has already been discussed. Abiogenesis does not concern itself with where the planet came from, where the liquid water on the surface came from, or where the elements and molecules in the water came from. It only looks at the best currently available model of what the conditions on Earth were like at approximately the time when the first self-replicating molecules formed, which were the predecessors of RNA, and thus DNA, and try to deduce and support the mechanisms by which they could have formed.

            All this information is readily available from reputable sources, if you are just willing to examine it.

          • getstryker

            Oh pleeeease . . . until you have ‘valid, repeatable, verifiable, etc, etc, etc., FACTS to explain HOW your FIRST ‘self-replicating molecules’ FORMED – all you and your ‘scientists’ have is ‘wild imagination, speculation and a bunch of coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta guesses with a ‘definite maybe’ thrown in to give it – wait for it, here it comes: ‘scientific credibility’ – what you have is available on ‘used toilet paper.’ You claim ‘science’ and you can’t prove it! . . . I claim GOD, and I can’t prove it . . . that leaves BOTH as a matter of faith. Yours is my tax-supported STATE RELIGION . . . IT SURE AIN’T “SCIENCE!”

          • MarkSebree

            GetStryker,

            Did you even read what I wrote? Scientists are working from knowledge of chemistry, erosion, tidal mechanics, and atmospheric composition, and a host of other disciplines, and how they work together. All you have is magic.

            Science gives the best explanation it can based on what is currently known. If the explanation does not match the actual data, then the explanation is changed, checked, double checked, and extensively tested. This process continues constantly as new data is found. Even with well established scientific theories, such as Evolution, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, and others, they are constantly tested. If we were to find Star Trek type energy beings one day who’s bodies were not made up of cells, then the Cell Theory would need to be changed, as would other theories in all likelihood.

            My point, since you obviously missed it completely, is that evolution is not concerned with how life began, only how it changes over time. For an explanation of how life began, you have to go to another scientific theory.

            Science is not a matter of faith at all. You are ENCOURAGED to question your assumptions, test your questions, draw your own conclusions, present them to the world, and defend them against others. People of different faiths and religions with subject knowledge looking at your information draw the same conclusions if your evidence and arguments are sound.

            Since the subject matter here is biology, you are right in that I personally cannot prove it. My area of expertise is elsewhere. However, I can point you to people who can prove and support these theories. I can point you to the objective evidence that supports them. I am not actually asking you to take anything on faith.

            Faith, however, discourages questioning. You are told that “that is the way it is”. You are not allow to question things. You are not allowed to do your own testing. You discount anyone who disagrees with you. And people of different faiths and religions come up with wildly varying answers depending on their own beliefs.

            You obviously do not understand the first thing about science, and you are not interested in learning. You ignore the explanations of people who are trying to teach you about reality, because you cannot accept that your beliefs do not apply to anyone except you.

          • getstryker

            Did I read it – NO! Am I ignorant as you obviously imply – NO! Have I ever researched the subject, read books, inquired and sought answers – YES!
            Conclusion – when it comes to ‘hard science’ – that is: computers, cars, medicine, etc., you betcha – science is great. When it comes to the ‘coulda , woulda, mighta, shoulda, with a definite maybe thrown in of evolutionary science, or whatever you want to call it,’- it’s ALL nothing more than wild guesses, speculation, lies and fraud – there are NO provable ‘missing links, no evolution in the sense that small changes over time produce different species, etc. It’s ALL tax-supported religion. In truth, I prefer my own beliefs in a God that created it all in 6 days!
            You and your friends can believe whatever you like. It’s a free country (at least for a while longer) We’re done here!

          • Jimpithecus

            You are actually just a troll, aren’t you?

          • namelessghost

            I’d say so. He pretty much admitted it, too.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Evolution is how life changes over time, not its origin. If you want to argue against evolution, fine, but at least know what it is first. You seem to be mixing up evolution with either abiogenesis or the Big Bang or maybe both.

            Oh, by the way…those two things aren’t about “something being created from nothing” either. So you’re arguing against something that no one’s arguing about, really.

          • getstryker

            Until ‘scientists’ can explain ‘origin’ – all the rhetoric about ‘science’ and so-called ‘evolution’ is meaningless.

            YOU want me to accept a concept called ‘evolution’ – a process that happens supposedly over millions of years without establishing HOW OR WHY ‘self-replicating molecules’ came into existence. I’m supposed to believe that ‘life came out of nowhere and evolved from there’

            You AND scientists ignore the most fundamental question – ‘where did what ever you claim evolved come from?’ ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION – THEN WE’LL TALK ‘EVOLUTION!’

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m just supposed to believe that ‘life came out of nowhere and evolved from there

            No, you’re not expected to, really. You can have any one of a large number of beliefs as to the origin of life and still believe (as is borne out by observations) that it evolved from a simpler form to its current state. After all, quite a lot of people believe in the idea of “theistic evolution.” The point is, the origin and the evolution of life are separate things.
            Go ahead and take issue with abiogenesis or the Big Bang Theory or whatever, just know that those are not parts of evolution.

            Oh, but as I saying, though… abiogenesis doesn’t say “life came from nowhere”, it says it came from nonliving matter. The Big Bang Theory doesn’t say the universe “came from nowhere” either; it says the universe expanded from a much denser state. (common misconception, though)

          • getstryker

            What ‘non-living matter?’ – Where did ‘it’ come from? ‘Denser state?’ – I’m assuming you are referring to ‘matter’ – where did it come from? You want me to accept ‘evolution’ of all ‘living things’ – a process fraught with numerous proven examples of deceit, fakes, misrepresentations, etc. Claims that can not be shown today in a modern laboratory that were supposed to have happened millions of years ago. Dogs are still dogs – not one has ever evolved into a cat! ‘Science has a long way to go!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What ‘non-living matter?

            The organic matter present on the early Earth. Now, if you want to get into the questions about where matter itself came from, that’s interesting in itself, but outside the scope of, and really irrelevant to, evolution. I mentioned “theistic evolution” before, remember? One could believe a god created life, the universe, and everything (can’t resist a Douglas Adams reference) and then set evolution into motion.

            Claims that can not be shown today in a modern laboratory

            Two words: Lenski experiment.

            . Dogs are still dogs – not one has ever evolved into a cat

            If that’s you honestly think something like that is how evolution is claimed to work, you’re seriously misinformed. Dogs, and other things like wolves and such, evolved from a common ancestor. And it’s not like one day, some wolf-like creature gave birth to what you would recognize today as a modern dog. No one would expect that, because it’s a long, gradual process.

            But, hey, at least NOW we’re finally talking about evolution. Took us long enough…

          • getstryker

            And yet, in all you have put forward, theistic evolution is totally unbiblical. The Lenski experiment started with bacteria and ended up with bacteria, dogs beget dogs, variations for sure but they are still dogs – sorry – no sale!

          • Enniscorthy

            How many billion years did you wait in your test? And what did you think the dog was going to do, turn into a pigeon?

          • getstryker

            Mine only took 6 days . . . God did it – Bible says everything after it’s kind (a dog is still a dog – a pigeon is still a bird – lots of variations – for sure, but each after it’s kind) It’s your so-called ‘science’ that is selling the ‘snake-oil’ – evolution is ‘science fiction’ – I can’t prove God and your scientists certainly have not proven evolution no matter how many billions of years you claim it took!

          • Enniscorthy

            Based on what you wrote, I’m going to suggest you might need to read up a bit on what evolution actually is. And also to know the difference between evolution and cosmology.

          • getstryker

            Well, I thank you for your suggestion and I will certainly give it all the full consideration it so richly deserves!

          • Enniscorthy

            You’ll be glad you did.

          • Quince

            I don’t think you actually have the courage to learn what the Theory of Evolution is or the evidence that supports it.

            You think you are batting 1000, but that’s against a strawman of your own creation.

            Find a reliable, non creationist source of information, if you dare.

          • getstryker

            The best part of all this exchange is that I really don’t care what you or your friends think. Courage? Been there and done that, in spades pal.
            This is NOT about courage, it’s about ‘truth’ – for now, you have none!

          • Quince

            Prove me wrong. Use actual information put out by evolutionary biologists rather than debunked creationist talking points.

            This is about your personal integrity, not what I think.

          • getstryker

            Oh my . . . appeal to my sense of ‘personal integrity’ and the defense there of? What’s that have to do with this? This is about FACTS and you have none! YOU want me to use ‘actual info put out by evolutionary biologists’ – what? . . . you want me to support your beliefs using THEIR lies?

          • Quince

            No. I want you to address what you think are shortcomings with the Theory of Evolution based on what the Theory actually says, rather than an absurd strawman.

            Example: Let’s say someone said “Contrary to popular opinion, Bret Favre is not the best quarterback ever because his passing percentage is X and his interception percentage is Y.” This is a fact based argument even though others may agree or disagree.

            OTOH, let’s say someone said “Contrary to popular opinion, Bret Favre is not the best quarterback ever because he doesn’t cook, has never thrown out a man at third base and sucks at table tennis.” This is ludicrous. All that speaker has done is display his ignorance of Bret Favre and the game of football. That statement adds nothing for or against the argument that Favre is the best quarterback. It adds nothing to a discussion about Bret Favre as a football player because it does not address anything remotely related to football.

            Likewise, if you want to criticize the Theory of Evolution you need to discuss the actual contents of that theory.

            The TOE does not address where non living matter came from. Criticizing the TOE for not addressing something it does not address is like saying Bret Favre is a lousy quarterback because he never scored a home run. It makes no sense.

            You say the TOE is a “process fraught with numerous proven examples of deceit, fakes, misrepresentations, etc.” But the TOE is not based on deceit, fakes, misrepresentations, etc. It is supported by current, verifiable evidence. In fact, it has a mechanism for identifying and weeding out errors. So if you want to criticize the TOE, show how the fact that it weeds out errors makes it less reliable, not more. Or show how the verifiable, repeatable evidence from modern embryology contradicts the TOE.

            You said “Dogs are still dogs – not one has ever evolved into a cat!”. Anyone who understands anything about the TOE knows the Theory absolutely does not say “dogs will turn into cats.” The Theory of Evolution does not say that. So find out what the TOE does say about speciation and demonstrate how what it actually says about speciation is incorrect.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            theistic evolution is totally unbiblical

            That’s completely beside my point. I was just trying to show that you don’t have to be an atheist to accept evolution.

          • getstryker

            Agreed, anyone is free to believe as they wish, however, anyone that claims the title of ‘Christian’ & believes in ‘theistic or Darwinian evolution’ would raise a lot of eyebrows to anyone who is a true, Bible believing Christian. The Genesis Account of Creation s the only truth a true Christian will accept.

          • MarkSebree

            I am calling you on your use of the True Scotsman fallacy there.

            What you are calling a “true Christian” is a misnomer. You are effectively claiming that only you get to decide who is and is not a Christian based exclusively on whether or not their beliefs match your admittedly ignorant and close-minded beliefs.

            Just because a Christian accepts the fact that evolution exists does not mean that the person is not a “true Christian”. It means that the person is better educated than you, has a better understanding of science, and a better grasp of reality. Note: I am basing my assessment of you on your posts in this thread and others where I have seen you write.

            You do NOT get to decide on who is a Christian and who is not. You also do not get to decide on who is a supposedly “true Christian”, whatever that is actually supposed to mean. You only get to decide on your own beliefs and your own actions, and your beliefs do not apply yo anyone else besides you.

          • getstryker

            Actually, I do get to decide – that’s really the entire point. I get to decide if your side is correct or if mine is. I get to decide who does or does not meet the Biblical standard that the God I believe has set. And by those standards, I judge ideas, beliefs, intent of the heart and mind and I choose what I will accept or reject.
            I reject ‘evolution’ and all that goes with it. Now, you will use your ‘standard’ to judge me and you have done so. We can do that because we each have an opinion and we are free to express it. We simply differ! Good day to you sir.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I guess it’s just because I’m not a Christian, but I really don’t care.

            Even when I was one, when I was a kid, I thought the Genesis account was not to be taken completely literally. The more I read of that, and the more I know of science, the more I realize that’s the only way it makes sense. But anyway, that’s irrelevant to what I was talking about.

          • getstryker

            I am sorry that ‘someone’ influenced you to lose whatever ‘child-like’ faith you may have had. I was raised in church, got away from it as a young adult and came back after I realized that God is real, His Word is real and all the negativity against it has never stood the test of time – His Word is the Truth – whether you accept it or not. The ‘science’ you rely on the dispute that Word is faulty and you know it. Truth is always truth – theories on origin, evolution, etc., change every day. It takes some mighty big leaps of faith to buy into those lies. Think about every part of your body – millions of years to evolve or a God who created you whole & complete?
            If God does NOT exist, why do you spend so much time trying to promote unbelief? In all your efforts has God been disproven?
            You’re on the wrong side of this argument, and someday soon I hope you come to realize that. May the God you don’t want to acknowledge bless you and yours. Good day to you sir.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I am sorry that ‘someone’ influenced you to lose whatever ‘child-like’ faith you may have had.

            That’s pretty presumptuous of you. Some people seem to think that whenever someone becomes an atheist, it must be because they had some sort of bad experience with a church or something. If that’s what you mean by that, you’re utterly wrong. I’m not saying that that does not happen, but it wasn’t the case with me at all.

            The ‘science’ you rely on to dispute that Word is faulty and you know it.

            More presumption on your part. Don’t think you know what I know and what I don’t know.

            Truth is always truth – theories on origin, evolution, etc., change every day.

            What’s true doesn’t change, correct….but just because you reached a conclusion about something, but then later reached another conclusion based on new information, that doesn’t mean your new conclusion is automatically false. To put it another way, the truth might not change, but our knowledge of it can, and does. For one example, people used to think the Sun and other planets revolved around the Earth, but then eventually people realized it was everything revolving around the Sun, based on further observations. That’s just the way science works. If science was like religion and claimed to have all the answers since thousands of years ago, we wouldn’t have all the advancements we have today. You wouldn’t have the computer or phone you’re reading this on now.

            Think about every part of your body – millions of years to evolve or a God who created you whole & complete?

            That just sounds like nothing but an “argument from incredulity”. “Millions of years to evolve” is the much more logical answer to me. Scientific observations directly contradict the idea that life was created in its present state.

            If God does NOT exist, why do you spend so much time trying to promote unbelief? In all your efforts has God been disproven?

            I don’t “spend so much time promoting unbelief” and I most certainly am not trying to disprove God. I don’t believe the existence of any god can be either proven or disproven. That’s the reason I don’t believe in one.

          • getstryker

            You said: “That’s pretty presumptuous of you.” – that’s correct, simply a guess on my part based on other experiences for why someone rejects their early faith.

            You said: ” . . . Don’t think you know what I know and what I don’t know” – That’s correct, nor do you know what I know either.

            You said: “If science was like religion and claimed to have all the answers since thousands of years ago, we wouldn’t have all the advancements we have today.” – Of course knowledge advances and I do not dispute ‘hard science’ – cars, computers, etc., . . however, Darwinian evolution is NOT science – it’s wild guesses, speculation, coulda, maybes, wild imagination, etc.,

            It changes because the absolute ridiculousness of it’s tenants are revealed, but rarely admitted to. “embryonic development similarities – debunked, Piltdown Man – fraud, birds & ancient fish – fakes & found . . . it goes on and on and yet, so-called ‘scientists’ continue to make preposterous claims to explain every living thing.

            You said: “Millions of years to evolve is the much more logical answer to me.” – Really? Isn’t it somewhat telling that males/females genital organs had to develop at exactly the same time in the same area to find each other? How did they know what to do with ’em? How about eyes, brain connections, tear ducts, organs, ligaments, bones, nerves, tendons, etc? Millions of years? – Really? Your lack of belief in God or your inability or mine to prove He exists does NOT mean He’s not there. One last question – If God doesn’t exist . . . why do you spend so much time and effort trying to convince Christians of it?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            simply a guess on my part based on other experiences for why someone rejects their early faith.

            …a guess that was utterly wrong in my case.

            Of course knowledge advances and I do not dispute ‘hard science’ – cars, computers, etc.,

            Do you not consider biology and medicine to be “hard science”? Those fields have benefited greatly from the understanding of evolution. Actually, the way I said that is probably a bit of an understatement.

            Oh, and a few hoaxes don’t discredit an entire field of study, either. What if I used that same type of argument on religion? There are some Christians who have came up with things they used for evidence that were later believed to be false or hoaxes…guess we can dismiss Christianity as false, then?

            The way you phrased that question about sexual organs displays a misunderstanding of evolution. You’re acting as if no animal had sexual organs, then all of a sudden, poof, one day they evolved them. It doesn’t work that way.

            Your lack of belief in God or your inability or mine to prove He exists does NOT mean He’s not there.

            Did you read what I said in my last post?? I never said that, but since I’ve never seen any evidence for a god, I don’t believe in it. There are an infinite number of things that I could say I can’t know that they’re not there, but that’s absolutely no reason to believe in them.

            If God doesn’t exist . . . why do you spend so much time and effort trying to convince Christians of it?

            First of all, I really DON’T do that….but that question totally makes no sense to me. Wouldn’t that actually be a good reason for me to try to convince people who did believe, if I were more inclined to do so? Or, wait….are you trying to say I focus on Christians as opposed to believers in other religions? If I (or atheists in general) seem to do that, it’s mostly because Christians are the ones we have to deal with all the time. I mean, the US is what, 70% Christians? Any other religion is a small minority relatively, at least in our parts of the world. (going off on a tangent maybe, but if you counted the agnostics/atheists/no-religion and such as one group, we’d vastly outnumber all those other non-Christian religions in the US)

          • getstryker

            I have included ‘medicine, and by implication, biology as ‘hard science’ within each respective fields, however, in reference to ‘evolution’ – it’s conclusions are highly suspect.

            A few hoaxes??? Those ‘hoaxes’ are still taught as examples of evolution today in schools across the country. If someone teaches heresy in church, people can walk away – kids in schools can’t do that – they are force-fed the lies and those myriad hoaxes are the supposed evidence.

            Sexual organs is just one valid example – applies to all – they did NOT just ‘appear’ one day, whole and complete by an evolutionary process – amazingly, my God seems to have overcome any such problem and it did NOT take ‘millions and millions of years’:

            Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

            If those organs did not exist, in the beginning, whole & totally complete, how did numerous successive, slight modifications take place to begin with? How about other organs – eyes, ears, heart, intestines, etc.? How many millions of years for each to be what it is today – part of a whole and complete living thing?
            Just to close – the evidence of God is all around you – the fallacy of evolution is self-evident – look at any part of the human or animal body and think – did all this REALLY evolve from a fruit, a fish, a bird, a monkey? Where did ‘they’ come from and HOW? A lightning bolt hits a puddle of dirty water – life from non-life – REALLY? You’re smarter than that, for sure!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I have included ‘medicine, and by implication, biology as ‘hard science’
            within each respective fields, however, in reference to ‘evolution’ –
            it’s conclusions are highly suspect.

            My point was both biology and medicine would not be what they are today without conclusions drawn from the study of evolution.

            the fallacy of evolution is self-evident – look at any part of the human
            or animal body and think – did all this REALLY evolve from a fruit, a
            fish, a bird, a monkey? Where did ‘they’ come from and HOW? A lightning
            bolt hits a puddle of dirty water – life from non-life – REALLY? You’re
            smarter than that, for sure

            “Argument from incredulity” yet again, and more misunderstandings of the basic ideas of evolution. It’s funny you mention monkeys though, since the similarities between humans and other primates such as monkeys are actually evidence that they came from a common ancestor.

            But, an “argument from incredulity” just doesn’t work, because there are many established facts of science that are counter-intuitive, much more so than evolution really. Just look into relativity or quantum physics some time.

            Oh, and why bring up that stuff about the origin of life again? I thought we were talking about evolution here. But, anyway….that is not too different from what YOU believe, isn’t it? Gen 2-7: “God formed man of the dust of the ground”….life from non-life. You just believe God did it and that it was created in a different state than science says.

          • getstryker

            Origin? – yep, you claim that ‘science’ can justify and explain the ‘similarities between species’ which is supposedly evidence of a common ancestor. Really? ‘Science’ claims everything had a ‘common ancestor – you mean like an apple, a coconut, a moose, a hummingbird, a mouse, an elephant, a man, a woman??? And where & how did that so-called ‘common ancestor’ come to be? Your ‘science’ claims it by “random chance?” – Uh huh – you bet there’s a lot of “Argument from incredulity”- Yep, me and millions of other non-believers of evolution hear this and their ‘BS meter’ is off the scale!

            If you’re going to use a Bible verse to support your supposition, try using ALL of it – in context! Maybe you miss the ‘breath of life’ part.

            7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.- Genesis 2:7 (KJV)
            If I seem to have a ‘basic misunderstanding of evolution’ . . . why don’t you just give me YOUR definition – so we’re on the same page!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            me and millions of other non-believers of evolution hear this and their ‘BS meter’ is off the scale!

            That means nothing.

            where & how did that so-called ‘common ancestor’ come to be? Your ‘science’ claims it by “random chance?

            Evolution doesn’t deal with those questions.

            Maybe you missed the ‘breath of life’ part

            I omitted that because I didn’t think it was relevant. It still describes creating life from non-living matter.

            If I seem to have a ‘basic misunderstanding of evolution’ . . . why don’t you just give me YOUR definition – so we’re on the same page

            I already have.

          • getstryker

            Interesting . . . Meaningless? – time will tell 😉

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You asked me for “MY definition of evolution”….it’s not secret hidden information, you know. Look it up. Look it up on Wikipedia, do a Google search, heck, open up a ninth grade biology textbook.

          • getstryker

            Been there, done that . . . it’s total BS – as I have stated previously – it’s the sad phony collection of ‘coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, possibly, we think, WAG’s, wild imaginations and general flights of fancy’ that annoy me. Your whole attitude of ‘scientific superiority’ is totally laughable. What I believe, I believe by faith – can’t prove it – what you claim to believe, you believe by faith in a ‘man in a white lab coat’ – you can’t prove it either – you wrap it up in lots of supposed ‘science’ to give it ‘credibility’ and yet – you can’t show one instance of actually provable, repeatable, scientifically verifiable proof of what you say you believe. You rattle off a bunch of ‘science disciplines’ as if ‘they’ have the proof – BS – It’s still all nothing but silly supposition – if evolution is real – why so many frauds, fakes and lies? Why are totally debunked fake drawings of supposed embryo development still touted as real ‘evidence of evolution’ still taught in schools today? What happened to their ‘scientific integrity?’ – why the promotion of fakes to support the theory? ‘They’ can take your so-called ‘science & facts’ and shove it! Personally, I have researched the subject of evolution over the years and found it totally lacking in ANY credibility – does micro-evolution (adaptation) exist, you betcha – macro-evolution (a dog turns into a cat) – not a chance.
            That 9th grade biology textbook you mention, if there are pages on ‘evolution’ – I’d give them about the same credibility and use that the ‘pages of the Sears catalog in the ol outhouse’ served a hundred years ago – Evolution is nothing more that ‘science fiction’ – keep your definition – I’ll keep my God!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            macro-evolution (a dog turns into a cat)

            I give up. You’re being willfully ignorant if you truly have “researched the subject of evolution over the years” and think “a dog turns into a cat” is what macro-evolution means. Or, you haven’t really “researched it over the years”. Or maybe your “research” is only coming from creationist sources, I don’t know. It’s an exercise in futility for me to try to help you understand this any more, because you’re apparently determined to stick to your pre-conceived erroneous notions that have little, if any, relation to the facts.

          • getstryker

            My “pre-conceived erroneous notions that have little, if any, relation to the facts?” – time will tell.

          • Enniscorthy

            “macro-evolution (a dog turns into a cat)”

            Serious question. Have you ever heard a single scientist or at least proponent of evolution claim that a dog has turned into a cat?

            If so, please give me the example. I’d LOVE to hear it. If not, maybe you should re-examine what you THINK you know about evolution and what the claims are that back it. Because I guarantee you that no scientist has ever said it was about a dog turning into a cat. Or any animal turning into another animal.

          • getstryker

            Come now, let not have anyone get their panties in a wad . . . it was meant as a facetious comment just to get a rise out of someone . . seems it surly worked!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, you’re not woefully ignorant on the subject you’re criticizing, but you’re just trolling? Not sure if that’s any better….

          • getstryker

            When folks like you come to a Christian site and set out to critize, demean, ridicule and shame, etc. believers in a God you have NO REAL knowledge of . . . should you not expect that ‘someone’ will show up to hand it back to you . . . look at what I’ve done – every member of your ‘pack’ has attempted to ‘re-educate, cajole, intimidate, shame, and question my faith in God . . . I have just given you a bit of it back. Look at the lengthy responses from various members of your group . . . you each took a shot – and MISSED!
            It’s been fun but I have a life to get back to – do yourselves a favor – get off the site – God Bless!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You came here saying things that were obviously wrong, as in obviously a misrepresentation of evolution. I attempted to correct you on them. I fail to see how that is in any way “questioning your faith”. Especially when I pointed out several times that a belief in evolution does not preclude a belief in a god. What you did isn’t “giving back” anything, because I never did that, I never intentionally misrepresented my opponent’s position to get a rise out of them.

          • getstryker

            Yes, you were a gentleman and did not directly engage in the behavior that I mentioned . . . my comment was meant ‘in general’ towards the ‘pack’ – and others that come here just to harass and harangue Christians. My apologies to you!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You said you were being facetious, but I found it easy to believe you were being serious, because just about everything you said is an argument I’ve heard before from creationists, often on this very site. I don’t think I’ve ever heard an argument against evolution (and I’ve heard a lot of them) that doesn’t display some sort of misconception and/or logical fallacy. That should tell us something.

          • getstryker

            From two of my previous comments to a friend of yours on this thread:
            Here’s my position . . . briefly:

            “Until ‘scientists’ can explain ‘origin’ – all the rhetoric about ‘science’ and so-called ‘evolution’ is absolutely meaningless.”
            I am aware of the definition of evolution – that is NOT my issue – everything must have a beginning and ‘science’ ignores the question because they just might have to admit that something outside of natural processes did it all – God!

            What makes ‘beginnings’ so important is the ‘ending’! Even if you are 100% right about evolution, your belief only leads to physical death. If there is, in fact, no God, no Heaven, no eternal life – I simply end up just like you – dead! . . I’ve lost nothing no matter what I may believe.

            However, if what I believe is 100% correct and I die, (before the Rapture) I have faith to believe that mere physical death is the doorway to everlasting spiritual life. I realize that you don’t believe that, in fact, you very well may scoff at the whole idea of a God, but in the end, either way, evolution or God, I win! . . . . . Time will tell.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Sigh….

            I though I went over all this already. Evolution is not about the origin of life, and “evolution or God” is a false dilemma. Evolution is not atheism. If you want to criticize atheism, talk about atheism, don’t confuse it with evolution.

            everything must have a beginning and ‘science’ ignores the question

            No, it does not. There are all kinds of theories and hypotheses regarding the origins of life or the universe. Maybe scientists might say there are some things about those things that we don’t know yet, but that’s hardly “ignoring the question”. That’s a point theists often seem to miss, by the way….it is possible, and sometimes in fact the most viable position to say “we don’t know.”

            And also, I think saying “God did it” isn’t really much more of answer than “we don’t know”, because it’s always at that point that the questions stop, or at least that people stop having answers for them. If “everything must have a beginning” what was God’s beginning? If God doesn’t need to have a beginning, why is he the only thing exempt from that requirement? But those are questions more for theologians or philosophers than scientists, anyway.

          • getstryker

            We have a difference of opinion – neither of us will change his position.
            You’ve been respectful in our exchange and I do appreciate that. There is no need for us to continue. We both have better things to do with our time. Good day to you sir!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It isn’t just “a difference of opinion”, you’re flat-out wrong about what the opinion you’re arguing against is.

          • getstryker

            Perhaps you are correct, perhaps not – TIME WILL TELL!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, it’s not a case of “time will tell.” You’re wrong about what evolution is, you’re wrong about what scientists say about evolution. You can look it up and see you’re wrong in a matter of seconds.

          • getstryker

            Whether I can ‘know’ or define Evolution to your liking is irrelevant. IMO, it is a lie – we’re done here – Bye!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The facts of what the position you’re arguing against actually is are irrelevant? If you think that, then, yeah, we’re done alright.

          • Enniscorthy

            OK, so it was facetious, but do you really think evolution means an animal changes into another animal?

          • getstryker

            I made this comment to one of the others 4 days ago . . . it still holds:

            “Until ‘scientists’ can explain ‘origin’ – all the rhetoric about ‘science’ and so-called ‘evolution’ is meaningless.”
            I am aware of the definition of evolution – that is NOT my issue – everything must have a beginning and ‘science’ ignores the question because they just might have to admit that something outside of natural processes did it all – God!
            Beyond this, there is NOTHING left to discuss. I have other things to do.

          • Enniscorthy

            Well you know, we can talk about beginnings or we can talk about evolution, but again, they are not the same thing.

          • getstryker

            You’re absolutely correct . . . they are NOT the same thing. What makes ‘beginnings’ so important is the ‘ending’! Even if you are 100% right about evolution, your belief only leads to physical death. If there is no God, no Heaven, no eternal life – I simply end up just like you . . I’ve lost nothing no matter what I believe.
            However, if what I believe is 100% correct and I die, (before the Rapture) I have faith to believe that mere physical death is the doorway to everlasting spiritual life. I realize that you don’t believe that, in fact, you very well may scoff at the whole idea of a God, but in the end, either way, evolution or God, I win! . . . . . Time will tell.

          • Jimpithecus

            This reply makes no sense.

          • Quince

            I challenge you to learn solid information about evolution written by evolutionary scientists. The Berkeley evolution site is good.

            Get to the point where you can fairly and accurately describe the theory of evolution and the evidence scientists use to support it.

            Then try to debunk it.

          • getstryker

            There is no ‘solid information’ about evolution . . . it changes all the time. Yeaaaah, I hear all the BS about scientists learning new things, this and that, and so their suppositions change to embrace the supposed new knowledge, etc., etc., and it’s all a lie. Why would I believe anything about ‘evolutionary science’ when schools are still teaching the lie of phony ’embryonic development’ promoted a century+ ago? – your ‘science’ has NO credibility – Piltdown Man, etc., – ALL frauds – it just goes on and on and you think reading a so-called ‘science book’ is going to change that? I’ll stick with the Bible – it’s a book I can find the truth in that never changes!

          • Quince

            That’s just another series of strawmen.

            You are unable to accurately describe the theory of evolution and the evidence that scientists rely on to support it. All you can do is a gish gallop of previously debunked creationist talking points. Do you honestly think the scientific understanding of embryology has not advanced in two centuries? Wow.

            I was right. It takes honesty, courage and integrity to learn accurate information about an opposing view. You can’t or won’t.

          • getstryker

            Actually, I been doing nothing more than ‘baiting’ you folks and 5 of you were so intent on ‘educating me’ to believe your tripe that you have just made fools of yourselves. Do you really think that just because you run in a pack and each takes a swipe at any Christian’s beliefs that you’re going to really change anything. We don’t expect to change your mindset. I’m actually surprised that this has not degenerated into ‘name-calling’ and questioning my intelligence, etc. Bravo for the bunch of ya at least! At least for the moment – (I see Quince is getting a bit frustrated – tsk, tsk!)

          • Enniscorthy

            And the problem with that is that there are over 35,000 denominations of Christianity, all believing they’ve been taught the correct thing and all who cite the Bible, but who also seem to disagree with each other in some crucial way. That’s why it’s No True Scotsman when you tell some other Christian group who’s been taught differently that they’re false Christians simply because you disagree on some minor point.

          • getstryker

            Good point and I certainly don’t deny it’s gonna take a mighty big God to sort it all out . . . See, the interesting thing about Christianity is that the Bible says that God judges based on the ‘heart’ (no, not the physical heart – you know what I mean) and NOT doctrine. Even those that have never heard of Jesus Christ will be judged in that manner. Even they ‘know’ that there is ‘something bigger than themselves out there’. When He is ‘sincerely asked by a repentant sinner’ – our God will forgive, even the most heinous sins – He said He would in His Word – those that believe and act on it become ‘Christians’ – True, their doctrine may be flawed, they may be immature, they may make mistakes, but they are ‘forgiven’ – and ALL because God said so! Obviously, I have given you the briefest, shortest, version of how salvation works. There is more to it but yes, there is lots of doctrinal disagreement between various denominations – that’s the fault of men and God’s enemies. How God judges every man is up to Him – He makes the rules! Folks like me read the same Bible, we do what we believe is right and trust a mighty big God for the rest!

          • Raygun Mike

            Everyone – please stop trying to persuade getstryker that science is real. As they say, never try to teach a pig to sing, you’ll just get upset and annoy the pig. Getstryker will never accept real science, even though many people of faith do. Getstryker would rather believe in his interpretation of the Bible instead of science and facts, even though none of the supernatural stuff in the Bible has ever been proven. We can’t help someone who takes such great pride in remaining ignorant, so just leave him alone with his convictions.

            Getstryker – I wish you well, but please leave science and facts to others as you’ve proven you are not a good judge of either.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha . . . nothing wrong with ‘real science’ . . . it’s the BS phony collection of ‘coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, possibly, we think, WAG’s, imaginations and general flights of fancy’ that annoy me. Your attitude of ‘scientific superiority’ is totally laughable. What I believe, I believe by faith – can’t prove it – what you claim to believe, you believe by faith in a ‘man in a white lab coat’ – you can’t prove it either – you wrap it up in supposed ‘science’ to give it ‘credibility’ and yet – you can’t show one instance of actually provable, repeatable, scientifically verifiable proof of what you say you believe. It’s all nothing by supposition – if evolution is real – why so many frauds, fakes and lies? I addressed the fraud in previous comments. Why is totally debunked fake drawings (embryo development) still touted as ‘evidence of evolution’ still taught in schools today? What happened to ‘scientific integrity’ – why the promotion of fakes to support the theory? You can take your so-called ‘science & facts’ and shove it!

          • Quince

            getstryker said “you can’t show one instance of actually provable, repeatable, scientifically verifiable proof of what you say you believe. ”

            Correct. We can’t show “one instance.” We can show thousands upon thousands of “instances of actually provable, repeatable, scientifically verifiable proof.”

            The evidence is found in genetics, virology, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, geodiversity, the study of anavatisms and vestigial traits and other disciplines.

          • getstryker

            .” We can show thousands upon thousands of “instances of actually provable, repeatable, scientifically verifiable proof.” – good, please provide one . . . I’m interested.

          • Raygun Mike

            Looks like someone was offended by my earlier comment.
            I guess opinions not based biblical interpretation are forbidden on this web site. Well your website, your rules I guess.

            To getstryker and others that believe as he does, I will just say that not everyone in the country or this planet thinks like you….try to get along with others who may think differently, it would be the christian thing to do.

          • getstryker

            Oh, don’t worry your little pea-pick’n heart about me . . . I get along with everybody – and you’re right – it IS the Christian thing to do! Y’all come back & talk to me again sometime, ya hear?! 😉

          • Quince

            I usually write for the audience. I assume there may be lurkers who are capable of rational thought. I like to give them a clear image of the alternatives.

            Anyone reading getstryker’s falsehoods and admitted “baiting” compared to rational, evidence based science has a choice.

            Note – I have no intention of leading anyone away a from christianity. Many christians accept evolution. I simply think accuracy, honesty and critical thinking matter.

          • getstryker

            FYI – you can’t lead a real ‘bible-believing Christian’ away from their faith in Christianity. Any person claiming the ‘title’ of Christian that accepts ‘evolution’ is clinging to beliefs NOT supported by the Bible.
            Your proclaimed propensity for accuracy, honesty and critical thinking is certainly a goal we all should aspire to . . . does NOT seem to be attributes common among those that promote a ‘debunked’ theory!

        • Jimpithecus

          Evolution is not a religion. It is a sound, scientific theory about past and present biodiversity on earth. Anyone that tells you that evolution is a religion has no idea of what they speak.

  • MCrow

    Teach creation as part of your religious studies course, not science

  • Netizen_James

    I’m glad that the school has reprimanded the teacher in question (even though they refused to say that they had!), and has committed to sticking with the established curriculum.

    If you want your kids to learn Bible stories, send them to Sunday School. The place for Bible stories in public schools is as part of a ‘comparative mythology’ class,

    • Skywatcher57

      Tell that to the teachers that are teaching the religion of Islam in your schools! If that can be taught, why can’t Christianity or other world religions?

      • Croquet_Player

        There is a big difference between teaching “about” religions, and teaching a particular religion as a method of indoctrination, or holding it up as a “better” (or “worse”) religion than others. Public school students have a right to a thorough education, which of course means learning basic information about all the world’s major religions. If you know of any schools that are teaching Islam, or any religion, in a manner that is not merely informative, but an effort to indoctrinate, or present certain religious views as superior or inferior, it is illegal and you should notify the school authorities. If you need help, you may contact the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They can give you information about students’ rights, what is or is not illegal, etc. If you can identify a school that is promoting Islam, or any other religion (or absence of religion), they can offer legal aid.

        • Skywatcher57

          I don’t live in the USA, and as I just told one commentator, here, in Canada, ANY person who tries to oppose this Islamic agenda in a school board meeting or in the school is escorted out of the building! The same is happening in the USA, but the media (part of the conspiracy) remains mum about it!

          You’re right! It’s a crime, and they are giving approx. 30 pages to the study of Islam in their Social Studies (USA) and a paragraph to Christianity! As I said before, they’re even giving them the prayer to recite to become a Muslim, all without their parent’s knowledge or consent! This is an Islamic form of catechism, pure and simple! All of our schools on both sides of the border are being bombarded by it, even in the media, which falsely repeats that it’s a “peaceful religion”. Former Muslims are trying very hard to alert N. American citizens of the dangers of Islam, but the media won’t report on it! We’re in very serious trouble!

          When our prime minister is confronted about it, he skirts around the issue, refusing to answer the questions because he’s a confessed Muslim. One of the first things he did when he got into office was to appoint a Somali-born Muslim as our Minister of Immigration! What does that tell ya? It’s a subtle take-over, with the media partaking in a treasonous conspiracy! This is why Trump so adamantly wants to keep them out of the USA. The wall will only serve to keep American citizens in the country, where they will be mercilessly slaughtered like fish in a barrel! The Bible is right…there will be no place to run to or to hide. I never thought I’d live the day I’d be seeing our two countries disemboweled and the citizenry sitting back, allowing it to happen without confrontation.

          Our military was handed a horrible set of communistic policies today, basically telling them they are owned by the government, and that they are not allowed on sites like this, not allowed to speak out against issues of importance, etc., or they will be charged, etc. I knew it was coming, but was so hopeful it wouldn’t come to this. As of today, they will be afraid to speak to each other at work, for fear there will be a snitch present, who will CHOOSE to take offense at something they say, even though it won’t be warranted. If a co-worker doesn’t like you for instance, they can now falsely accuse and your job is history and you’re toast! As they told them today, they cannot go on any public forum or attend any or be a part of any organization that would oppose such regulations! If they do, they can be charged and discharged!

          They are not allowed on social media while on duty or on their own time, as that is a public forum that speaks out against their policies! This is what Hillary wanted to do, and thankfully, she didn’t get in. Time will tell just how much Trump’s administration will allow him to do. He has enemies in both camps, so it will be hard to proceed with much good for the American people. He’s been blessed to accomplish as much good as he has in such a short time. I wish he were our Prime Minister!

          Everything starts with our military and then it trickles down from there!

          • Croquet_Player

            Well, you’ve raised a lot of political topics here, and I hope you’ll forgive me that time does not permit me to address each one at present. (I’ll be happy to go over all the points you raise later when I do have some more time. I don’t wish you to think I am ignoring the topics you’ve raised.) Nevertheless, let’s address the first, and major point – that you think that Islam is being taught in public schools, not merely as information, but in a manner to indoctrinate students.

            This is a matter of concern, for both of us. I want students be well educated, and that includes general information about all the world’s major religions. But, as I hope we can agree, there is a difference between information and indoctrination. You say you live in Canada, and I assume that means you are a Canadian citizen. I’m afraid I know little to nothing about the laws that govern the teaching “about” (not “in”) religions, in Canadian schools. Once again, I would direct you to the (United States based) Freedom From Religion Foundation. They may be able to point you to a similar Canadian organization.

            I’m afraid that’s all I can offer for the moment, But I hope you know that I stand with you in the rights of students to be well educated, but free from indoctrination.

          • Skywatcher57

            Yes, Croquet, I sure did raise a lot of “political topics”, and I apologize for that! However, all these things mesh together and paint a mighty ominous picture. I wish the things I said were not true, but you see, we’ve been indoctrinated in schools for our whole educational “career”. Up until now, Evolution was the meal of the century, now, it’s Islam. Go to any of your local schools and ask to see a Social Studies textbook especially at the grades 5-7 levels. Chances are they will flatly refuse you, as I’ve said before. The US father I was referring to had to spend $300 of his own money to procure a couple of them, the most popular ones that schools are using. If parents don’t want their children to be brainwashed with this stuff, they will have to yank them out of school and home school them. That will bring the authorities to one’s door very quickly, and they’re snapping children out of good and loving homes, just so they can keep up the “program”.

            I was watching this pastor on a personal DVD that I have, and he raised one of the textbooks, showing 20-30 pages of Islamic indoctrination, while most of the other religions got little more than a brief mention in passing. Parents need to wake up and take a peek at the school books the children are bringing home; they’ll be shocked! However, most of them don’t give a rat’s tail as long as their child is in school, and they believe that Islam is a “peaceful religion”.

            In Canada, our students are going to university without knowing how to read, write, or do math. Special education students with autism, etc. are getting the most of the teachers’ time! Those who do know these subjects were blessed to have parents who helped them with these subjects at home! The other university students have to hire tutors to teach them these things whilst enduring a heavy college workload. It’s all for nought, as they incur huge student loan debts that they will never live long enough to pay off: there are no jobs for them! That’s compounded by the huge influx of Muslim migrants that are coming into our country every day! Many of our professionals in the courts, universities, pharmacies, etc. are Muslim or LGBT! They are being given preference. I don’t hate anybody, but hey, let’s be fair about these hiring practices.

            Sexual orientation in schools get the bulk of classroom time, aiding and abetting the LGBT minority, brainwashing the children, LITTLE children who know nothing about sex, nor do they need to at pre-school levels, but they are being taught how to masturbate at these ages! I kid you not! If that’s not bad enough, they’re planting seeds of doubt about their yet unknown sexuality, by trying to convince them that they are the opposite sex to what their bodies declare. They’re too young to know anything about sex, its urges, etc., but many of them are being sexually brainwashed at tender young ages to start hormone replacement therapy, robbing them of their true identity, and parents have NO say in the matter! You folks think you have problems with President Trump? This man has wisdom and foresight to see what’s coming and is trying to head it off. He can’t!

            Croquet, our School Boards need to be taken to task, but parents no longer have any voice. Children belong to the state now, and if we don’t tow the political line, then we lose them! They’re taking children out of good homes because parents do not believe or appreciate what they’re being taught in school! This sounds ludicrous, I know, but we are living in very dangerous times in which humans are prey to other humans. Sexual predation is one thing, but now we have intellectual predation upon the young and the vulnerable, not only in school, but in the music they’re listening to!

            Many of the lyrics and words in their music are right from the Qur’an and other Islamic writings! Ignorance quietly leads people to their own demise.

            Please forgive me, if I don’t get back to you soon; some think I’ve run away from the evolution topic, but I haven’t. I’m finding that sitting at my computer for hours upon hours, going around in circles is killing my legs. At my age, I’d like them to be outworking me, and not the other way around. Sitting too long causes blood clots and diabetes. Yesterday, I inadvertantly locked myself out, so I couldn’t reply to others. Cheers!

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m very concerned to hear about your health issues. Your health must be your primary concern, not responding to all us strangers on the internet. I appreciate your efforts in making your views known, and I am very interested to hear to your views. I welcome open and respectful dialogue, and I enjoy having a (sometimes quite lively!) discussion. Having said that, I’m horrified to think that you might be neglecting your health in order to respond to people here, including me. Please, I beg you, don’t do that! We can address all each other’s points, one at a time, at any later date, when you have plenty of time, and are feeling well. So, not another word until you’re tip-top! I consider all other matters to be immediately laid aside, indefinitely. Please accept my very best wishes for your very good health! Cheers!

      • Netizen_James

        If you think there are public school teachers in the US who are teaching children that Mohammed was the last Prophet of God, please provide evidence for this contention, as I dispute it. No teachers are promoting Islam in public schools in America. In America, government entities are required by law to remain strictly neutral with respect to all religious beliefs – endorsing none, enjoining none, promoting none, prohibiting none. We still have a big problem with many schools and municipalities not understanding what the Establishment Clause of the first amendment means, and that it applies to municipalities and States, not just Congree, and pushing Christianity on students in violation of the Constitution, but we don’t have public schools pushing Islam on people – that’s just bs propaganda.

        • Skywatcher57

          With all due respect, one parent was wondering why his high school child had to have a computer password to do her Social Studies. When he investigated, he was told by her teacher that he COULD NOT have that password. He asked why he couldn’t see what was being taught, and got no further answer. He asked to see her textbooks and the teacher refused, telling him he’d have to buy his own, as they were school property. The students weren’t allowed to have them either, and that’s why they had to have a password. He went out and bought the two textbooks in question, and in it, they were dealing with religion, highlighting Islam, telling the students how they could convert, and further indoctrination. This is going on all over the USA! If he hadn’t pursued the question as to why students couldn’t bring textbooks home, he’d never know the difference. This is why more and more children are being forced to do their homework online; most parents do not check it and the indoctrination goes by unnoticed and consequently, not dealt with.

          The same is happening in my country also. When parents try to combat it, the School Boards order them removed from the room! This is very serious stuff, and most people have no idea how dangerous it is. When the dust has settled, you and many millions more will wish that Christianity had really been shoved through the school system, as we teach and preach on love and forgiveness; turning the other cheek to the enemy, and blessing them, as Christ taught us to do. We don’t crucify or behead those who are in opposition to us….

          If you have chldren in school, INSIST upon seeing their textbooks, not their workbooks! They tell us that there isn’t enough money for textbooks for each child because of theft of the same. That’s a lie! This forces them to go online where their parents probably won’t see how their children are being brainwashed to recite and to make Allah their god! Check it out!

        • Chet

          Whenever, wherever such is/may be being taught, mark it down, protests against such will be nigh unto silent. Critics know they’d be dealing with factors of those who do not accept such criticism and there are indeed penalties, no… America has a new president, one who is neither bashful nor timid about his faith, i.e., Merry Christmas being made popular again, dude… Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus Ye Soldiers Of The Cross… And dare to be a Daniel across the land of the free and home of the brave…

  • TheKingOfRhye

    Atheism is a religion with a specific belief system

    No, it’s not. All atheism is is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That is a position on one question, not a “belief system”.

    compelling scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design.

    I’ve seen many arguments for intelligent design; I never found any of them compelling, or even scientific.

  • Mark

    If I were a teacher, I would not ONLY cast DOUBT on evolution, I would outright CONDEMN it!!!

    • namelessghost

      Then you wouldn’t have a job for very long. Unless you taught at a private school…

      • Mark

        Right, which is why I would have a backup plan for other employment before I engaged in teaching truth

        • MarkSebree

          Yet in the first post in this thread, you stated that you would be denying and condemning the truth. Sounds like you do not plan on teaching the truth at all at any time. You just plan on teaching your own beliefs, no matter how much they differ from reality and the objective truth.

  • Craig Ewoldt

    “Atheist” is really a misnomer. An atheist generally believes that the cosmos is their creator. She is also a person of faith–that the universe came from a singularity–nothing. She believes that her mind is a product of mindless processes, yet that she can trust it to tell her something true. So atheism is a religion–and atheism and humanism are the religion regularly taught in government schools.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      All atheism is is a lack of belief in a god. Nothing you accused atheists of is a belief in a god.

  • old_salty_dawg99

    FFRF is nothing but a pack of LIARS. They are a religion and it preaches HATE of Christians. The school should have told them unless you have a child here you need to shut up and go away we do not want your STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE here. FFRF is a WORTHLESS PACK of IDIOT PESTS. They run around all over the Nation sticking their noses where they DO NOT belong. There is proof that the BIBLE is correct and that Darwin was WRONG. There are whale bones in the Sahara(sp) as well as a band of sea life remains in a layer all over the earth proving the FLOOD of the BIBLE(AV1611King James Version) then just look at the IGNORANCE of some people and you can plainly see Darwin was WRONG. If survival of the fittest was true then the LGBTQ crowd and LIBERALS would be gone long long ago. I base this on just how some people act or the actions they take. If it was truly survival of the fittest those who do these STUPID actions like the teens doing the Tide pod challenge. Anyone with a brain knows those pods can be and are DEADLY to eat yet they still do so. Were evolution true this kind of STUPIDITY would have been bred out long long ago.

  • Chet

    When will FFRF et al learn committed Christians and Jews care not what they think and are not subject unto their anti God anti Christ views, period…

    • namelessghost

      When will Christians learn that they need to keep their religious beliefs out of the public school curriculum?

      • Chet

        The good news message of the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary is not to be stifled and is not bound to any particular place of building, including the local church. And the authority is Matthew 28 and Mark 16, Holy Bible…

        • MarkSebree

          The same things could be said, with appropriate references, about the word of Mohammed and Islam, Hinduism, and the word of Buddha and Buddhism, among others. Keep in mind that this country has the principle of Equal Rights enshrined within its supreme law, the US Constitution.

          Thus, if you are claiming that you have the right to proselytize to a young, captive audience of school children about your beliefs, even if those beliefs contradict the beliefs that their parents are teaching their children, then other teachers have the exact same right to try to convert your children away from Christianity, including your evangelical/Dominionistic brand of Great Commission Christianity. That means that your children’s teachers and public school administration can promote Islam, Wiccan, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, or any other religion to your children as “the one true religion” since you believe that you have the right to do that to other people’s children.

          If you think that doing that is wrong, then why do you want to do that to other people’s children?

          To put it simply, nobody is interested in your beliefs, nobody is bound or subject to your beliefs, and by law, you cannot use any governmental authority you have in the USA to try to impose your beliefs onto anyone else, nor to disparage the beliefs of anyone else.

          • Chet

            Para one: Wrong on all counts. No other object of man’s belief can equate to the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary as He is King of kings and Lord of lords. Further, no other such object of man’s worship sacrificed himself willingly to save the eternal souls of all men, in that all men are sinners in need of this Saviour.

            Para Two: Why would anyone want their child to be taught fallacies? To quote God’s Word, the Holy Bible, “I Am The Way, The Truth and The Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” John 14:6. Christ is not one of a number of ways, but, altogether, the single way. Religion saves no souls, transforms no lives for the better, breaks no bondage, sets no captives free , forgives no one’s sins and most assuredly offers no man eternal life at the end of his limited days on Earth. Christianity is all about relationship, relationship to God Almighty via His only begotten Son who reaches down to all us sinners. Whereas in “religion” men reach upward in trying to appease the object of their faith via divers works, some most beneficial indeed. Others, however, downright despicable and heinous as all too often seen on the evening news with bodies and blood spread about.

            In generations past American schoolchildren were taught to respect the Flag of the United States of America and worship God of our fathers even as we honored the Lord Jesus Christ. And this practice hurt no one, ever… Now, no one wants to force kids to consider Christianity. However, neither should schools be ashamed of the God of our fathers no run from oppression. Christians are to Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus Ye Soldiers Of The Cross.

            The state of this nation is and the USA was founded on the Judeao Christian ethics of which also come many of our laws on the books. Christians will not be stifled nor restrict the practice of their faith to within the walls of the local church building. Nor will Christians buckle at the knees in the face of godless hate fill adversity only to subsequently drop and roll over. Christians and including their children encounter things regularly that are wholly inconsistent with Holy Bible edict, i.e., abortion and homosexual marriage. Yet, they are expected to grin and bear it… Have a nice day and thanks for the exchange of views.