Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Education

Meet Creationists’ Nightmare — The Teen Who Is Combating Christians & Defending Evolution in Public Schools

Jan. 16, 2013 11:10am Billy Hallowell

Zack Kopplin may only be 19-year-old, but the that hasn’t stopped the college student from combating creationists and taking on controversial legislation in Oklahoma that he believes is counterproductive to the state’s education goals. His activism started in 2008 when the “Louisiana Science Education Act” passed a law that has continuously come under scrutiny from church-state separatists.

The regulatory structure, which critics have so-far unsuccessfully attempted to repeal, gives public school science teachers the ability to use supplemental materials in their classrooms in addition to approved textbooks. Critics claim that this creates a pathway for educators to challenge evolution while infusing creationism into lessons. Those who support the law, though, claim that the provision spawns critical thinking — an essential element for young people in educational environments.

As for Kopplin, he became disenchanted in high school after the law passed; he claims that science books were removed from some of his school’s classrooms. The teen told the website io9 that the changes were so pervasive that he felt the need to stand up against what has been perceived by some as an assault on science. Initially, he wrote a paper about the subject for his English class when he was just 14-year-old — but that was just the beginning.

Zack Kopplin Is Challenging Creationism, Vouchers & the Louisiana Science Education Act

Zack Kopplin, 19, appears in a 2011 interview with MSNBC, during which he discusses his battle over creationism (Photo Credit: YouTube/MSNBC)

“This was a pivotal moment for me,” he told the outlet. “I had always been a shy kid and had never spoken out before — I found myself speaking at a meeting of an advisory committee to the State Board of Education and urging them to adopt good science textbooks — and we won.”

While the law is still on the books, science books are allowed to stay in classrooms. io9 has more about Kopplin’s intense involvement in an issue that he is intensely-passionate about:

Indeed, it was the ensuing coverage of the science textbook adoption issue that launched Kopplin as an activist. It also gave him the confidence to start the campaign to repeal the LSEA.

Encouraged by Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University — and a staunch critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute — Kopplin decided to write a letter that could be signed by Nobel laureate scientists in support of the repeal. To that end, he contacted Sir Harry Kroto, a British chemist who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley. Kroto helped him to draft the letter — one that has now been signed by 78 Nobel laureates.

In addition, Kopplin has introduced two bills to repeal the LSEA, both of which have been sponsored by State Senator Karen Carter Peterson. He plans on producing a third bill later this spring. And along with the Nobel laureates, he has the support of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), New Orleans City Council, and many others.

Kopplin argues that “creationism is not science” and that teaching the theology side-by-side with evolution “violates the separation of church and state.” He also expressed fears that laws that allow for more creationism in the classroom put students at a disadvantage when it comes to properly understanding the sciences. In the end, this, he believes, can impact the job market and the nation as a whole, especially if young people avoid — or are ill-prepared — for careers in this arena.

“Teaching Biblical creationism is promoting one very specific fundamentalist version of Christianity, and violating the rights of every other American citizen who doesn’t subscribe to those beliefs,” the teenager alleges. “So it would be stomping on the rights of Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Buddhists, Humanists, Muslims, Hindus, and every other religious group in the country.”

Here’s a 2011 interview with MSNBC during which he discusses these issues:

So far, the young man has faced an uphill battle, as he lost his first two attempts to see the ”Louisiana Science Education Act” overturned — but roadblocks haven’t halted his efforts. Aside from his push for repeal, Kopplin is also taking aim at school vouchers, as he sees them as unconstitutional endorsements of creationism and religion. Considering that some of the schools that receive public funds through vouchers are religious in nature, the teenager is unhappy with the contents being taught to children.

“These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private,” he told io9. “But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules.”

Below, see a contentious discussion at a state hearing between a Louisiana senator and Kopplin that was held back in 2011:

Kopplin began tackling vouchers after he learned of a textbook that purportedly alleges that the Loch Ness Monster is alive and well today (the text apparently uses the alleged existence to debunk evolutionary theory).

Critics have called the teen names and dismissed him on account of his age, but the disparaging remarks have done little to dissuade his efforts.

“I don’t enjoy upsetting people, but you have to brush the attacks off,” he said. “I know that I’m fighting for a good cause — and I would be neglecting my duty if I stopped my campaign just because I felt uncomfortable about opposition.”

Read the entire interview with Kopplin.

(H/T: io9)

–

Related:

Pro-Creationism Christian Textbook Allegedly Teaches that the Loch Ness Monster Is Real

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (471)

Free_Thought
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:06pm
Looks like this kids parents did a great job opening up his mind and teaching him to think outside the box. I am proud of him for refusing to be indoctrinated by the christians. They try to indoctrinate them at a young age but kudos to this kid for not only being intelligent but a fighter as well. Keep it up kid. You make us all proud. Well except for the christians but they are gonna be extinct soon anyway. You can only be so dumb for so long before people notice. And trust me christians. We are all noticing.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LivingInGodsGrace
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:24pm
  Apparently he is NOT so familiar with our Constitution… where exactly is “separation of Church and State” found?
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:30pm
  “…[the christians] are gonna be extinct soon anyway. You can only be so dumb for so long before people notice. And trust me christians. We are all noticing.”
  
  —–
  
  You really believe that nonsense, don’t you? That’s funny. Friedrich Nietzsche was a lot like you. He hated God and went around telling people that “God is dead.” I know, I know, it’s not that you hate God, it’s that you don’t believe in God, which is why you spend all of your waking hours attacking God. But I digress. Anyway, Nietzsche went insane on his death bed and now Nietzsche is dead.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:43pm
  Yo Free_thought:
  
  “Thinking outside the box” … is that like a guy caught outside the fort when the enemy attacks … the box I think in is infinite.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:52pm
  Another thing there Free_thought … he mentions the Lock Ness monster as an example of christian foolishness in christian teaching. What he and you seem ignorant of is that an outright lie that was printed in school books concerning embryos is still in them to this day … and this is, what … 150 years later!
  
  I would say some more facts here .. but I doubt you are really freed in your thinking
  
  Report this comment
- Uncurable wound
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:54pm
  Wrong LTB!
  Now he is in h-E=l,L
  
  Report this comment
- dado7
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:58pm
  Just for a minute, think about the complexity of the human body…the central nervous system, how the eye actually sees, how the brain and ear actually allow us to hear, the work of the vocal cords, not to mention the constant beating of the heart and the pumping of blood through the body and brain, how the brain can store and recall memories, the variety of emotions and sensations we feel, the fact that 2 human beings can come together and a single sperm can join an egg, resulting in the development of a new human being with all the same capabilities. Do you really believe that this complexity came to be by chance, by some bing bang, and then evolved from some single cell algae? What a joke. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
  
  Report this comment
- deskjockey
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:03pm
  I have always thought it interesting of liberals (I will address you as a homogenous group that doesn’t even merit a capital letter at the start of the proper noun as you do “christians”) that their view of someone who agrees with their side has avoided brainwashing while someone who grows up in a conservative home or a christian home who turns out to be conservative and/or Christian was, in fact, “brainwashed”. If this kid grew up in a liberal, non-Christian household (as I suspect her did) then the fact that he turned out as a liberal, non-Christian has less to do with his strength of mind to overcome indoctrination and more likely is, in fact, proof of his liberal, non-Christian indoctrination. Too deep for you, moron.
  
  Report this comment
- DadInFishers
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:16pm
  I hope his parents didn’t open his mind so much that his brains fall out…a common problem with those who brag of their open minds.
  
  Report this comment
- chumpThreads
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:28pm
  @livingingodsgrace:
  Apparently you are NOT so familiar with the Bible… where exactly is the word “trinity” found?
  
  Report this comment
- LeftOfRightOfLeft
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:30pm
  @4TRUTH2ALL
  
  The box you think in can be infinite. Thinking outside of the box is a term used to refer to thinking outside a given paradigm. Paradigms are very useful tools that create rules in which to think in. The rules or context people think with help solve problems by isolating the scope of thought. These paradigms can be very harmful, when people start accepting actions or concepts without actually thinking about why they do that it becomes an issue. I think most religions breed boxed in thought, by the nature of saying if you don’t believe in god you’re going to hell. This limits people’s scope of thought to only one conclusion.
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:40pm
  @FREE_THOUGHT
  
  Religious people – Christians, in particular (at least the ones I know) – are not afraid of science.
  
  I love science; I majored in biology with a minor in chemistry.
  
  Science told me ‘how’ things happened. Science could predict ‘what’ would happen. But science could not explain ‘why’ it happened.
  
  Christianity tries to explain ‘why’.
  
  You may, or may not agree with the why; you may even think that there is no purpose, that it is all completely random and meaningless. That is fine.
  
  Some of us, however, seek this knowledge. It is one of the reasons that anthropologists (who are scientists) give for the existence of religion – it is man’s quest to answer ‘why’.
  
  You may have given up on that quest, or even think that you have ‘evolved’ beyond that, but some of us still think that ‘why’ is an important and valid question.
  
  Many if us have sought, through prayer and meditation, through study and observation, an answer, and we believe we have found it.
  
  Most of us would invite you to do the same and do not ridicule you for not receiving the same answer we did…all we ask for us the right to believe without being ridiculed.
  
  Some are tolerant unbelievers, those we respect.
  
  Some are intent on our extinction, seeing us as a drag on society, those we respect a little less.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:53pm
  @livingingodsgrace It doesn’t say that…your right..it was obviously what some of them wanted, as the quote it is taken from is by Jefferson. But it does say the Government can make no law establishing a religion. If you start teaching Christian creation myths as science, then that means the Government supports their creation myth and that is very close to establishing a state religion. Sorry, but that’s a no no. Unless you want to teach all creation myths in schools? There’s quite a few out there….
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:54pm
  Yo Leftofright:
  
  I all humility … thankyou for what I already had … sorry you completely missed my thinking.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:13pm
  DADO7
  
  You’re discounting the complexity of even single-celled, multi-cellular, or other complex organisms on the planet. Consider the virus. We can’t beat it outright (yet), as smart and capable as we are, the virus remains one of the deadlier organisms on the planet. Some organisms reproduce without mating, and still many more mate just like we do, so humanity isn’t unique in that regard. So you needn’t focus solely on the complexity of the human body.
  
  Ponder, if you will (or if any of us even can) what kind of changes can occur in 4.6 billion years. Evolution occurs so slowly, and over so great a stretch of time that in only the fewest of instances are we able to observe evolution in a human lifetime (see mosquitoes breeding with resistance to pesticides etc). But scientists have used the available material to create a theory that, according to the available evidence, is very widely accepted. Further, life did not evolve from a single-celled algae. That was a much later step in the chain. Anaerobic bacterium are widely believed to be the first forms of life on the planet, going back some 4.4 billion years ago, or 200 million years after the Earth formed. For perspective, that window of time between Earth forming and anaerobic bacterium was roughly 33,333.33 times the length of written human history.
  
  But no, believing an invisible, jealous and angry being spoke everything into existence is much more sane and logical.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:18pm
  @BROTHER ED
  
  The “why” is certainly an understandable question, and a powerful motivator for all of us, I believe. The very sad possibility is that there is no why. Though it is not a comforting or happy thought, it is altogether possible that there is no ‘reason’ behind any of it. Even as an atheist, that doesn’t sit well with me, but there are a lot of astrophysicists who contend there is no evidence to back any ‘reason’ or purpose behind the universe or anything in it. I don’t begrudge people continuing to search though. If there’s an answer, I believe science will eventually reveal it.
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:10pm
  @CHRISDIAMOND
  
  That there is no ‘why’ is most certainly a possibility.
  
  To some it is a nagging question, and as I stated, one that religion attempts to answer.
  
  I believe in the creation story, but do not condemn to ‘hell’ those that do not.
  
  I understand the earth is made up of material that is millions of years old, you could say the material is eternal, unless you believe that everything was created from nothing.
  
  I believe that we are not the only life forms in the entire universe.
  
  I believe that there are many things I cannot explain, let alone prove.
  
  Since this is the case, I prefer to ‘live and let live’.
  
  Maybe someday science will prove religionists wrong and we will ‘become ‘extinct’. Maybe someday I’ll see you on the ‘other side’.
  
  Until then, we need to get along, which I think we (at least you and I) can do.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:49pm
  @Brother Ed
  
  I haven’t mentioned it before, but I really enjoy your posts. Your thinking seems similar to my own: you have Christ in your heart, and a brain in your head. Keep up the good work!
  
  Report this comment
- mycomet123
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:37pm
  @ FREE_ THOUGHT, So your glad that this kid was not indoctrinated by the christians?. You should have stated that your glad that this kid has been indoctrinated by the secularists/atheists, & therefore according to “your opinion” this makes this kid intelligent.
  
  Report this comment
- TESLA
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:14pm
  @FREETHOUGHT
  
  As a fellow lover of Pink Floyd, particularly “Dark Side The Moon”, I suggest that you listen to the song “Us and Them” a little bit more frequently. I agree with you pretty much as far as teaching kids to think for themselves and not to be dogmatic. Yet, it seems in your post you sound rather harsh towards the Christians you speak of. Also, one has to remember that their are just as many dogmatic evolutionists as their are dogmatic Christians. That’s why I find it rather refreshing when a Creationist and an Evolutionist use their BRAINS while debating and not their EMOTIONS. A perfect example that I often enjoy watching is when Richard Dawkins and John Lennox debate one another. Very civil, intelligent debating I must say.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:22am
  “I understand the earth is made up of material that is millions of years old, you could say the material is eternal, unless you believe that everything was created from nothing.”
  That’s a possibility I thought valid for a while, but there are two (major) reasons it is apparently not true (instead, the material is only ~6,000 years old).
  
  1) The alleged evidence for these long ages of the rock material was radiometric ‘dating’ assumptions which have now been falsified. With fossils, we have radiocarbon in even the lowest ones which were thought to be millions of years older than radiocarbon can last (and all tests for contamination have backed this up). With other radiometric measurements which are done in volcanic layers atop sedimentary (fossil) layers, control tests with volcanic rock of known young age have given highly inflated dates. Evolutionists forgot to factor for heat, which highly speeds up radiometric decay, making them seem “old.”
  
  2) Galaxies’ redshifted light is measured in spherical shells of equidistant quantized amounts, showing that the Universe is a layered ball in form, and we’re near the center, so gravitational time dilation means that Earth’s material must be much younger than the material at the edges of the universe (as measured in their respective local reference frames). And recent research has indicated even more dilation due to expansion.
  
  So, Earth’s material is ‘young’. :)
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:05am
  @LOCKED
  
  Thanks, that is quite a compliment coming from someone I respect.
  
  I’m sure we’d be friends in the real world.
  
  @TESLA
  
  I love Pink Floyd!!
  
  ‘Us and Them’ truly is “what the fighting’s all about”.
  
  @BONESIII
  
  I was not aware of that, I’ll look into it.
  
  Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:24am
  @BROTHER_ED
  
  I also believe that the life on earth is not the only life in the universe. Sadly, as I believe faster-than-light travel to be highly improbable (and I mean for matter larger than subatomic particles), it is likely that we may never discover, travel to or meet other life forms.
  
  Thank you for not condemning others who do not believe in creation. I do not personally believe in creation from an intelligent designer, or God, but I can’t disprove it either, and readily admit that.
  
  Astrophysicists like Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking have outright said, or insinuated that we are made of “star stuff”; the same components of stars, atomically speaking, is what we are made of. That’s fascinating to me. But the theory is that the age of the materials is closer to 15 billion years, if memory serves. Again… fascinating. They also believe it is possible that everything observable to indeed came from nothing. I can’t recall the video I saw on it, but it was compelling. If I find it, I’ll reply with a link (or links).
  
  I don’t look at science proving religious folk ‘wrong’, even if all the scientific theories prove true. It’s just another expansion of the conscious, and available to all who will examine it and accept it… like Christ for Christians. =)
  
  And yes, sir… I believe we can and would get along quite well.
  
  BONESIII – 6,000 years? C’mon man… The Sumerians were around, writing and doing astronomy 6k yrs ago.
  
  Report this comment
- mikec711
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:34pm
  Interesting that spouting what the public indoctrination centers have been forcing down our throats for years is “free thinking”. I guess that if I did not believe in an awesome creator (and the science behind that) … but rather that we’re all nothing but mistakes from billions of years (all kinds of science against that too, but I digress) of random mutations .. then I would look at my children and myself and realize that we had no purpose in life. We might as well be slugs or blades of grass. I applaud one brilliant atheist who said, “Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.” Bertrand Russell . So many who want to believe the non-science of big bang and evolution don’t realize that they are saying we are meaningless cogs and we’re not even in a wheel. I guess if I felt I had no meaning and no purpose, I’d be pretty ugly about it too.
  
  Report this comment
- BrutalTruth
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:16pm
  Chrisdiamond stated: “BONESIII – 6,000 years? C’mon man… The Sumerians were around, writing and doing astronomy 6k yrs ago”
  
  Says who? If your source is a theory based upon a theory, at what point are you willing to believe it? Look at the facts and have discernment of what is theory. If you believe a theory, you have just made your own religion. It’s a belief system, not fact.
  
  If you weigh the the theories and find that none of them completely fit the facts, throw out the theories. “Scientific” theory of evolution has changed so often, most don’t even know what the facts are anymore. They’ve taken many decades of theory and assume others know what their talking about. I find the opposite to be mostly true.
  
  Besides, is your desire for Truth, or for emotional comfort? Count the cost. Would you be willing to hold to the truth even though it costs you the relationships of your friends? What about family? If there is a line you won’t cross for truth, you just found the cost at which you can be bought.
  
  Like the joke about the man talking to the woman on an airplane asking if she’d sleep with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it and says yes. He come’s back with “how about 20 bucks”, to which she replies “what do you take me for?” He replies, “We’ve already established that, now we’re dickering on price”
  
  Report this comment
- Dan_o
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:38pm
  Free_thought
  
  You get what you pay for, it seems.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:25pm
  “when there’s a clear scientific consensus that evolution is actual science, I’ll go with [them]”
  Three huge problems with that idea, Locked.
  
  1) While there is an -apparent- “consensus” or majority, it is anything but clear, because of rampant discrimination against creationists and even open belief in a first cause type God in some places, forcing many to keep their true beliefs secret.
  
  2) The consensus is not “scientific”. There are two basic kinds of views a scientist can have; a sound conclusion from actual science (having nothing to do with people), and a “tentative opinion” (even if dogmatic on blind faith) on issues they do not have clear proof on either way. For example, for a long time quakes were believed to be caused by “subterranean fermentation” and this was treated as dogma in much the same way as evolution now is. But evolution is just an opinion; it is not based on science.
  
  (And those of us in the know are aware of many DISPROOFS of it; it’s just that many scientists haven’t gotten the memo yet, but knowledge of this IS spreading. :))
  
  [Continued...]
  
  Report this comment
- rick20033
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 1:44am
  “Looks like this kids parents did a great job opening up his mind and teaching him to think outside the box. I am proud of him for refusing to be indoctrinated by the christians.”
  
  Hey, Captain Oblivious, how is he thinking outside the box?? He’s simply reciting everything he’s been indoctrinated to believe in the government school system. He is the very definition of an indoctrinated child.
  
  If I were you, I wouldn’t get ahead of myself about the upcoming extinction of Christianity. It is Darwinism that is being swept away by scientific inquiry. Let me tell you what will really happen: Science will reach a point where not even the most ardent atheist will be able to deny intelligent design, at which point the atheists will say that it is evidence for alien life who seeded us here. BUT, they will say, the aliens must have evolved naturalistically. NO evidence is allowed for God because he is not allowed in their worldview. It would be like a person saying, “I am going to find out who was president just prior to George W Bush, but the answer is not allowed to be ‘Bill Clinton.’” If some kid in school takes up my argument against those silly inside-the-box thinkers who claim the evidence proves Bill Clinton WAS the president just before George W, I expect you to praise him!
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 10:56am
  lol@ anticlintonism. :P
  
  If I may add a point about this “outside the box” thing — don’t be deceived by clever wordplays; that’s all that is. Our task is not to get outside of some kind of a box but rather to honestly seek and find the real truth, whatever that is.
  
  If there is a box, the box is completely IRRELEVANT. If the truth happens to be IN the box, then accept it there. If outside, accept it there.
  
  Period.
  
  Besides, there is more than one “box” if you define that as “what others have accepted in the past”; logically evolution is a box too and we could just use the same figure of speech on you.
  
  (Think, people… :P)
  
  Report this comment
ghettovet
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:53am
the theory of evolution is indeed a theory.. one that has been tested and retested and the evidence seems to support the theory.. much like gravity is a theory.. tested over and over… can anyone name some evidence for creationism or intelligent design that is compelling. evidence that can be tested.. and retested… dont want to use emotional arguments here.. dont try to shoot down evolution.. prop up your own theory with evidence..would love to hear some evidence that is supported by testing and data… that would make the debate interesting at least..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Free_Thought
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:52pm
  Do you hear that Ghettovet? Crickets. What a shocker. Where is kirk cameron when you need him.
  
  Report this comment
- atechgeek
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:11pm
  The study of science and the study of religion tend to end up with the same conclusions. The more you study both, the more they look alike.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:12pm
  Evolution is possible; intelligent design is possible. Personally, I choose to believe God created the universe in whatever manner He created it. He then created our earth be it by speaking it so, or allowing a ‘big bang’ to occur, or something yet we do not comprehend. He created life by however He chose to create life; evolution, perhaps or just plain WHAMMO! I think it matters not to true believers how He created life, just that He did.
  
  Many so-called christians will have problems with believing in evolution, yet there is no specific proof that evolution did not occur. Limiting oneself to believe in only one possible man-made belief is certainly not using the intelligence and reasoning that God gave us.
  
  Report this comment
- pkbrooks
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:18pm
  Ghetto,
  
  Most likely will get skewered by everyone on this one…I like your question…seems that you might be open to actually listening, even if you disagree…rare quality these days…
  I suspcribe to something entirely different: That the Genesis account of creation (and yes I do call it creation) is not in any way attempting to describe HOW the creation took place scientifically, nor is it attempting to say how long it took to be accomplished (Many of my Christian brothers and sisters would argue that a day is a day, but there are to many other biblical statements that make days equal to millennia, so…) The purpose of the account is rather to speak of the restoration of a “body” from the “dispair” of the darkness of having no identity, function, purpose, and thereby fruitfulness.
  
  What most people who read the Bible fail to see is the simple reality that the earth was there before creation started, formless and void. Hmmm. Could it be that the first three or so verses have a great deal of time locked into them? I don’t know. Which is, in some cases, the greater purpose. Mystery is awesome. It only becomes horrifying when humans kill each other over the disagreements they have concerning their own pursuits for absolutes. I have been an astronomer for years and love science and math now. I still can’t imagine not having the appreciation of science as a way to relate to the earth and at the same time walk in faith with the G-d of Israel.
  
  Report this comment
- MrBigBillyB
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:20pm
  Ghettovet,
  Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. Macro-Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven or demonstrated. Micro-Evoluition is a fact. You can breed two dissimilar dogs to come up with a “new” breed of dog (Micro-Evolution) but you will never get something that is not a dog (Macro-Evolution).
  
  To believe in Macro-Evolution, you have to agree that either something gave birth to an animal that was not like itself (i.e. a monkey giving birth to a non-monkey), or that an animal, sometime within it’s life-span, turned into another animal (i.e. a monkey was walking through the jungle, and in the next instant it was no longer a monkey.) That would be the only two options no matter how many millions of years you add into the mix. One of those two things would have to occur for Macro evolution to be true.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:38pm
  Yo Jurusky:
  
  Seems we’ve been here before … God tells us how he did it … it’s called HIS WORD. I let Him TELL me.
  
  It is a MASSIVE issue .. sad that you do not see it …Genesis is exactly where the enemy attacks the ENTIRETY of God’s Word … with the intent of then saying it is ALL incorrect.
  
  The big bang theory means that something already existed … this goes directly againt scripture.
  It is quite simple .. just as Genesis is written so a child can understand it … it takes strength to row against the flow .. and God does not care about the strength of the horses legs.
  
  Report this comment
- TheopenmindedChristian
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:40pm
  Depends on what you consider evidence. Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics are just that – laws which would indicate a law giver? I mean there’s so much to go over without looking like a troll or spammer lol. The tested theories on how the mechanics might work isn’t a tested theory of origin in my opinion
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:49pm
  Mr. Big – Wouldn’t it be Macro-Evolution when we bred a burro (sp?) with a donkey and came up with a mule. This has been found to have happened between several different animals species. I recall hearing about a zebra mating with another species to create a new species. I may be wrong about all of this, but thought it an interesting thought to put forth. Your thoughts, please.
  
  Report this comment
- hard.right
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:12pm
  Got a link to the tests on evolution? free_thought, you are free to contribute to these links as well.
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:18pm
  @ SSsorry – no – since horses and donkeys are related already however if you could breed a horse and a dog and come up with something perhaps or a human with a horse…..
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:31pm
  ghetto,
  Evolution has never been proven and exactly how was it tested. Darwins theory was survival of the fitiest and evolution of the species.
  Lets look at man for second
  1 man has weak skin it can be torn to shreds by everything
  2 man has no fur he would die of exposure in a mild cold
  3 man has no claws fangs or horns to defend itself
  4 mans rate of birth and gestation is the slowiest an longiest on the planet
  5 mans offspring is helpless and weak and incapiable of survial on its own for over a decade(3 or 4 decades insome cases in todays world)
  6 man is slower weaker and less agile than just about every animal on the planet
  man is the least fit creature walking the earth for survival no way around it
  Not think about the millions of year it took for primative man to evolve with no defenses,no knowledge of weapons,fire,tools and intelligence.
  Think about that and factor in one of the most dangerous continents on the planet and the supposed birthplace of man.
  I won’t even mention the fact that we are one of the newiest species and our intelligence is far superior to everything else that’s had billions of years of evolution a head of us.
  Fact is you don’t have to believe that god created us,maybe you’ld perfer to think we were placed here by hyper intelligent being from another planet as an experiment…….But you darn sure can’t state that darwin was right when the very existence of man says other wise.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:38pm
  4truth2all,
  The only actual words for God in the old testament were 10 commandments…everything else are stories and paribles that man placed in it. Not to say that some aren’t true but I highly doubt that every single one are……Just look at religious groups today who are now accepting homosexuality as Christian behavior…I’m sure a couple back then added their little ideologies towards the old testament as well. I try to structure my life from Christ own words as he said them and many heard them. Notice I said try too many claim to follow the word as if they don’t screw up from time to time.
  
  Report this comment
- jginmt
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:41pm
  I am sorry about your education. First off gravity is a physical fact. It can be measured and even mapped around the world for slight difference. On the other hand evolution is a theory that has yet to be proven.
  1. No one has proven how to create a living cell.
  2. No one has proven how to add new genetic information to a living cell. They have shown how information has changed or adapted but not how more complex or new information is added.
  3. Why is there no fossil record of evolution. I would think if evolution was true you could easily see the progression from one form of life evolving into another form. Yet there is no such evidence.
  4. Believing in evolution is more a religion than a science. For one has to believe in any number of assumptions to make it true.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:03pm
  Yo Naughtycal:
  
  To call oneself a christian does not mean that one is … scripture CLEARLY speaks against homosexuality.
  The Bible is called The Word of God as ALL of it is “God breathed”. You may choose to not believe this, but please be clear .. the Bible claims that it is indeed the word of God inspired in men to speak and write it … good day
  
  Report this comment
- Free_Thought
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:24pm
  So what you are all saying to ghettovet is that you cant. Glad we cleared that up.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:49pm
  4thuth,
  I believe part of the reason Christ came here was to clear up alot misinterpetion and flat out ideologies added to the old testament text. To show man that God is love and not just the vengful smighter alot old testament protraited as him as. That his father would forgive us if we were sincere of in our repent of even to most unforgivable thing like say crusifying his son. Of course I’m the product of self religious realization came toi find his message by reading and understanding Jesus messages as I interpeted them. I was bapist rasied but never truely understood the meaning of the bible until I stopped being religious and started being Christian.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:32pm
  Yo Naughtycal:
  
  Actually you could not be more wrong … Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and that not one dot or tittle would be left undone.
  Again … the bible is called The Word because it is ALL His word/words … Jesus being God = His Words (please see John1).
  God is not vengeful … He is a God of justice. If you see the Old Testiment that way something is wrong in your thinking ( no disrespect).
  
  Where do you get the idea that the Old Testiment was ” added to ” ?
  
  Report this comment
- TheopenmindedChristian
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:33pm
  @Free_Thought. Some people made some arguments that are pretty strong, all I saw from you is one sarcastic comment about crickets and the last one proving you didn’t want to deal with the more difficult ideas. Do you at least have a subject in mind? Time constraints, evidence of transition? I mean I don’t blame you for not wanting to get into that cause it would make your cause look bad – I mean to think us silly little Christians might know something ha ha
  
  Report this comment
- MrBigBillyB
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:47pm
  @SoSorry
  Actually Mule is not a new species. As stated by Kaydeebeau it was a horse and donkey bred to make a mule. But a mule is sterile and cannot breed with anything, including other mules. So the only thing you can do is breed to very similar species of equines to get a sterile animal. It’s like saying you could breed a dog and a wolf. They are still both canines.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:51pm
  @ 4truth2all
  
  “God tells us how he did it … it’s called HIS WORD. I let Him TELL me.”
  
  My version doesn’t seem to tell particulars as yours does. Mine says, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ So, I must ask, in the beginning of what? Our universe? Our solar system? Some portion of a cosmic calendar eon? What beginning?
  
  And, what happened between vs 1 and 2? He created it but He did so with no form? I would think if God created it, it would have a form, but then again, I shouldn’t put MY understanding into it as I am not God. I would suspect you, too, may not be able to understand everything God did even though you appear to be putting human confines and understanding upon it.
  
  “Genesis is exactly where the enemy attacks the ENTIRETY of God’s Word … with the intent of then saying it is ALL incorrect. The big bang theory means that something already existed … this goes directly againt scripture.”
  
  We must disagree then. My Bible doesn’t disregard the possibility of the big bang theory unless you purport to know what “in the beginning” meant and/or referred to. I still believe God is almighty and all powerful, but I don’t believe in putting constraints upon him nor expect to understand what He knows.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:56pm
  @ 4truth2all
  
  “The Bible is called The Word of God as ALL of it is “God breathed”. You may choose to not believe this, but please be clear .. the Bible claims that it is indeed the word of God inspired in men to speak and write it”
  
  How about the books that the Council of Trent(?) decided to not include? Do you believe they had some God-given knowledge of what to place in our Bible and what to not include? While it’s possible, I have yet to hear an argument of just why they had such knowledge. Those were very political times and politics certainly might have influenced what they allowed into the Christian Bible.
  
  So perhaps we don’t have all the story, or even one thing too many?
  
  Curious.
  
  Report this comment
- MrBigBillyB
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:07pm
  @Free_Thought @@ghettovet
  There are any number of scientific laws in place, tested over and over, that point to an intelligent Designer rather than a creator. Laws like “Every effect has an adequate, antecedent cause.” The physical universe is an effect, and must therefore have an adequate antecedent cause. Laws of Thermodynamics stating that matter can neither be created or destroyed. Scientific principles like these point to an intelligent designer, and refute the “Big Bang” and evolution.
  
  Now the reverse can be asked of you. Can you provide any evidence for Macro-Evolution that can be tested and retested? Can you provide any evidence for the “Big Bang” that can be tested and re-tested? You have no evidence for macro-evolution, only micro-. You have to prove macro-evolution, which has never been done.
  
  I’m pretty sure all I will hear is crickets.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:38pm
  Yo Jhrusky:
  
  First off, the smart_ _ _ sarcasim is not necessary. My bible is the same as yours.
  In the beginning … my understanding … in the beginning means in the beginning. In the beginning of what? … His creation, which he then goes on the explain the order in which He is also creating the time …days/week (the measurment) in which His creation will function/live. He is NOT just creating “stuff”.
  
  The scripture stating… a day is unto a thousand years and a thousand years a day is a statement that refers to God’s residing outside of time. It has nothing to do with the measurment He give men to live in.
  
  Form … a lump of clay has no “form” until it is shaped into something. Canvas is not a painting until paint is applied
  
  OUT OF NOTHING is the meaning … exhileo – sorry not sure of the spelling. God Spoke it into existence. There was NOTHING prior as the big bang would have you and atheist in agreement on. You compromise God’s Word for theories.
  
  Why would you NOT want to know what He knows.(obviously not all knowing) We are called to have the mind of Christ.
  
  The Council of Trent … I believe that if God can create a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, and a universe with billions of galaxy’s floating in thin air He is capable of overseeing the writing of a book of truth that is reliable and trustable and that is about Him.
  If “He will not share His glory with anyone” … he can then write a book.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:52pm
  Yo Jhrusky:
  
  I’m not quite sure why so many seem to not be able to understand God capabilities to oversee the writing of a book. I can only equate it to a lack of faith. A lack of courage … maybe, because the world calls the man that believes in the 6 days … when the bible clearly say days (24 hrs) 6 times, an idiot and a fool. Even “christians” seem to lean this way.
  They say the devil is in the details … bull crap ..he is nothing but a puppet in the hands of the Lord, but he sure does make a stench of things.
  Always appreciate your responces … keep searching for truth .. just don’t stop to quick…peace
  
  Report this comment
- pantokrator
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:03pm
  “can anyone name some evidence for creationism or intelligent design that is compelling. evidence that can be tested.. and retested”
  
  That’s actually quite simple. I can create a song, and I can create another one. When I make a song, I usually start with a simple riff, then tweak it a bit, maybe speed it up, or slow it down, depending on which I like most. The rest, I build around it. Poof! I have created a song; I have proven creation and intelligent design. But one does not hear a song and assume that it just came about accidentally. There is too much uniformity in rhythm and sound. It must have been designed and molded together, and it must have been done for a specific purpose.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:59pm
  @ 4truth2all
  
  “my understanding … in the beginning means in the beginning. In the beginning of what? … His creation, ”
  
  OK … in the beginning of his creation, but that does not negate the possibility of there being something prior to that. In fact, there had to be something prior to that else He would have lived in nothing.
  
  “Form … a lump of clay has no “form” until it is shaped into something. Canvas is not a painting until paint is applied”
  
  Makes sense, yet it says He created the heavens and the earth, yet the earth was without form … so if it had no form, like a painting, it was not yet an earth.
  
  “OUT OF NOTHING is the meaning … exhileo – sorry not sure of the spelling. God Spoke it into existence.”
  
  Are you saying ‘exhileo’ is the oldest original word we have for what He created the heavens and earth out of?
  
  “Why would you NOT want to know what He knows”
  
  To know (and moreso, understand) what God knows would put our minds and intellect on par with His. To me, that would be blasphemous.
  
  “I’m not quite sure why so many seem to not be able to understand God capabilities to oversee the writing of a book.”
  
  Oh, I believe He COULD have ensured what went into our Bible, but there are a LOT of versions out there, so He obviously didn’t oversee them all.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:43am
  @mrbigbillyb
  
  A few corrections here:
  
  “Gravity is not a theory, it is a law.”
  
  Gravity has both a law and a theory. In the language of science, the word “law” describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. Gravity’s law states: ” “Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.”
  
  In the language of science, the word “theory” is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
  
  They are two different things.
  
  “The theory Macro-Evolution is a theory.”
  
  That’s because “macro-evolution” is not a scientific term.
  
  “Micro-Evoluition is a fact.”
  
  There is no such thing as a fact in science. Evolution is a theory – it explains how things happen, using the available evidence. As a theory, there has been zero evidence to overturn it; though some predictions that the theory makes have been falsified and discarded.
  
  Report this comment
- pantokrator
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:13am
  “There is no such thing as a fact in science.”
  
  Uh… What?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:29pm
  @Pantokrator
  
  ““There is no such thing as a fact in science.”
  
  Uh… What?”
  
  In relation to theories/laws/hypotheses.
  
  A theory is not a “fact.” It can still be wrong. For example, tomorrow a new species may suddenly appear out of thin air, and the theory of evolution would be falsified. Tomorrow we might all start floating and the theory (and law) of gravity would be overturned.
  
  Science can “prove” something only to the extent that all the evidence agrees with it and it has never been disproven. So there aren’t “facts,” only “evidence.”
  
  Report this comment
- pantokrator
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:53pm
  But evidence is based on facts. If I hold a rock in my hand and let go, the fact is, it will fall until it hits the ground (or any other force heavier than it). Science is based on evidence– observational evidence, which is based on facts.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:18pm
  “But evidence is based on facts.”
  
  Other way around. From evidence we make theories about the “facts” of the world. Those theories could be wrong. What you and I call “facts” are only assumed truths in science. Same words – different meanings. Science does not have facts like you are saying. Same as how a scientific theory is different from when you and I say “theory.” For us, it means a guess about something; for science, it means an explanation for something that is supported by all the available evidence.
  
  As Stephen Jay Gould says: “In science ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. “
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:21pm
  Yo Jhrusky:
  
  God is not a fish that He has to live in water … the verses I gave you relate to God’s existence outside of time and space as we know it … as God created it for human flesh to live it . Like I said,I let him tell me … you are thinking from your limited human experience. I read those verses, I did not understand them, so I asked the LORD what they meant … and I got the answer … and then I heard others with far greater learning then I had say the same … I was satisfied that I had the truth (test the spirits) as scripture says.
  
  The mind of Christ is in scripture and I DID say that I do not mean ALL KNOWING as God is so that you would not respond as you did. There is NO blasphemy on my part.
  
  The earth had no form ………. it need “decorating” > seas, rivers, oceans, ponds, mountians, valleys, trees, flowers, bushes, fish, birds, moose, goose and duckbilled platapuses … the ball of clay and then the shaping of the clay … the canvas then the colors. There was NO ball of clay or canvas until God called it into existance with HIS VOICE … the power of His Word is beyond us … it is also how the enemy will be destroyed.
  He is also going to create a new heaven and a new earth ( Revelation) and those who are His will have a front row seat to the show as the LORD speaks perfection eternal into existence again and it will be instantanious not millions of years. Why do you think we enjoy watching fireworks ??? We will watch eternity created !!!
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:51pm
  Yo Jhrusky:
  
  Exhileo … John MacAthur has some teacking on this I believe … he is a no compromise guy … do your own study … tell the LORD you want the truth with sincerity in your heart , measure twice and cut once … and some where down the road we might talk again. I would like that.
  
  Bibles … You say, ” the sky is blue.” I say, ” it’s a blue sky.” does not make for error. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are an example of God showing us this.
  I have a parallel bible … 4 versions on each page … they are seldom the same in words used or order spoken, but the meaning is the same. The gender netrual bible is OBVIOUSLY trash to someone searching for the truth.
  
  “It is to the glory of God to conceal a matter. To search out a matter is the glory of kings.”
  Proverbs 25:2
  
  I have spoken truth to you and I will speak boldly without foolisness, realizing that I have more to learn then I know. Lets be kings of honour and keep searching … and if ever I am proven wrong I will admit my error, but brother you better bring proof ! … peace
  
  Report this comment
- pantokrator
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:52pm
  An interesting perspective… You’re saying that what we know today could suddenly change tomorrow. Never thought about it like that. But now I’m baffled as to how you think philosophy and science are completely different. You seem to do well in fusing both of them together, lol.
  
  Report this comment
- rick20033
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 2:30pm
  Your comment reminds me of discussions I have with my left-wing father: “If Obama has done anything wrong in office, why haven’t I heard about it? Prove it!”
  
  My response is, of course, “You haven’t heard it because you only listen to sources you have already decided are right (MSNBC, etc). And, any evidence I present that contradicts the MSNBC viewpoint is immediately dismissed because it disagrees with what you have already decided is true. The only evidence that I am allowed to present is evidence for the position you take, so how could I possibly present evidence that contradicts your position and supports mine??”
  
  Evolutionists are exactly like my father. They will accept even the most far-fetched “evidence” FOR their position and will reject any evidence AGAINST evolution because “evolution is true and anyone who argues to the contrary and any evidence they have isn’t credible.”
  
  For an example of what evolutionists call “evidence for evolution”, go here: http://ht.ly/2ukTyB
  
  For a short debate, go here:
  http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-01-14T16_17_29-08_00
  
  Report this comment
mrunner
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:51am
I thought the objective of an education was to impart facts, knowledge and improve reasoning/logic. I am the product of 12 years of Christian Schools. We were taught evolution. We were taught the bible. We were taught to use our own brains and think for ourselves. I don’t expect, nor would I want the bible taught in public schools, but anyone who refuses to believe that “intelligent design theory” can coexist with “evolution” is obviously a product of the public schools and has not been taught reasoning and logic. It is fine for this person to vehemently state his views. It is not OK for him to try to make the state beholden to only his views. Who does this twerp think he is? Rat Bastard Obama??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jay1975
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:02pm
  “Intelligent design” is a Christian theory and has no place in public education. If we allow Christian creation myths, then all creation myths from all religions should be taught as well then. After all, each has as much evidence to support it as the others.
  
  Report this comment
- Publius Duo
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:58pm
  Wrong Jay. There’s a difference between preach and teach. You can be taught about creationism without being forced to subscribe to a particular religion. Creationism is theory, just like evolution, neither of which has been proven. People believe through theory that evolution is how we got here vs. people believe through theory creationism is how we got here. Some believe that we are the spawn of an alien race’s experiment, hence creationism. The problem here is that this kid should have paid more attention in history and government class. You show me how teaching creationism violates the first amendment. Show me exactly where it says “seperation of church and state.” It doesn’t. Let’s review. Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prevent the free exercise thereof. You show me where this law says you have to follow a specific religion. Again, it doesn’t. The problem is that we Americans don’t know what our rights are. Those who don’t know their rights, are destined to lose them.
  
  Report this comment
- jay1975
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:28pm
  Pub, teaching creationism violates the 1st if you exclude teaching the creation myths of all religions. To just teach the scientific theory and the Christian myth endorses Christianity over all other religions. If you include one religion, you must include them all. If you want to hold onto your legends, that’s fine, but keep them in your church and out of the school curriculum.
  
  Report this comment
- Zwolle
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:54pm
  Jay,
  
  Your logic is interesting. First you posit that teaching creationism violates the 1st amendment. The first amendment applies specifically at the Federal level – no silencing grievances against the federal government.. not state schools. Secondly, you say that if you include one religion you have to include them all. Since macro evolution is a theory, not scientific law, AND has never been proven, evolution (as you define Christian teaching) is also a myth. Therefore, as you pointed out, if you teach one myth, you must teach them all… or teach none of them.
  
  As you so smuggly put it “If you want to hold onto your legends, that’s fine, but keep them in your homes (my edit here) and out of the school curriculum.
  
  Z
  
  Report this comment
- Religion_Is_The_Problem
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:05pm
  You were not taught evolution in a christian school. You were taught the ignorant idea of evolution by teachers who still believe everything their 75 year old christian conservative parents tell them.
  
  Report this comment
- Zwolle
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:29pm
  Religion is the answer – dude you are angrier than a mule with a mouth full of bumble bees. It’s funny how touchy evolutionists get just talking about creationism. Are you really that threatened by it?
  
  Z
  
  Report this comment
- jay1975
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:50pm
  Z, first off, there is no such theory of “macro evolution”, that and “micro” evolution are lies created by the anti science Christians in an effort to support their particular myth. Second, the courts have found that religion is to be kept out of the school curriculum if it is an endorsement of one over another, thus your myth would have to be taught along with all of the other religious myths. Evolution is an accepted scientific theory based on observable, physical evidence. Just because your faith doesn’t allow you to be educated, it doesn’t mean you should fight to keep the rest of the nation ignorant as well.
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:39pm
  MRUNNER – would you say it’s ok that Christian creationism be taught alongside Islamic creationism, along with Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist creationism? How about Aboriginal Dreamtime myths?
  
  “Intelligent design” is nothing more than Christian creationism in disguise. Teach it in your churches, go ahead. Making Christian creationism official state curricula is establishing a religion, a violation of the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:43pm
  JAY…Microbes to Man, never happened…You say its been observed, there’s physical evidence??Who observed this? You?? You have physical evidence ??? Gee, you get the NOBEL PRIZE…CONGRADULATIONS!!!
  
  Report this comment
- pantokrator
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:33pm
  I’m more a philosophical guy, not the brightest in science or biology and that stuff (personally, I think a lot of science is ‘warped’ to fit the desired ends of they who warped it. This can go for both Evolutionists and Creationists), but I just want to say this: Jay, you’ve not at all addressed Publius’ rather interesting comment. In fact, you did nothing but repeat yourself. Just wanted to point that out; I would love to hear an honest and true response to Publius’ point about both Creationism and Evolutionism. :)
  
  Report this comment
RickMik
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:48am
This apparently very intelligent young man seems to make the same intellectual errror common to all proud liberal progressives. He notes that it is fundamentally wrong to use public moneys to fund an educational curriculum with which he disagrees. Isn’t it just as wrong to extort moneys from private citizens under threat of violence to fund a public education system that teaches a matter of “truth” or “science” with which they strongly disagree?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MrBigBillyB
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:48am
“These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private,” he told io9. “But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules.”

That’s funny. Because in public schools, it doesn’t matter whether or not Christians agree with or like what is being taught. They are forced to fund it anyway. Apparently he forgets that Christians are members of the public as well, and people are often forced to fund things that go against their personal beliefs whether it is creation, evolution, abortion, capital punishment, etc.

Hypocrite much?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bts61240
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:46am
Wow, the arrogance of man on display.
I was taught the God created everything. This means that God also created the process of Evolution along with the rest of the universe around us.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OccamsSword
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:20pm
  Who can argue with logic like that..
  
  Report this comment
- DIR
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:34am
  At this time it would be easier for Kopplin, as an athiest, to prove God exists as opposed to evolution. All he’s proving is he’s a dunce and a rock headed one at that. His logic is getting in the way of the facts. It can’t be proven on either side. Besides, evolution doesn’t disprove God’s existance, which I believe is the main thrust of his argumemt. One thing is for certain,. something happened. We’re here.
  
  Report this comment
jakartaman
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:43am
I am a devout Christian – I believe the bible -
I also believe we should not confuse children in school.
If you are in a science class the latest views should be taught. It was only a few centuries ago the church did not want to let go of the earth as the center of solar system not the sun.
When in church the bible should be taught – If you are a true christian you will go with the bible.
I also believe that our government is a war against Christianity – Progressive secular socialism requires no belief system except the State.
We are on the cusp of GODS wrath – get armed, get food/water hold your bibles close!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:23pm
  You are correct on where science should be taught but not on religion or the Bible. There can be a case to teach the Bible in a Comparative Religion class or a World History class. In fact the SCOTUS has upheld the use of the Bible in public schools as a resource book, especially when discussing history of the Middle East. The Bible can also be used in a Philosophy class. The only caveat is that the Bible must be used as a reference and not as a tool to “preach” a faith to the class.
  
  I took a History of Jesus class that used the Bible and other sources from the surrounding time period to investigate who Jesus might have been in the eyes of history, faiths, and the time period. This was done at a public university and rightly so, was legal to teach.
  
  Regarding science, the Theory of Evolution has become a catch phrase for many different ideologies that do not hold up to scientific evidence.
  1 – Natural Selection – Darwin’s true research area
  2 – Micro Evolution – adaptation to your surroundings on the cellular ( Natural Selection with cell biology basically)
  3 – Macro Evolution – which is the main confrontation between Creationism and Evolutionism
  4 – Big Bang Theory
  
  Problem is…Macro Evolution is scientific FRAUD and can never be proven…where is the half-ape half human colony floating around..??
  
  Report this comment
am123
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:38am
The theory of evolution is a farce perpetrated upon the public to keep them in the dark concerning the reality of the history of this planet. Not only does the fossil record lack empirical evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but evolutionists will insist on laughable explanations to avoid nullifying their lies. For example, what if I told you that evolutionists believe that soft tissue from a dinosaur bone they dug up is 68 million years old? That’s right, I kid you not:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

If you want to know what supposed 68 million year old soft tissue looks like, how it is flexible and pliable and returns to its original shape when stretched, you can see it at the 9:10 mark of this video from 60 minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658449n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Isn’t it ironic that evolutionists make fun of the beliefs of Bible believers and yet here is science making the ludicrous claim that 68 million year old soft tissue is flexible and resilient and stretchy? One question I have is when an evolutionist finds a dinosaur bone with soft tissue that is 68 million years old, do they straight away put it into a zip-lock plastic bag in order to prevent spoilage? LOL!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- am123
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:46am
  Another more important question is this: why wouldn’t the dating calculations be questioned when someone says soft tissue from a T. Rex bone is 68 million years old? Here is why: because a dinosaur bone that is not millions of years old would contradict the millions of years old paradigm of the evolutionary model and evolutionists won’t let that happen to their religion. They’d rather look like fools claiming soft tissue is millions of years old rather than give up their ridiculous theories. So don’t look for science to contradict such an absurd claim.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:43pm
  Uh. . . . . the “soft tissue” issue was disproven a long time ago.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:18pm
  So, AM123, how old IS a T.Rex bone if it contains “soft tissue”? How long does it take to decompose?
  
  And, just for amusement purposes, how old do believe our earth is?
  
  Report this comment
- am123
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:29pm
  @JHRUSKY,
  
  I don’t know exactly how old a T.Rex bone with soft tissue is, but I know it’s NOT 68 million years old. Do you believe it is 68 million years old?
  
  Regarding the age of the earth, I tend to lean towards the Gap Theory, which allows for an earth that is millions of years old. Or perhaps it is less than 10,000 years old, I don’t know. But the Adamic race is only about 6 or 7 thousand years old.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:01pm
  DEAVONREYE, I can’t wait to see this, I would have loved to hear you try to explain it your self, but, please provde link for solt tissue being debunjked,…It better be good.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:06am
  “The presumed soft tissue was called into question by Thomas Kaye of the University of Washington and his co-authors in 2008. They contend that what was really inside the tyrannosaur bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells.[60] The researchers found that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually framboids, microscopic mineral spheres bearing iron. They found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various periods, including an ammonite. In the ammonite they found the spheres in a place where the iron they contain could not have had any relationship to the presence of blood.[61] However, Schweitzer has strongly criticized Kaye’s claims and argues that there’s no reported evidence that biofilms can produce branching, hollow tubes like those noted in her study.[62] San Antonio, Schweitzer and colleagues published an analysis in 2011 of what parts of the collagen had been recovered, finding that it was the inner parts of the collagen coil that had been preserved, as would have been expected from a long period of protein degradation.[63] Other research challenges the identification of soft tissue as biofilm and confirms finding “branching, vessel-like structures” from within fossilized bone.”
  
  Report this comment
Steelhead
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:35am
listen to the kid Blazoids he is smart.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- flipper1073
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:22pm
  Not Smart, Indoctrinated
  There’s a Difference
  
  Report this comment
- Captain_Sensible
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:29pm
  Being that he clearly does not understand the Constitution, I’m not sure that I can accept the premise that he is all that smart.
  
  The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danville Baptists. The “Establishment Clause” (Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) was meant to prevent the Federal government from establishing a national religion, as the English had done with the Church of England. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the states could, if they wanted, establish an official state religion (and, indeed, many states had official religions at that time and/or before). I am no expert in Louisiana law, but there is nothing in the US Constitution that would have prevented Louisiana from establishing its own state religion (though the Louisiana state constitution might prohibit that).
  
  Kopplin ought to at least understand that before he begins to claim what is and is not Constitutional. Once he does that, his arguments might actually have some force behind them.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:11pm
  Smart/intelligence does not make a man wise.
  Often it makes him a bloated fool …
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:26am
  How is being completly wrong, smart?
  
  Report this comment
An_American_Thinker
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:32am
Creationism and evolution can coexist. There’s a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” component that evolutionists deny. Infinity of the universe is almost incomprehensible in scope. What lies beyond, where did it “start”? God.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:44am
  “Creationism and evolution can coexist.”
  
  No they can not. At least not the Creation that is described in the Bible.
  
  The Bible says that God created plant-life before the sun. So the days of creation has to be a 24 hour period.
  
  Evolution would mean the pre-human life-forms would have had to die before Adam sinned. Thus, calling God a liar.
  
  Jesus claimed that “In the beginning, God created them male and female” speaking of Adam and Eve. Evolution would mean Jesus was either lying or not God.
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:44pm
  Plants could not survive a day without sun. I assure you the ‘absolute zero’ temperature would destroy them.
  
  Report this comment
- hard.right
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:17pm
  god-is-not, you live in your finite world. think all-powerful creator and then tell me if a plant can live w/o sun. i’m not saying you have to believe it. i’m saying, if true, your knowledge means jack poop.
  
  Report this comment
- hard.right
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:18pm
  furthermore god-is-not, a plant can’t live for 6 days w/o light? I can probably test that one for you…
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:49pm
  @Hard
  
  Light? Did I say anything about light? You couldn’t comprehend two simple sentences? Please tell me you know the sun provides us with much more than light.
  
  Report this comment
- ranepowel
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:23pm
  Plants can survive six days without LIGHT. They could not survive without a source of HEAT, like that found in solar energy.
  
  Report this comment
- LittleFinger
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:14pm
  the egg came first, its the same organism
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:10pm
  Yo Is_not:
  
  God is described as a consuming fire … fire = heat … Not saying that that is the answer but according to scripture it is certianly plausible. He is also the sustainer of ALL things … works4me .. of course hell = fire too … not my desire for you to find out first hand
  
  Report this comment
VanceUppercut
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:31am
What, you mean Jesus and the disciples didn’t hang out with dinosaurs? LOL. What you’re average Republican stands for: the willful denial of facts, and the gleeful acceptance of ignorance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ltb
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:44am
  If you want to believe that you’re related to apes and that you’re a descendant of slimeballs, that’s okay with me. Judging by your rude comments, I can see why you would believe such things. Too bad your parents never taught you any manners.
  
  Report this comment
term limits for congress
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:31am
Dear Zack, will you please give me your opinion on The Holy Prophet and his teachings? Could you give me your opinion in the form of a drawing?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Locked
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:31am
I am sure that there will not be a single comment that mentions this man’s looks, age, or morals.

Right?

Guys?

Ah well, let the ad hominem attacks begin, I suppose.

As a Christian, I’ll pray for him to find God. However, I see nothing wrong with a lot of his statements: creationism isn’t science. Evolution is accepted scientific theory. America does have a science problem, and forcing religious beliefs into a science classroom is a sympton of that.

And no matter how much I will likely disagree with his thoughts on spirituality and God, I don’t think he deserves criticism and abuse just for standing up for scientific standards in our ailing public schools.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ltb
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:39pm
  I have a question for you. Why would you believe what the Bible says about salvation through Christ, when you don’t even believe the first few paragraphs of Genesis?
  
  BTW: Our State run schools were the envy of the world when we taught children how to reason for themselves. America’s State run schools only became the laughing stock of the world after we followed the Soviets by banning God and telling children what to think.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:47pm
  @LTB
  
  “I have a question for you. Why would you believe what the Bible says about salvation through Christ, when you don’t even believe the first few paragraphs of Genesis?”
  
  Because of faith. Faith isn’t based on reason, logic, or impirical evidence. It’s pretty obvious to me that portions of the Bible are parables and metaphors. I guarantee you don’t take certain parts of the Bible as 100% literal. For myself, I think the words of Christ in the New Testament are the closest to “truth” that we will find, and going backwards things get less accurate.
  
  For example, in Exodus 12:37 it is said that 600,000 able-bodied men (as well as the elderly, women and children; 2 to 2.5 million total) left Egypt. Considering the Egyptian population at the time was 3 to 3.5 million, this would have meant total economic collapse for them, and these millions of wanderers would have had to find shelter and food (as manna arrived from heaven only from time to time). EVERY single one of those millions died before the Exodus ended. But there are no signs of graves, no evidence of these millions of people ever traveling or existing. They’re never mentioned by other cultures.
  
  What can we conclude? A vanishing act, I suppose, would provide an explanation… or more likely, the specific number was a gematria, a code that works out to say “the children of Israel, every individual,” as it is commonly agreed upon.
  
  Make sense?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:19pm
  @LTB (cont)
  
  One clarification. When I said “For myself, I think the words of Christ in the New Testament are the closest to “truth” that we will find, and going backwards things get less accurate. ” that doesn’t mean I don’t do additional study. For example, we know that the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is not part of the original Bible but was added hundreds of years later. It doesn’t appear in the earliest copies that we have access to, nor other papyrus versions of the Gospel. The earliest we find it is in the fifth century.
  
  So even when looking at Christ’s words, you should know that men ignore God and add their own twists!
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:46pm
  I tend to agree with you about translations from the original texts being polluted during the translation process; however, I don’t believe mistranslations resulted in major fabrications about creation, or even about things like the Exodus. Time and again, archaeologists have unearthed things that prove the historical accuracy of the Bible (e.g., cities of the plains, Hittites, Ahab, King David, Herod, Pontius Pilate, etc.), so just because archaeological evidence for the Exodus hasn’t been discovered yet, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The desert that the Israelites wandered around in is humongous and for the most part unexplored. Besides, most of that desert land is in Islamic countries and you can rest assured that Muslim archaeologists are not going to announce to the world that they’ve discovered evidence proving Jews actually do have a Biblical claim to Israel. Finally, manna did not just arrive from Heaven from time to time, the Bible says that the Israelites ate it seven days a week for forty years (Ex 16:1-36) and I don’t know how you could you possibly know the population of Egypt at the time of the Exodus, when we don’t even know who the Pharaoh was.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:16pm
  Yo Locked:
  
  By your reasoning the bible is completely untrustable except for the parts you deem truthful … and you are going to lead me to your truth ??? When in fact it may not be!
  
  Also … theories do not make science … they make ideas with no real proof.
  Science is by definition the abilitiy to perform an experiment and dublicate it … thus, proof of a theory… now, no longer a theory.
  Nothing personal … but it amazes me how some can compromise the Word of God.( “Oh ye of little faith”). If I was a atheist you would convince me of nothing since most of what would believe seems untrustable buy you own admission. You would intend for me to walk on thin ice at your say so ?
  
  How do you know Jesus said what He said? cause someone said he said what he said?
  
  Parables are fictional stories that depict truth … many of the parables Jesus is speaking of Himself and the Kingdom … do you realize this?
  
  Finally … many come to FAITH through reasoning and logic … not quite sure you point there
  
  Forgive me if I misunderstand anything you say >>>
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:13am
  @LTB
  
  “just because archaeological evidence for the Exodus hasn’t been discovered yet, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
  
  This is of course true; the nonexistance of evidence is not evidence of nonexistance. But as said – the Jewish people themselves don’t believe the literal words here: they realize that the 600k (and the specific number given in Numbers) is a code that translates to “all the children of Israel.” They don’t expect to find evidence, because they realize that the words aren’t meant to be taken literally.
  
  “Finally, manna did not just arrive from Heaven from time to time, the Bible says that the Israelites ate it seven days a week for forty years (Ex 16:1-36)”
  
  Technically 6 days a week (none came on the Sabbath and it would only last a day), but I see your point. However, other statements make little (literal) sense: it was said that the manna could be seen by every king, from east to west. Every king? How would the royalty in China, for example, be able to see it?
  
  Metaphor.
  
  “and I don’t know how you could you possibly know the population of Egypt at the time of the Exodus, when we don’t even know who the Pharaoh was”
  
  But we know approximately when it was (1500-1200 BC), and we know the population from around the time period known as the “New Kingdom” in Egypt which corresponds to this time thanks to archeological records.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:20am
  @4truth2all
  
  “By your reasoning the bible is completely untrustable except for the parts you deem truthful … and you are going to lead me to your truth ??? When in fact it may not be!”
  
  I’m not going to lead you anywhere. Faith is believing when there is a lack of evidence (or even evidence to the contrary).
  
  “Science is by definition the abilitiy to perform an experiment and dublicate it … thus, proof of a theory… now, no longer a theory.”
  
  Which we can do with evolution, I agree.
  
  “If I was a atheist you would convince me of nothing”
  
  No kidding? I can’t force you to believe. I can’t force you to accept God. I can merely present what I believe.
  
  “since most of what would believe seems untrustable buy you own admission.”
  
  How is it untrustable? I just take nothing at face value. The Bible we know of today is the result of dozens of additions, subtractions, and translations. By constantly learning more about it, I believe we get closer to the truth. And I would argue it takes a lot more faith to say, “Yes, this version of the Bible is 100% true (looking at anyone who uses the KJV here, by the way).”
  
  “How do you know Jesus said what He said? cause someone said he said what he said?”
  
  Because of faith. It’s impossible to “know” because then you wouldn’t need to have faith, right? It would simply be fact. As I always say, only one person “knew” that heaven existed, and He sacrificed Himself for our sins. We can only have faith.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:32am
  @4truth2all
  
  “Parables are fictional stories that depict truth … many of the parables Jesus is speaking of Himself and the Kingdom … do you realize this?”
  
  Of course I do. But why do you think only Jesus spoke in parables? And which stories were parables, and which were true? Take, for example, the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Parable, or a true story? If it’s true, it provides one of the only actual examples of Hell in the Bible; a concept unknown to Jews at the time. But if it’s a parable (which seems likely, as until Christ died there was no concept of living forever in Heaven so the rich man couldn’t have gone there anyway), then it likely nullifies the idea of a literal Hell after death.
  
  If you take that story literally, do you also take literally Matthew 19:21-23? Likely not, as you still have a computer!
  
  “Finally … many come to FAITH through reasoning and logic … not quite sure you point there”
  
  I have actually found this isn’t true. Most that I’ve found come to faith through (wait for it)… faith. And then use logic and reasoning to back it up as best as possible. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but telling a geologist that the world is less than 10,000 years old isn’t likely going to convert anyone.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:44pm
  Yo Locked:
  
  You seem to be full of your own intelligence , and something full has no room for any other… NO DISRESPECT… I’m not even going to attempt to respond to your first post.
  
  Let go with … wait for it … faith = trust … it is the hearing of the Word of God that cause a man to believe … what IS the Word of God …. wait for it … TRUTH .. yet YOU say it is not for God did not create in six days as HE says , nay I say I believe what fallen men say and that is that God is a liar and that it was created in a long time … pick a number … it doesn’t matter we can change it tommorow when we become smarter and have to change our theories. AND by the way, a theory is a THEORY …not a fact
  
  Parables … You sure seem to contradict yourself here .. so I will repeat
  a parable is NOT a true story / not literal .. but it depicts a TRUTH
  The story of Lazeras and and the rich man is indeed a story about the kingdom/heaven and hell. There is now reason to reason any other into it … it says what it says, you use your intellegence and nullify Gods truth … this is not wise.
  
  Ah… Matthew 19: 21-23 … Does God want us ALL homeless and pennyless .. Obviously NO .. this would contradict scripture in so many places it is ridiculas ( but you don’t believe scripture so what does it matter). So what does it mean … good question … YEA! …you get the “gold”fish. Do you own what you have? Can you take it with you? Who does it really belong to ?
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:08pm
  Yo Locked:
  
  Matthew 19 … God wants us to give him everything in our … HEART !!! Everything I own is the LORD’s and He can do as He wishes with it . I/ we do this by walking in the spirit … it is called trust/ faith. God is my security force . I am not going to shoot someone because they steal by big screen. Maybe God will purposely allow someone to steal it… now what do I do .. go in debt and buy another one? go crazy without by movies? Read my bible more? Faith is not something you get and done, it’s supposed to grow … more truth more faith, more faith more truth…!
  If I didn’t have my computer I could not give you truth … Ever see people act like they lost everything when their house burned down … THAT is not living according to Matthew … God is only telling us to hold on to the things of this world lightly all the while clinging to Him with everything we got.
  
  Final … there is indeed PROOF of the Red Sea Crossing and where is was … The Rood Awakening and others I believe are on Youtube
  And so there ya go bro >>>
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:04pm
  @4truth2all
  
  “You seem to be full of your own intelligence , and something full has no room for any other… NO DISRESPECT… I’m not even going to attempt to respond to your first post.”
  
  ? I wasn’t even commenting on intelligence, but on faith. Which you completely dismissed. I find that incredibly disrespectful. Pray tell me: what incensed you so that you dismiss another’s Christian faith?
  
  “Let go with … wait for it … faith = trust”
  
  Yup. I trust in God.
  
  “… it is the hearing of the Word of God that cause a man to believe”
  
  Also true.
  
  “… what IS the Word of God …. wait for it … TRUTH”
  
  Indeed.
  
  “.. yet YOU say it is not”
  
  False.
  
  “for God did not create in six days as HE says”
  
  The writers of the Bible say that; that you think God Himself said it is a leap of faith (as I addressed before, and you dismissed without respect).
  
  “AND by the way, a theory is a THEORY …not a fact”
  
  No idea what you’re trying to say here. A theory, in layman’s terms, is a guess with some degree of thinking behind it. A theory, in scientific terms, is the best possible answer to a hypothesis, one that has all the evidence in support of it, and has not been disproved. “Fact” doesn’t play into the conversation with science.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:11pm
  @4truth2all (cont)
  
  “a parable is NOT a true story / not literal .. but it depicts a TRUTH”
  
  I already agreed with this. Why repeat yourself?
  
  “The story of Lazeras and and the rich man is indeed a story about the kingdom/heaven and hell.”
  
  So this is a true story, and not a parable? How did you decide that it is, and not other stories Jesus told? You realize that this story is still referred to as one of Jesus’s parables, right?
  
  “There is now reason to reason any other into it …”
  
  I honestly have no idea what this means.
  
  “Ah… Matthew 19: 21-23 … Does God want us ALL homeless and pennyless .. Obviously NO”
  
  Obvious to whom? Why is the story of Lazarus and the rich man taken literally, but Matthew 19:21-23 is not?
  
  “God wants us to give him everything in our … HEART !!! ”
  
  That’s not mentioned in Matthew 19:21-23. As I said before, you’re taking this on faith and ignoring Scripture. By your own words you take all of the Bible literally; but now you’ve given yourself an out, by saying “Oh, but this is what this ACTUALLY means.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
  
  I mean, I fully agree with the tact you’re taking… but you’re not being honest with yourself if you say it’s not a leap of faith.
  
  “Final … there is indeed PROOF of the Red Sea Crossing and where is was … ”
  
  Walking ten abreast, the total number of Israelites would stretch about 150 miles long if there were indeed 2.5 million. The exodus alone must have take
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 6:29pm
  Yo Locked:
  
  A PARABLE IS A STORY THAT IS NOT FACTUAL BUT TELLS OF A TRUTH.
  ( would you like me to explain the parable and what it teaches) Like the poor man became rich and the rich man poor … eternity was completely the opposite from their earthly life
  
  NEVER did I dimiss your personal saving faith … NEVER … not mine to do. I question your lack of understanding and faith in scripture .’ Oh ye of little faith.” …….. “ALL scripture is God- breathed and useful for teaching correcting and training in righteousness — 2 Timothy 3:16 … I repeat ALL SCRIPTURE
  I have just corrected and taught … yet you reject it, or is this verse also the ramblings of men only to be crumbled and thrown in the trash can of untrue writings.
  
  So … your math concerning the exodus is above the Word of God .. Watch the videos you might actually learn something from them.
  
  Again … I will not even attempt to correct all you have mis-stated
  If you wish to be a full bucket on a merry go round have fun … Good day
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 6:32pm
  Yo LTB:
  
  Check out … The Rood awakening … he has some youtube video on the Red Sea crossing, and there are others … good stuff … so, yes we do know …
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:54pm
  4truth2all, Thanks for the recommendation. After I got saved, I talked to a Catholic priest and he gave me a book to read about the faith of the Catholics (I think that may have been the name of the book). Anyway, I read up to the part where it said Catholics didn’t really believe in miracles, like Moses parting the sea, and that was all I needed to know. I believe in the miracles that the Bible talks about and am so glad I didn’t get entangled in the legalism of Catholicism shortly after being saved.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 5:55am
  Yo LTB:
  
  You are most welcome … if we cross paths down the road I would love to hear your thoughts.
  God doesn’t do miricles He is …
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 8:59am
  @4truth2all
  “A PARABLE IS A STORY THAT IS NOT FACTUAL BUT TELLS OF A TRUTH.
  ( would you like me to explain the parable and what it teaches)”
  
  All this tells me is exactl what I said: you take it on faith and not on its own words. I said it before, and I’ll say it again: you don’t take the Bible literally either. That was the only point.
  
  And when you start “explaining” the parable, you step outside the boundaries of literal interpretation. And there is NOTHING wrong with that – the only thing wrong is that you don’t admit that you do so.
  
  “ALL scripture is God- breathed and useful for teaching correcting and training in righteousness”
  
  I agree. I don’t discount Exodus because the numbers are obviously not literal; there’s still plenty to learn from it. But like you do with the words of Christ: you take things literally or figuratively, depending on your own faith.
  
  “… yet you reject it, or is this verse also the ramblings of men only to be crumbled and thrown in the trash can of untrue writings.”
  
  No idea how you got that end result. Everything you’ve said backs up what I originally posited. You don’t take the Bible literally – and that’s fine!
  
  “So … your math concerning the exodus is above the Word of God”
  
  What? The math is a code. The Jews knew it.
  
  “Again … I will not even attempt to correct all you have mis-stated”
  
  Your choice. Makes it difficult to take your protestations seriously.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 12:39pm
  Yo Locked :
  
  You have taken by your own words the words of scientists over the word of God, and that the only real words we can trust to be accurate are some of Jesus words.
  
  I have said that I trust the entirety of scripture. I have not, not admitted to anything …so, for the THIRD time the parables are not REAL / NOT TRUE stories but they tell a “truth”. Not ALL is written this way. The Old Testiment stories are historiclly true … etc…
  
  Concerning the attempted manipulation of your last line … whatever … good day
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 4:26pm
  @4truth2all
  
  “You have taken by your own words the words of scientists over the word of God, and that the only real words we can trust to be accurate are some of Jesus words.”
  
  As far as I know, the Bible never mentions evolution. So… no? And you are misusing my words: I said I have faith in the Bible, Jesus, and God. That doesn’t mean I say “The Bible says, I believe it, and that’s it!” We KNOW that the Bible as we see it today has been altered; in some cases, drastically. I don’t disagree that I take its current words on faith – I simply disagree with your protestations that you do not do the same.
  
  “I have said that I trust the entirety of scripture.”
  
  What does “trust” mean here? Again, you don’t take it all literally. The difference is that you call parts “true stories” and parts “parables” (just like I do), but (also like me) have offered no criteria on what makes it one and not the other. I know the criteria: it’s your faith. So you think that when Jesus talked about the rich man, the man was actually in Hell; but when he talked about selling all your possessions, he wasn’t being serious.
  
  “for the THIRD time the parables are not REAL / NOT TRUE stories but they tell a “truth”.”
  
  And you interpret that truth through faith, and not a literal translation. For a third time: I agree.
  
  “Concerning the attempted manipulation of your last line … whatever … good day”
  
  ? And you brush off my faith without an answer (again).
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 6:38pm
  Yo Locked:
  
  I did not brush you off … my reasoning is not to argue with you … as scripture would tell me. I also am very busy … I WILL ( my word) respond to your last post in detail tomorrow evening or Sunday so please check back. Sorry, but I believe most of what you said is incorrect. I would also take this moment to say that I hope I have not offended you in any way. I have a tendency to be direct and blunt, but I believe that I do do it out of love, at least that’s what I tell myself, and I’m not into self deception.
  
  Evolution/creation … DO YOU believe that 6 days is six days? From what I have read of your posts I take it that you do not.
  Six days is not a parable … as a day is a day as it is written … I DO NOT change that because some scientist says otherwise = his/mans word vs. Gods Word.
  
  This is all I have time for … have a good day
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 2:47pm
  Yo Locked:
  
  I be here as I said; however you did not answer my direct question about 6 days …???
  
  Trust means … I believe it ALL to be true
  
  My question to you is … what has been “drastically” changed in current translations.
  I read the NIV as I personally like how it reads.
  I also have a parrallel bible ( plus other translations) which has 4 different translations per open page.
  Often they are very simular and have yet to find different meanings, though I would admit to not using it extensively.
  
  Parable or not …1) most of the parables are clearly stated that they are parables.
  2) faith does not determine a parable, understanding does
  3) understanding comes from learning/knowledge/wisdom (” get understanding, get knowledge, get wisdom”) as scripture says to do.
  4) the Holy Spirit is to be our Councilor
  5) Consider the entire council of God
  Sell all you possesions … I believe that I have already addressed this … again … there is much scripture that addresses the use and handling of money. Many more scriptures that speak of “followers” that had money. So if ALL followers/christians were to give it ALL away why does God TEACH us how to use it ???
  Does this verse not cause you to think? Does it cause you to question? Does it not make you look at yourself and wonder if you are willing? That is part of the purpose … it MAKES one examine ones own h
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 3:03pm
  Yo Locked:
  
  The LORD may indeed one day lead me/you to sell all our possesions and go to Africa … am I/you willing? If I have ” possesed” them properly I should be, if not; I will probably not buy airline tickets.
  
  Your faith, my brush … I’m really not qiute sure how you think I have done this.
  I DO believe that compromising Gods Word is an indication of faith lacking, NOT VOID of it. I have stated that I question your understanding, and this not in judgement. We are supposed to do so … ‘As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
  Not interested in dulling the blade …peace
  
  Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:31am
I am a Creationist, and I agree that we should not teach “Creationism” in public school. I also believe that we should not teach macro-evolution in school. Here’s an idea, teach provable science. Because, I know that if kids are taught actual, provable, experiment-driven science they will laugh at the notion of macro-evolution.

I’ll teach kids about Creationism at Church and other private places. I only wish that the Darwinian apostles would keep their un-provable, science-lacking religion out of the schools too. How’s that for a compromise.

Besides, I would own this kid in a scientific debate of human origins in about 2 minutes.

And there a nobel-prize winning Creationists too. And major university science professors who are either Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. The former head of the U.S. Geological Service is a Creationists. You never seem to hear about them do you?

Finally, Creationism is NOT exclusively a Christian belief you unspeakable moron. It is spelled out in the JEWISH Torah and other OLD TESTAMENT writings. There are only a few references to it in the New Testament.

Idiots… At least educate yourself on what the people you are trashing believe.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DesertRose1960
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:56am
  Creationism is a Fundamentalist Christian teaching. Even Catholics don’t teach it and Jews don’t teach it, either.
  
  Report this comment
- Zwolle
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:30pm
  You are kidding right?!?!!?!
  
  Z
  
  Report this comment
- christiancowgirl
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:05pm
  @SQUIDVETOHIO – Appreciate your comments. Too many Christians have fallen for the claims that evolution is science and try to fit it into a Christian framework.
  
  For all those who claim there is evidence for evolution (macro evolution). Cite one example here. Just one.
  
  The evidence all around us points to an intelligent designer. The evolution position is the truly laughable one. To think that the complexities of every living creature and the inter-relationships of everything on earth could have happened over interminably long random processes is beyond a fairy tale.
  
  The whole purpose of the evolutionary theory and teaching is to remove God from our society. No God – no accountability. Everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:39pm
  ChristianCowgirl: You could start here:
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
  
  29 pieces of evidence, all rigorously described and supported by scholarly citations.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:51pm
  @thecalmone
  very good link. I had to stop reading or I would have never got anything done tonight. I’ll return though, thanks to you.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:03pm
  Yo Thecalmone:
  
  You know that they say you can get a scholar to say anything … just sayin …
  
  Your guys are scholars ours are fools …
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:37am
  CALAMONE
  
  That site is a joke, every thing is a losing argument for evolution…I especially liked the “Hominoid skulls” If you think those are transitional, you really need to bone up on the more recent info out there… This is old crap that no professor now days would try to use in a debate, without looking like an idiot…I’m shocked that people are so far behind in the evo creation debate…what a joke
  
  Report this comment
- christiancowgirl
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:12pm
  @THECALMONE
  
  “All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale.”
  
  Yeah, right. It’s difficult enough to believe that ANYTHING evolved randomly over millions or billions of years. Then when you consider the fact that the little male and female critters had to develop and evolve in proximity and at the precise same times, for each different type of animal, so that they would be close enough and ready to reproduce with each other.
  
  Oh, yeah. That’s fairy tale stuff alright. Just make the totally impossible sound pseudo-intellectual enough and people will believe it.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:16pm
  @CALMONE
  
  Your website is laughable. It starts out by redefining what “scientific evidence” means. If I’m allowed to re-define what “scientific evidence” means, I can make Creation a law.
  
  Get real. Besides the ‘evidence’ can easily be discredited. Your problem is you don’t know what Creation scientists believe or say. You only know what Atheists tell you we believe. We acknowledge micro-evolution (is which at best, your evidence shows). We do NOT believe in macro-evolution. For which there is NO credible evidence for.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:24pm
  @DESERTROSE
  
  Because you apparently know every catholic and Jew in the world. Jews don’t offer the required Old Testament sacrifices anymore either. Catholics use to teach that paying enough money to the church would lesson a loved ones time in purgatory. I suggest you travel to Israel and meet some more Jews.
  
  I’m selling points. You seem to be in need of one.
  
  Report this comment
GoodStuff
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:30am
Nope…no nightmares. Try again Blaze.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Hawkeyefan19
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:29am
Sorry, just click on the red text.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Calm Voice of Reason
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:17pm
  I had posted a reply to your link and you may find it somewhere on this board.
  
  Report this comment
momrules
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:26am
This kid is no nightmare for Christians. He is just another in a long line of people who think that if you put the word science in a sentence then it must be fact. I expect many more like him to come out and *forward* in the coming days. It was predicted by an Authority much more reliable than any Nobel Laureate.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- john vincent
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:38am
  mom-
  I was thinking the same. He is simply a fresh face and voice. His argument is lame when he brings up the ‘church and state’ fallacy. There is NO church represented when we speak of a Creator, its that simple. His point is vapid at best.
  
  There is more science to creation if people were a tad more honest.
  
  Report this comment
- hatchetjob
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:30pm
  MOMRULES, Thank you for your voice of sanity on this subject. The devil knows his time is short, so he’s sending out his minions to take as many to hell with him as possible.
  
  Report this comment
- Snidely
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:11pm
  Agreed. This kid is no nightmare for creationists. He simply parroted the same lame talking points that we’ve heard for years from evolutionists. All of them attack a straw man, and avoid substantive arguments. If the kid really understood biology, he would realize how absurd the theory of evolution is.
  
  Report this comment
eat-more-bacon-USA
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:24am
Those who believe in CREATION don’t have nightmares about liberals and their unproven “science” fantasies.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Abraham Young
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:47pm
  Bingo! Right on.
  
  They still don’t even have any idea how consciousness “evolved”.
  
  And they don’t have an explanation for a complete developmental pathway to the simplest of parasites, let alone the more complex living things.
  
  Darwinism is a faith based religion.
  
  Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:22am
This kid is getting attention from the socialist, godless left and so he is excited about his sudden fame just for pushing atheism. Creationism is slowly being proven and is more believable than the twists and missing information of evolution. This kid is sealing the doom of his soul and does not know it. He is another usesful idiot.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:39pm
  Show how CREATION [6 day account in Genesis] is being “proven”.
  
  Report this comment
- 702TruthSeeker
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:40pm
  deavon, public schools are paid for by taxpayers, you know, these guys:
  
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
  
  private school tuition is no longer tax deductible, which means if someone who believes in God wants their children educated by someone who share their beliefs, they must pay for their kid and pay for someone else’s kid too. There is nothing preventing atheists from opening their own schools. A public school MUST teach all points of views, especially those that the majority of country believes in
  
  http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/politicalspeeches/charltonhestonculturewars.mp3
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:51am
  They can teach the “6 day Genesis account” in phylosophy class. SCIENCE class is about that which is experimental. Who has evidence for a “6 day Genesis account”?
  
  Report this comment
- 702TruthSeeker
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:19pm
  agreed, however, UNPROVEN THEORIES should not be taught as fact in science class either
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 9:36am
  That which has evidential backing for its theory is to be taught. Technically, “proof” is for mathmatics [and alcohol].
  
  Report this comment
JEANNIEMAC
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:22am
Apparently “Creationism” is a word used to describe the theory that the earth was literally created in six days of 24 hours each. “Day” simply means a period of time.
“Intelligent Design” more aptly describes the creation of the universe over however long it took. Billions of years is not a long time in the eyes of the Eternal Creator, God.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:39am
  Sorry but you are wrong. The word for “day” in the original Hebrew is the word “yom”. There is a different Hebrew word for a period of time. EVERYTIME the word “yom” is used in the Bible, it refers to a 24 hour period. Besides, according to Genesis, God created the plants the day before He created the Sun. How did they survive for billions of years without the Sun?
  
  Evolution would also mean there was death before sin. That would make God a liar. There is NO provable scientific reason to believe in an Earth that is billions of years old. I suggest you learn what creation scientists believe before you are willing to say the Bible doesn’t mean what it says. (That is, if you claim to believe it)
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:38pm
  Or, . . . the ancient text was wrong and no “god” ever said that [regardless of whether or not this god exists]. There is plenty of evidence for ages far greater than 6,000-10,000 years. Go to talkorigins.org to search more on this.
  
  Report this comment
- mcsledge
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:59pm
  The word ‘create’ in the Bible means ‘organized’, not ‘created out of nothing’. This world was created out of matter that has existed for eternity. Man, which was created in the image of God the Father, was placed on this earth after its creation (i.e., organization). It has been approximately six thousand years since Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden. We do not know how long they lived in the Garden, but we know that death, procreation, etc. did not come into being until after they left the Garden.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:47pm
  “…but we know that death, procreation, etc. did not come into being until after they left the Garden.”
  
  How do you “know that”, outside of an ancient text?
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:21am
The answer to ALL of these issues is to get rid of “public schools” altogether.
Many people dont like or use them so why should we have to fund them?
Individual states should run their own schools.
Everyone can now see the Federally run schools are easy to turn into indoctrination centers.
Impossible with every state being a separate system.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:24pm
  Exactly it would be cheaper and more productive to have a primary school where reading and writing is taught then let parents either home school or private school them. Fact is the DOE was established to increase our children eduction and since it was started trillion upon trillions have been spent and all we have to show for it is nice schools full of kids with lower test scores than the kids prior to the DOE being established. The quality of student coming out of todays schools should be all we need to make a decision on ending the DOE.
  
  Report this comment
- Jesuslovesus
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:58pm
  I think that would be an excellent idea….we should have Atheist schools and Christian schools separate. Now something tells me that the atheist would do better in raising funds….but the children coming out of Christian schools would be much better off.
  
  Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:19am
Please do not conflate (“confuse” for the invincibly ignorant) Christians and creationists, or evolution with scientists.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
raabhimself
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:18am
And what’s stopping him from learning about it on his own? Nothing…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kickagrandma
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:18am
he is not creating our nightmare. he is creating his own, for all eternity.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Free_Thought
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:02pm
  If you say so
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:14am
Takes more than that kid to give me nightmares.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:22am
  You ever wonder why evolutionist are so scared of debating the thoery and it’s innception.
  The fact is when science says the debate is over on a theory says all yuou need to know.
  
  Report this comment
- TheTram
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:26am
  Joseph Smith?
  
  Report this comment
- airborneoathkeeper
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:57pm
  Why don’t they teach the full theory of evolution just like Darwin describes it…..let’s talk about his supermist racial views and his endorsment of ugenics…..let’s see how that would play out in the marxist educational system.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.