Faith

Creationists Convince South Korean Officials to Remove Evolutionary References From High School Textbooks

Society for Textbook Revise Gets Evolutionary Mentions Removed From TextbooksIn America, the debate over evolution and creationism is seemingly never-ending. And, judging from the numbers, the battle is poised to continue. But it’s not just the U.S. that finds itself embroiled in controversy surrounding the creation and development of mankind. In South Korea, where disagreement is also fierce, a shocking decision has been made: Officials plan to remove some evolutionary references from high school student textbooks.

(Related: Nearly Half of Americans Believe in Creationism Over Evolution — Do You?)

The creationist-led victory was achieved last month when a petition to remove references to evolution was accepted. While the theory isn’t being taken out entirely, specific examples, including the horse and the avian ancestor Archaeopteryx will be nixed. Biologists who embrace evolution are voicing their concerns with the development, Nature reports.

Society for Textbook Revise Gets Evolutionary Mentions Removed From Textbooks

An Adam and Eve exhibit at the Kentucky-based Creation Museum (AP)

The journal goes on, explaining where the campaign originated and how it reached this latest victory:

The campaign was led by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which aims to delete the “error” of evolution from textbooks to “correct” students’ views of the world, according to the society’s website. The society says that its members include professors of biology and high-school science teachers.

The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”, a reference to one of the most famous observations in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. To back its campaign, the group highlights recent discoveries that Archaeopteryx is one of many feathered dinosaurs, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds2. Exploiting such debates over the lineage of species “is a typical strategy of creation scientists to attack the teaching of evolution itself”, says Joonghwan Jeon, an evolutionary psychologist at Kyung Hee University in Yongin.

The textbook advocacy group is part of the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), a group that works to tout creation science and the biblical story of humankind’s formation. Apparently, South Korea has a strong religious tradition, with half of the population practicing either Christianity of Buddhism. This influence, very clearly, leads some to embrace the Biblical story of creation, rather than accepting science’s take on evolutionary matters.

Society for Textbook Revise Gets Evolutionary Mentions Removed From Textbooks

Image Credit: Answers In Genesis

The same debate continues to rage in America, with creationists scoring occasional victories here as well. And the U.S. proportions on evolution and creationism are fascinating. As reported earlier this week, new research from Gallup conducted this month found that 46 percent of Americans still embrace creationism, the notion that God directly created human beings in their present form at one point in the last 10,000 years.

While nearly half of the nation believes in the aforementioned view, an additional 32 percent maintain that humans evolved — but with God’s guidance. Taken in its collective, this means that 78 percent of Americans believe that God played a substantial role in mankind’s creation. An additional 15 percent of respondents embrace evolution with no involvement from the Almighty. Nature has more about the South Korean data on this same issue:

In a 2009 survey conducted for the South Korean documentary The Era of God and Darwin, almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution. Of those, 41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support it; 39% said that it contradicted their religious beliefs; and 17% did not understand the theory.

Pro-evolutionists in South Korea are, quite obviously, frustrated by this latest development, as they plan a counter movement that will work to instill evolutionary teaching in classrooms.

(H/T: io9)

Comments (345)

1 2 3 4
  • ProRepublic
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:14am

    What if instead of being taught evolution, you had been taught something else? What if you saw that there was more evidence for creationism than for evolution? Darwin had ideas about what he saw and would not publish it. Not until the death of his beloved daughter. Origin of species was Darwin’s retribution toward God. No doubt he observed many things, however he came to all the wrong conclusions. Scientists and evolutionists alike have built all of their knowledge on incorrect information and false assumptions.
    Radioactive dating is known by anyone who understands it to be completely flawed. I don’t just mean carbon dating either. They are all fundamentally flawed as can be seen in the assumptions attached to them. This is the basis for giving the age of bones, rocks and many other things as well. This also gives the setting for evolution to take place. Since evolution needs a massive amount of time to be correct, false dating methods have given the setting to which that would be possible.
    True scientists would allow for possibilities outside of their assumptions. Too bad they are trying to protect evolution at all costs. Then it would logically follow that since they are naturalists, they would be able to use bad science to quiet the one book that would prove them wrong…the Bible.

    Report Post »  
    • commonsensefreethinker1
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:34am

      Yea, so instead what are they going to replace it with? Oh I know, just have an old guy with a beard of coarse coming down from a cloud out of the sky with a man and woman in his hands. What a joke!
      If the Blaze was the front door of an insane asylum all the bible thumpers on here would be taken in by men in white coats as you are committed and fitted with a straight jacket and put into a padded cell.

      Report Post » commonsensefreethinker1  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:10pm

      @Fight

      Since you want to fight ignorance can you tell me exactly where the Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth? I’m not familiar with that passage.

      While you’re at it, can you give me a list of examples of observed additions to the genes of a specific animals? I am not aware of any.

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • MountainJac
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:27pm

      @COMMONSENSEECTECT

      Actually, I’m not sure if you read it or not, but the Creation story is that God formed man out of the dust of the earth, and breathed life into him, and then created Eve from Adam’s rib. It doesn‘t help your argument when you can’t even properly recount the “legend.” I guess calling people idiots who believe in fantasies that you haven‘t even read a sentence of is considered a valid argument these day’s. How utterly disappointing your argument is.

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:41pm

      @prorepublic Radioactive dating is not fundamentally flawed!!! Who told you that!!?

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:44pm

      @IONNES Joshua 10:12-13
      Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

      Choice words from the bible of a people who assume the sun moves relative to the earth.

      Report Post »  
    • Georgia Born and Bred
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:45pm

      It always amazes me that whenever I present the supernatural power of God on here, I never get any takers. Why can’t anyone ever answer how people receive healing for ailments, sickness, and injuries not cured by medicine or modern science? God is real people and He still moves today. Believe it.

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:51pm

      @IONNes observed addition of genes to a species? sorry bro that is a really stupid argument and not how biology works at all. Transposons, Base Excision Repair duplication errors, and chromosome fusion occur and add genetic information through molecular process but it does not magically add brand new fully functional genes… This is a course of evolution where added genetic information through virus or molecular machinery error selects for functional gene products that support survival… If God made us than DNA polyermase would have no error rate but it does… 1 of 100,000 nucleotides and you have over 3 billion per genome… repair machinery and proofreading activity fixes them but sometimes they are not fixed and remain in the germline. Please please educate yourself in molecular biology of evolution before talking

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:53pm

      @Georgia born and bred… Where do you get this rubbish?

      Report Post »  
    • kevin1122
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:56pm

      Fight,
      There was a time when the US was number 1 in the world in terms of education. That time was before we started preaching evolution in the public classrooms. The downward spiral began when we removed God, inserted evolution and the Federal Government stepped in even though there is NO Constitutional authority to do so.
      Sorry to point out these facts to you.

      Report Post »  
    • davecorkery
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:56pm

      The bible is completely flawed. It was written by men, not some god. The ravings of zealots from 4000 years ago. Great way to base your life on. Faith is no reason

      Report Post »  
    • commonsensefreethinker1
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:56pm

      @MOUNTAINJAC

      For your info I have read the bible book from front to back and am very aware of the “supposed” events my post was just a figure of speech but yes your version is even more ridiculous. Thank you for that.

      Report Post » commonsensefreethinker1  
    • golfer8805
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:01pm

      Cesium 2 – ionnes 0

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:08pm

      @ Cesium

      “If God made us than DNA polyermase would have no error rate but it does…”

      Nice straw man argument thrown in there. Ever heard of the curse of sin. “In the day that thou eatest of the tree…. thou shalt surely die” The Bible actually teaches that men are flawed and dying. You might know micro-biology but you know jack about theology. Besides, your arguement proves squat. You are confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution. Again, an evolutionists offer up examples of micro-evolution and then demand that macro-evolution is true.

      Since you know so much about micro-biology anwer this, if you change the components of the DNA structure by more than 2%, do you know what happens? It dies! (Unless it happens over millions of years right? I believe that’s the convenient fairy tail you guys believe)

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:15pm

      Be free of humanist indoctrination. Read the Bible and read ‘The Genesis Flood’ by Whitcomb and Morris. God is the only truthful authority. Science doesn’t refute the Bible it supports it.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:23pm

      @Cesium,
      If you read that verse carefully it says something important. It says, “in the sight of Israel.” The verse is talking about perspective. It’s not talking about cosmology. We do that kind of thing too. Have you ever been dizzy (or drunk) and said “someone stop the earth” or something like that? Did you actually think the Earth was causing your disorientation? Do you think anyone who has said that thought that? No, of course not, that would be ridiculous. This isn’t a case of a problem, it’s a case of someone wanting to find a problem. Also there would be nothing to preclude God from stopping the entire universe if that fit His purpose. I don’t believe that, but it certainly wouldn’t be beyond an omnipotent God to do that.

      Secondly, if radioactive dating isn’t flawed why does the Mt Saint Helens eruption look, to radiometric dating to be 80-100 million years old?

      Thirdly, you obviously didn’t understand the question about genes. Things like transposons don’t add genetic material; it’s an error in copying. Also all you did was list a number of processes you think might do what I asked (create new information) however you didn’t supply an observed instance of it actually working. In the lab we’ve been able to do all kinds of things to an animal’s genes but we’ve never moved it out of its available genetic variation. There was a very famous fruit fly experiment that made the researchers come to the conclusion that th

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:24pm

      (continued)
      it could (which is a strange conclusion given that a) they picked it specifically because they thought it was a good candidate and b) they believed everything evolved from the single celled organisms that less genetic structure than the fruit fly).

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • Georgia Born and Bred
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:27pm

      Cesium
      And btw when the Bible was first translated to the english language it was before Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. The world was still considered flat. All those scholars did was TRANSLATE. They didn’t change things that we know today to be inaccurate to fit whatever new scientific discoveries there were. Bad argument for that one my friend.

      Report Post »  
    • ProRepublic
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:36pm

      It seems so many evolutionists/atheists have no better defense than to call out obscenities and names for people that disagree with them. I understand that you can take the words of the Bible out of context and use them to match your argument. However you are using scripture (which you do not understand) to fuel your blind belief in evolution. The first thing you must do is admit that you were not there at creation. I certainly was not. Which means that we are both coming from a faith position. We both look at the evidence and are coming to different conclusions.
      @CESIUM
      My own research has shown that the assumptions that are used in radioactive dating are leading to wildly inaccurate results. No matter which form of radioactive dating you use, the assumption they use are all the same. That stems from Charles Lyells assertion that the present is the key to the past. This means that the decay rate of the element remains unchanged no matter what happens. This has been proven false by many scientists. Scientists have found a volcano that erupted within the past half century that was tested radioactively. It was shown through radioactive dating to be millions of years old. The problem is that elements do not decay at a uniform rate. Assumptions that are stated in these theories are that things such as water and temperature could have a dramatic impact on the dating process. It is certain that temperature changes and exposure to water happened to these rocks.

      Report Post »  
    • murphrich
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:44pm

      what utter rubbish, everyone knows that the earth was seeded with animals by intergalactic space reptiles with feathers. A much more plausible theory than creationism any day.

      Report Post »  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:06pm

      @MURPHRICH

      Based on what exactly? What makes that a better theory than creationism? Be specific…

      Or was that just to make you feel better because you couldn’t actually contribute to the conversation?

      My guess is you (and most atheists/agnostics) don’t actually even know what creationism actually teaches (or you wouldn’t dismiss it so easily).

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • murphrich
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:15pm

      I now live in Europe no creationist claptrap here, even the churches believe in evolution apart from the ones run by Americans, they are listened to politely and tolerated as simple minded folk need to be nurtured and indulged in their sad fantasies.

      Report Post »  
    • Copo
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:37pm

      @Cesium That’s based on what it looked like from Earth. I guess anyone that uses the words sunset or sunrise is a geocentrist fool too. If you saw it you would say the sun stopped moving because that’s what it looked like, that doesn’t imply that the sun spins around Earth.

      Report Post » Copo  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:22pm

      @MURPHRICH

      You could have just said, “Well it’s just my belief. I have no actual reasons; I just like to believe that way”. I mean, that’s what you really said (of course you did throw in a nice ad hominem attack there to demonstrate how truly devoid of logic your position is).

      Just because most people (even if they’re scientists) believe something doesn’t make it true. Just like when scientists thought the world was flat (yes scientists believed that) or that the sun circled the Earth (yes they believed that too). So you’re whole “I now live in Europe” thing is irrelevant.

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • Gates
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:07pm

      What’s truly amazing is the existence of the cosmos. To think it all happened by some kind of cosmic accident is laughable to the absurd. And if God created the cosmos what kind of “faith” does it require to believe He created us? Not believeing is a much bigger act of “faith” than believeing is. Evolution is a “religion” without the first use of real evidence. The total absense of transitional forms is but one gigantic argument against it.

      Report Post »  
    • Anamah
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 6:54pm

      Pure ignorance! Americans should enjoy a better level of knowledge. Science, history, geography, math should be much better! Americans are very lowered levels and that is shameful. Specially confronting the education spending so expensive and useless. The miserable text books are a direct result of interested lobbies in DC and all states, and teachers are co opted by Progressives, Communist and revolutionaries under all kind of masks. This is a base badly needed improvement to reclaim our true soul, of liberty and freedom, not on religious tales but authentic roots of religion respect and love of knowledge.

      Report Post »  
    • MrObvious
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 7:32am

      Look at the universe. Just look up into the clear night sky.
      Even at the speed of light, the light from the stars you can see with your own eyes, took years, decades, and even centuries to get here; yet, the stars travel much much slower than that.
      We have telescopes that can see objects thousands, and even millions of light years away.
      The universe part of your hypnosis of creation, just fell apart.
      Even if carbon dating were as flawed as you make it out to be, a house without a foundation can not stand – and in creationism, the universe came first.
      The only way the universe started out like it is now, would be if the whole thing were a gigantic simulation.
      Are you saying that none of this is real, that our world and universe (in which we live) are simulated?

      Report Post »  
    • ProRepublic
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 8:14am

      @MROBVIOUS When I look into the clear night sky, I stand in awe at the beauty our creator has shown us. In every magnificent sun rise to every smell of lilacs, I give glory and honor to God.
      There is no universe part of this creation account. You are wrong that “in creationism, the universe came first”. Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning, God”. If I believe in a created God, your accusation would most certainly stand. However, the God of the bible is not a created God. He always existed. He is the first cause. In his infinite power, we were created. So your logic about simulation is flawed. First thing you need to do to look at the creation account, MROBVIOUS is to do as I have done and acknowledge your presuppositions. Because that determines the kind of faith you will have and what you will believe about the story you find through science. My presupposition in this matter is that God does exist. You would do well to acknowledge yours and understand the implications it has on you…that is to say, you have a faith position that by my calculation is a stronger faith than mine to believe in evolution. Any way you can turn this around however, your conclusions about evolution or anything else are based on faith. And that determines what you believe about the evidence you find. There is so much fine tuning in the universe that there is no way it could happen by accident. I could give many number of examples of things that could not have happen by accident

      Report Post »  
    • TheLastModerate
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:34am

      Well, at least there will be once less Asian country whose kids will be kicking our butts in science education in a few years.

      Report Post »  
    • The_Bell
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 5:54pm

      “Fighting_Ignorance”? Really?

      Chart the decline of our nations academics amongst the world’s nations since 1963.

      Guess what? We are steadily heading south. By your “thinking” we should be be number one by now.

      I’ve seen more of the similar personal ad hominem attacks by typical atheists here than everywhere else on other forums. The common denominator with atheists is their denial of bigotry, prejudice and bitterness while hating up on those they love to characterize as “imbeciles”

      No facts, mind you… but lots and lots of insults and half truths by those who see themselves as “free thinkers” and self proclaimed “intelligentsia”… nothing ever changes…

      Report Post »  
    • hallkbrdz
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:35pm

      I encourage all of you who think the Bible is made up of a bunch of stories – to prove if false. That can’t be that hard if men wrote it all – right?

      Report Post » hallkbrdz  
  • apathetic_agnostic
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:13am

    Reading these posts, I’m amazed at the amount of ignorance that exists regarding evolution. Do you guys actually believe that the proponents of evolution are saying that one species actually gives birth to a completely different species (a horse giving birth to a dog)? Are you really that ignorant? Are you actually asking why have we stopped evolving? This is amazing!!! Every generation is slightly more evolved than the previous generation. The amount that it evolved is so slight that it probably can’t even be seen under a microscope. But over the course of four million years, you will definitely see a difference between the species. We didn’t evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor with apes. The noticeable changes can’t be seen over the course of decades or centuries. Look at the hour hand on your watch for ten seconds. Did you see it move? No, you didn’t. Wait an hour and look at the position of the hour hand again. Did it move over the course of that hour? Yes, it did. Are you guys really this way or are you just pretending? I find it hard to believe a group of people could be so ill-informed.

    Report Post »  
    • huntinwabbits
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:38am

      I’ll try to paraphrase what I read…

      We can never prove evolution because it happens over a long period of time and we only live a few years out of it. And humans are creating more and more technology which has made life more complicated and multitasked. Eventually the human species with have 6 legs and 6 arms so we can accomplish much more at once. Does not incest create 6 toes? I am going to find my cousin and try to get ahead of the game. One of these days it’ll be 6 arms instead of toes. And you are all mad because I am more evolved than all you and thought of this first. I am right behind Al Gore since he already invented the internet.

      Also the other day I found a leaf that three sections of it…it looked very similar to…..WEBBED FEET! That leaf and ducks obviously had a common ancestor about 5 to 8 million years ago I suspect. At least the tampered non-pure carbon dating test I used told me so. You know come to think of it…the leaf looked very similar to the Canadian flag! That’s it! Canadians, ducks, and leafs have a common ancestor of 5-8 million years ago! Man this evolution thing is easy! Because it comes so easily for me, I am obviously a descendant of Darwin himself. Stupid ancestry.com lied! Well, at least I know Canadians and me don’t come from the same ancient ancestor.

      Report Post »  
    • Fight_Ignorance
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:46am

      Apathetic_Agnostic… Yes, They are that Ignorant! It’s their crutch. They cant handel the real world so they put all their faith in Santa Clause or Gawd or whatever.. They are all the same.. Fantasies!

      Report Post »  
    • huntinwabbits
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:57am

      Ignorance is resorting to attempts to discredit the scientist rather than the science. All these expert evolutionists on here who follow the same trends of trying to make the creation scientists non-reputable because they have filed attempts answering the tough questions. Calling creationists idiots does nothing to prove your case right or mine wrong. It only shows the different levels we are on.

      Report Post »  
    • commonsensefreethinker1
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:59am

      @APATHETIC_AGNOSTIC

      I agree with your post. We are in the middle of evolution as we speak. For example the % of americans that are obese today is proof in itself . We are a nation of lazy electronic devices to make things easier,fast food restaurants and people that just flat out take advantage of the system so they don’t have to work and still get a check every 2 weeks. Remember the movie Wally? That’s our future in a nutshell. The end “EVOLVED” result is a fat lazy entitled human.

      Report Post » commonsensefreethinker1  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:19pm

      @Apathetic

      Actually no one thinks that. Though in the end that’s what you get (eventually a horse would have an non-horse ancestor). That said, what you would need, and don’t have, is a mechanism to create new genes. We’ve observed the loss of genetic vitality but not an increase. Before you say we have natural selection and mutation you must realize that natural selection doesn’t create, it selects (hence the name). Also mutation does not add. It may duplicate incorrectly or destroy but it doesn’t create.

      Unless you know of evidence to the contrary.

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:23pm

      HUNTINWABBITS — instead of the scathing indictment of evolution you believe you comment to be, it shows your sad ignorance of science.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • headinhome7
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:56pm

      APAG,Species came about SUDDENLY! Evolution debunked by science! I send love my friend.

      Report Post »  
    • IndySportPilot
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:51pm

      There’s about 5.05 x 10^17 seconds in your fantasy evolutionary world (504,907,776,000,000,000 long hand), but think about it…there are 1.6×10^12041 different possible gene combinations (a figure I can’t even type in long hand) in the human genome alone…that’s just our DNA. There’s not enough time in 16 trillion years let alone billion to randomly attempt all of the possible combinations, let alone enough matter in the entire universe for all of the failed combinations.

      Darin himself felt that his theory would collapse if no evidence could be found for the creation of complex organs such as the eye. Funny thing when looking at the “strata” that evolutionist conjecture was laid down over millions of years, the lowest “earliest” layers contain the Chambered Nautilus, a squid like creature that not only has eyes, but many organs with functions such as ours like the liver. These are not early primitives, but smaller heavier creatures that settled to the bottom of the flooded world of Noah. Geologists then find petrified trees vertical through 20 feet of strata and fumble saying “does not compute, figure that out later”.

      No my friend, believing blindly in the imagination of Dawin, an apostate seminary student angry with God, then perpetuating this fodder with nothing but lefty tactics of ridicule will not convince those that stand on the Truth.

      Report Post » IndySportPilot  
    • msoeguy
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:32am

      @Apathetic_Atheist
      I prefer to call it willful ignorance. When they claim that scientists fit the evidence to match their beliefs it is merely them projecting their own methods. They spout the same nonsense for decades even in the face of ridiculous amounts of evidence that they are wrong. I have first hand experience with this as my father is at least as fundamentalist as people here. When we talk about evolution he spouts the same 30 year old, fallacious, “problems” with evolution that I’ve read here. The decline of this country started during the McCarthy era when we began to allow religious bias instead of reason, common sense, and compassion to run our government. Now we “debate” evolution while the rest of the educated world has long since arrived at the obvious conclusion. Now if we treat homosexuals as human being with the same governmental rights as the rest of us we are calling down the “wrath of god” on our country.

      Don’t be too upset though, the people here are simply the vocal minority. The majority of us, religious people included, have enough common sense to realize that religious bias in law is bad – no matter which religion is being privileged. The day is quickly approaching when we will stand up and say “enough is enough”. However, it will take more people like you and I speaking out for reason and compassion and raising awareness of the true danger of the theocracy this “religious right” wants us to become. I highly suggest that you visit se

      Report Post »  
    • msoeguy
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:44am

      @APATHETIC_ATHEIST
      For some reason it appears that the end of my post got cut off. I highly recommend that you visit secular DOT org, if you’ve never been there, and find a way to help bring reason and compassion back to our government like our founding father intended.

      Report Post »  
  • Canada_Goose
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:49am

    As I recall Winston’s Smith’s job in Orwell’s 1984 was to correct historical records in order to align the past with current party line orthodoxy. This sounds eerily familiar.

    The next item on the agenda will be to teach stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.

    Report Post » Canada_Goose  
    • hi
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:55am

      Name one scientific fact or evidence that supports evolution, a species evolving into a better one. There is not one scientific fact.
      There are no transitional forms (inbetween species) in real life, and not one in the fossil record.
      There are millions of animals and we have only named 1/3 of them. Yet, not one has a transitional form.
      Evolution goes against the Law of Entropy, the Law of Spontaneous Generation, the Law of Probability, and is not supported by the Scientific Method.

      Report Post » hi  
    • Canada_Goose
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:15am

      Have you ever heard if the genetics? Mandel and his peas? Watson & Crick, genetic crossing over effect, mutation?

      I suggest you read “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins.

      Are you actually suggesting that a creator actually created every species which ever existed?
      There are over $1.0 M species of insects alone that we know of.

      In any case, if that was actually true then the creator is not very good at creating species since 99% of all species which exited are already extinct.

      Report Post » Canada_Goose  
    • krisinvt
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:17am

      Thanks @Hi for mentioning Entropy. I am a Christian and hold a degree in physics. I don’t find the Bible to contradict science at all. Quite the contrary, as science is a way to make sense of the world around us…which is also expressed in the Bible. After all, the Bible lists the Earth as a sphere long before humans knew it etc. While we can see micro-evolution all around us, the concept of the Big Bang and everything originating out of nothing is a huge scientific stretch. My daughter asked me once “what made it go bang?” Good question. I recently attended a planetarium show at one of the nation’s finest science museums. In it, they clearly stated that the earth was formed billions of years ago and that the moon around it was formed in a month as orbiting chunks of rock stuck together and slowly became a sphere. The math doesn’t even make sense there! A month in a billion years?– it is the equivalent of saying you could pick up a specific grain of sand on a beach. There was no data listed to back up the statement – just presented as scientific fact.

      I find it fascinating that the second law of thermodynamics- entropy- clearly indicates that “everything tends towards decay.” We see it clearly in the world around us. Big bang and evolution clearly presents that systems are improving and adapting. They are completely contradictory. I just don’t see how they can go hand-in-hand.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:28am

      @krisinvt

      You should sue the university where you got your degree, clearly is you are going to make the pseudo science argument and about the 2nd Law, the university failed you.

      Report Post »  
    • Canada_Goose
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:40am

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems. Since the Earth
      receives a constant input of energy from the sun—it is an open-dissipative system—entropy
      may decrease and order increase (though the sun itself is running down in the process).

      Thus, the Earth is not strictly a closed system and life may evolve without violating natural
      law. As long as the sun is burning, life may continue thriving and evolving, just like
      automobiles may be prevented from rusting, burgers can be heated in ovens, and all manner
      of things in apparent violation of Second Law entropy may continue. But as soon as the
      sun burns out, entropy will take its course and life on Earth will cease.

      Report Post » Canada_Goose  
    • commonsensefreethinker1
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:40am

      @HI
      Evolution goes against the Law of Entropy,
      The bible and all of it’s B.S. goes against the law of reason and reality! BTW there are much better books to read that are not so depressing and boring.

      Report Post » commonsensefreethinker1  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:31pm

      Hi, there is plenty of evidence for evolution and transitional fossils. To say there is no such things show that either you are ignorant of the science or a liar.

      Here is a list of some transitional fossils… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

      Here is an indepth article about transitional fossils… http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

      Yet more on transitional on transitional fossils… http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

      Here is an indepth article about the transitional fossils of one species — the cetacean… http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

      So what was that for there being no scientific evidence for transitional fossils?

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:20pm

      @CANADA_GOOSE

      So are you honestly trying to argue that the laws of physics only apply when it’s convienent for your arguement? You can’t spin physics. We have a sun that is destroying everything. That is undebateable. WHile the sun does support life, it will ultimately destroy it.

      Now you guys decide when scientific laws apply? THe hubris you people have is overwhelming. Of course, members of the evolutionist religion is the smartest people in the room. Just ask them.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:22pm

      @BRUCE P

      http://www.answersingenesis.org

      There, we all can post hyperlinks to biased sites.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Canada_Goose
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:08pm

      @Squid

      The 2nd Law of thermodynamics (Entropy) only applies to isolated systems.

      An isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside. Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature, other than possibly the universe itself, and they are thus hypothetical concepts only.

      Don’t take my word for it look it up for yourself.

      Report Post » Canada_Goose  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:38pm

      canadian goose-I might be able to buy your argument if the Sun‘s energy wasn’t so destructive to animal tissue. It just doesn’t ring as true. Speaking of true, did you know that God’s is the only true authority? He sent his Son to die and raised Him up again so that you may live.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
    • Copo
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:46pm

      The second law of thermodynamics can be overcome with energy however that energy needs to be harnessed and used beneficially or else it will hasten the destruction process. Because I don’t have chlorophyll in my cells if I stand in the sun long enough I will, rather than gain energy, get skin cancer due to the destruction of genes which regulate cell reproduction through various “checkpoints”. That energy used to overcome the second law is radioactive and will destroy unless applied properly.

      Report Post » Copo  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:12pm

      SQUIDVETOHIO — I admit that my sites are biased. It is biased towards the facts and evidence. Biased does not mean “untrue”.

      Your link however, does not rely on evidence and fact. It relies on “The Bible says so.”

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:41pm

      @Canada_Goose,

      The sun’s energy is only helpful if a system (biological systems for example) has a way to make use of it. Otherwise the sun’s energy is destructive. Put a car out in the sun and see what happens. Plants can use the sun’s energy because they have a system in place to make use of it. Without that system the sun’s energy would be harmful not helpful.

      @Bruce P.

      Transitional fossils aren’t really the issue. The lack of a mechanism for new information in DNA is.

      @Anyone who wants to answer it

      Can anyone explain, in light of the law of conservation of angular momentum, why there are moons, planets, and even entire galaxies that spin a different direction than other cosmic objects?

      BTW for those who don’t know, the law of conservation of angular momentum states that if you have a spinning object, parts that break off will spin in the same direction as the original object until it is met by resistance. This is because the outside of a spinning object spins faster than the inside. If the big bang was caused by a very small spinning object that exploded, everything should spin the same direction.

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:02pm

      Bruce-you admitted that you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. You believe in macro-evolution which is not supported by science. You have fallen prey to lies mostly because your hubris prevents you from seeking the truth from it’s only source which is God. You are sadly mistaken. I pray you will give serious prayer and Bible study a chance and get to know your Saviour Jesus Christ before it is too late for you.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:36pm

      @Canada_Goose,

      No one claims that God created every species, only every kind. I realize that‘s not a very scientific term but the Bible isn’t a science text book (which doesn’t mean that it is scientifically inaccurate only that it isn’t trying to teach scientific concepts). How many kinds were there originally? No one could tell you. But, for example, wolves and common dogs are different species but the same kind. Dogs and houseflies are not. A common objection to creationism is to say that creationists believe that God created every animal exactly the way they are today. That is not true. God didn’t create everything exactly as we see it, and creationists don’t believe He did. To act as if we do is either ignorance or the attempt to set up a straw man argument (like the British museum does).

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • Canada_Goose
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:19am

      @IONNES

      Whether the sun is beneficial or harmful to life on earth is an interesting question but superfluous to the argument here since, again by definition ,the law of entropy only applies to a closed system, so in the case of the earth’s solar system the system would be our universe. This law is a fundamental law of nature and applies on the moon or on mars or anywhere in the universe. I did not create the definition of this law I am just quoting it (look it up)

      If scientists could not swat this argument away the debate of evolution vs. creation wouldn’t last very long so you have to do better than this.

      As far as species go, if wolves and dogs are of the same “kind” are men and Neanderthals of the same kind as well? You’re allowing for change within a species over time, but you are also implying that new species can arise within the same“ kind” and once you concede that the creation argument falls apart so you really don’t want to concede this point .

      Or do you?

      Btw dogs are actually a subspecies of wolves, as are dingoes, since they can actually interbreed and produce viable offspring.

      I think you’re catching on to this whole evolution thing.

      Report Post » Canada_Goose  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:06pm

      Canada Goose,

      Whether the sun’s energy is harmful or not is only irrelevant from a technical perspective (like when a criminal gets off on a technicality). It doesn’t deal with the issue at hand, it only tries to deflect the question away. You need to be able to harness energy to allow it to overcome the tendency toward disorder. However the universe as a whole is a closed system so everything should be degrading and working toward heat death and disorder in the universe.

      As far as kinds, like I’ve always said, I couldn’t tell you what the kinds were. For example, dogs, wolves, and foxes are all in the same family, but I couldn’t tell you if they were the same kind. There can be much variability within an existing kind. It’s also difficult to say, just from bones, if two specimens where in the same kind. For example, if you had an example of both Chihuahua and Great Dane skeletons and did know them as existing animals, you would conclude they were different species. However both animals are the same species despite the vast differences in there skeletal structure. So your question about Neanderthals and humans is difficult to answer. Personally I suspect that they were part of the human family, though possibly at the end of certain points of human variability. Their brain size certainly was in the ballpark (though larger than normal human). I also personally know people who have skull shapes that are similar.

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:07pm

      (continued)
      The issue isn’t variability; the issue is the limit of that variability. I can’t say all creationists would tell you that, but most certainly will. What, I’d guess, you’ve fallen for is the straw man argument. You were probably told that the creationist view is that all animals were put here exactly as we see them today. That is particularly easy to refute because we can observe variation in species. So if you refute that position it appears as though you’ve refuted creationism. It would be akin to me insisting that the position of evolution is that all life evolves from the same single celled creature and through all the evolutionary steps to get to the animal that is born. So everyone goes through a “fish stage” in development and that is why all embryos have gill slits (a position an early evolutionist named Earnest Haeckel put forth, intentionally lying I might add, in the late 19th century).

      And not that it really maters but I was once an evolutionist. However once I saw the unsupportable assumptions made and outright lies to make evolution seem plausible I switched teams. I went to high school in the late 80s early 90s and I remember the Haeckel drawings in text books. They had been proven wrong over a 100 years before (he even admitted to making the whole thing up) but it was still in my text book. Why do you suppose that was?

      Report Post » IONNES  
    • IONNES
      Posted on June 11, 2012 at 3:08pm

      (continued)
      And when I say, “unsupportable” assumptions I mean assumptions that cannot be proven. Every worldview has them and they can never be proven. They are your “taken for granted” starting point. As an evolutionist one of yours would be uniformitarianism. I don’t see a reason to assume that anymore. Particularly because it doesn’t fit with all of the evidence.

      Report Post » IONNES  
  • hi
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:46am

    Evolution has been full of deception since the beginning. An entire ape man was drawn from a single discovery, a tooth. It was on the cover of a major magazine and was in our textbooks for decades and some still have it. It turns out the tooth was a pig’s tooth!

    Other intentional deceptions are the Stanley Miller experiment where they “created proteins.” They failed to mention the proteins formed were incompatible with life.

    The moths observation where moths turned black was a deception where the evolutionist glued a moth onto a tree and took a photo.

    Another deception was when they found an ape skull 3 miles from a human knee. They put the two together in the same exhibit as evidence of an ape beginning to walk upright.

    Just google evolution deceptions. There are many more.Evolutionists couldn not rely on scientific evidence or facts. So, they made them up. Some are still icons in our textbooks!!

    Report Post » hi  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:10pm

      For some reason, my posts challenging HI’s ignorance were removed.

      However, what she posted here were lies. Instead of re-writing my post, I’d ask each of you to look up the issues of the Nebraska Man (the pig-tooth), see how she twisted it to fit her agenda (it was not a hoax, but mistaken identity, nor did it take decades to reverse). Look up Peppered Moth Evolution, to see how her claim that a biologist glued moths to a tree to prove his theory is actually a lie made by a creationists (based how professional photographers take pictures of insects). And so forth.

      She claims evolutionists must lie in order to promote their ideas. But the only people lying are the creationists.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
  • MicahJank
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:35am

    “In America, the debate over evolution and creationism is seemingly never-ending.”
    Way to show your bias at the very beginning of the article by adding that little ‘ism’ to creation and not to evolution.

    “The creationist-led victory was achieved last month when a petition to remove references to evolution was accepted.”

    It is too bad really, that these creationist are going about it this way. It wont help. Students need to be given the opportunity to use critical thinking skills and analyze the faulty assumptions that are involved in many areas of evolution.

    -The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”-
    I dont see the problem with the adaptation of finch beaks. Its a good example of natural selection(micro evolution).

    - leads some to embrace the Biblical story of creation, rather than accepting science’s take on evolutionary matters.-
    You really need to get better at not showing your bias, Blaze. ‘Science’s take’? Evolution is not something that can be tested in the here and now. Therefore scientist have to make assumptions about the past(i.e.Constancy of Rates, Initial Starting Conditions) Its the ‘scientist’s‘ take on evolutionary matters not science’s.
    Please dont make this mistake again.

    With no disrespect,
    Micah

    Report Post » MicahJank  
  • Brainmuffin
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:34am

    Good. Religion doesn’t belong in the class room. The two examples given has been repeatedly disproved scientifically and to leave them in is only a testament to faith, not examples of science.

    Report Post »  
  • Sol Invictus
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:13am

    This is a good plan, make sure the South Koreans are as thick as the 50% of Americans who don’t understand science. This will restrict their ability to compete with the USA and thus aid employment. Now, if we can persuade the Chinese to accept the bronze age semitic creation myths (or even the aborigine “dream time” myth) this could be the start of a plan.

    Report Post » Sol Invictus  
    • huntinwabbits
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:05am

      I highly doubt that not teach evolution will make them unable to compete with the US in science. I don’t believe in macro-evolution and yet I am not only still caught up in life, I am even employed as a scientist. Now there is a mind-boggling twist. I guess someone forgot to explain your logic to my employer….

      Report Post »  
    • Sol Invictus
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:23am

      @Huntingwabbits
      Could you run that by me again, but this time in English? Thanks.

      Report Post » Sol Invictus  
    • huntinwabbits
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:00pm

      I wish I could but being taught creationism has hindered my ability to speak English and keep up with the world.

      Report Post »  
    • Sol Invictus
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:18pm

      Thank goodness you don’t believe in Father Christmas as well or you may have lost the power of speech altogether.

      Report Post » Sol Invictus  
  • apathetic_agnostic
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:05am

    Ah, spreading ignorance internationally.

    Report Post »  
    • HairRazor
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:19am

      It’s good to hear good news from an education system (even if it’s not our own). Finally, a flickering sign of intelligence.

      Report Post » HairRazor  
  • encinom
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:29am

    Christianity, attacking science and the truth to promote a book of fairy tales an myths, since the time of Galileo.

    THis is just more evidence of the dangers of religion, when truth and science takes a back seat to myths.

    Creationist, answer me this why is the Christian Creation Myth correct and not the Hindu or the American Indian one. Outside of the bible where is the evidence.

    Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:37am

      The Hindu and Indian accounts don’t stray too far from the Biblical account. Also, there are also a story of a world-wide flood in over 1700 hundred different cultures. All of them similar to the Biblical account. I‘m sure it’s just coincidence.

      Still waiting on that evidence of evolution though…… Seems all we get is ad-hominem attacks and I don’t know how that proves your ancestor came from magical soup.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • jklona243
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:58am

      to encinom, Why is the Christian God true over the Hindu god?
      Hinduism, is a form of pantheism, the belief that god is part of the universe. The problem with that belief is that something cannot bring itself into existence. Science has proven that the universe did in fact have a beginning, called the big bang. The universe is finite and not infinite. If the universe began to exist, then Hinduism cannot be true, since something cannot bring itself into existence.
      Science more accurately supports the creation accounts in found Genesis. In the beginning, God created… I believe that when God created the universe, there was a pretty big bang that took place.
      Science has never contradicted the Christian belief. If you believe in evolution, then you should know that there is nothing in the fossil record that supports Darwinian evolution, in that a transitional fossil have never been discovered. Darwin himself said in his book, “The Origin of Species” that if transitional fossils were not discovered within 150 years of his presenting his theory, then it should be discarded.

      Report Post »  
    • filiusdracul
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:12am

      Both Hinduism and American Indian folklore reference Jesus Christ. Whether or not they see him as the Son of God or a great prophet, they concur with his message. The “myth” that is the most correct is the gospel of Jesus Christ in it’s pure form, unadulterated by centuries of debate and human error. Because of this, the only parts of any religion that are true are those that are originated from God himself. At that level, religion and Science agree 100%.

      Report Post »  
    • lgccac
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:18am

      Some day when you stand before Jesus feel free to express your views.

      Report Post »  
    • Serafinos
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:34am

      Science, in itself — starts with a BIAS of any & all scientists (it’s human) … proceeds with BIAS while analyzing, which can greatly effect the outcome … and ends with BIAS of what to keep &/or leave out on final report. Like my Cousin Al Gores bogus scientific ‘so-called’ data on global warming, climate change which all started as dire warnings of global freeze — only to have emails expose the frauds & their lies — and cover ups!

      Yup – science is a THEORY – HYPOTHETICAL THEORY to boot. NOTHING comes closer to FICTIONAL than science in many cases. OTHER THAN physical creations from science, like medical field, meds, etc — those are tangible/physical. Theories are NEVER PROVEN!

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:32am

      Its great watching the brainwashed trip over themselves to defend their belief in fairy tales. At time I think the Blaze is a time portal to the dark ages, with the views expressed here.

      Evidence for evolution, walk into a Natural History Museum, or take a college level biology exam. The evidence is there, the problem is you fools stick your fingers in your ears every time some one attempts to explain the truth.

      Report Post »  
    • RamonPreston
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:52am

      We all have to be level-headed like Encinom who believes that first there was nothing. Then nothing started spinning and exploded into everything. Then in rained on a rock which made the “soup” from which he evolved.
      We have to throw out the SCIENTIFIC evidence that the earth is LESS than 25,000 years old. That doesn’t give evolution the time it requires. Wicked and evil men WANT to believe in evolution so they don’t have to obey God. You are going to need clean underwear when you meet Him.

      Report Post » RamonPreston  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:56am

      Please Encinom:

      Please educate us … all you and you’res ever do is insult.
      You provide NOTHING of substance
      You love to try to claim science as you’re own and that believers of scripture have no right to it or can not possibly understand it, and as soon as we defend creation as the bible states it, with science, out comes the forked tongue. You never challange our thinking, you do however challange our ablity to love the unlovely … so the fact is you help us all the while beinging harm to yourself, and you call us foolish …good day

      Report Post »  
    • The_Doors_Of_Perception
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:39pm

      @SquidVetOhio

      Critical Thinking: A global flood story in over 1700 cultures/religions? Before man was even close to being global?

      Throughout history, human populations have always been drawn to water for survival…their “whole world” at the time was not literally the whole world. It only takes a couple leaps using common sense and critical thinking that most of these cultures and pods of societies experienced a devastating flood from time to time. You can’t make the leap that it then therfore proves the Noah story and his ark. That would rely totally on faith…not reason.

      So to recap: It is more likely that before science and global travel that these humans experienced seperate devastating floods at different times, and as they always did because they didn’t understand gave it a story and put the responsibility on their god. Or you could totally throw critical thinking out the window and say a man put every species of animal on a wooden boat as the whole earth flooded.

      Report Post » The_Doors_Of_Perception  
    • Copo
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:50pm

      The Catholic Church attacked Galileo because it believed, even though this was never implied, that since the earth was made first that it was the center. There is not a single part of Galileo’s theory that is unbiblical.

      Report Post » Copo  
    • murphrich
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:33pm

      Nearly all of the wars even to this day are caused by misinterpreting religious teachings, the sooner all religions are consigned to the dustbin of history the better. Humanity for humans, there are no gods these are figments of our ancestors minds trying to explain natural phenomena that gradually we as humans came to understand.
      Evolution is one of these explanations as to how all live exists today, its not perfect but it is our best guess, creationism or intelligent design both rely on the existence of some deity, be it god, Yahweh, Shiva or even Zeus. The sooner we all admit that all religions are a total load of rubbish the sooner the world will be at peace,

      Report Post »  
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:20am

    “….rather than accepting science’s take on evolutionary matters.” Nice biased reporting Blaze. I believe the words you were looking for was “rather than accepting (huministic/Darwinian/unscientific) take on evolutionary matters.“ Last time I checked ”science” wasn‘t giving it’s opinions on anything. Science literally means truth. Science just is, it doesn’t “give it’s take”. There is nothing unscientific about Creation. At least not as unscientific as macro evolution. I wish people would educate themselves on Creation science theory before criticizing it…. Most of creationists were forced to learn evolutionists religion in public school. The least they could do is spend a little time learning ours. And there are plenty of PHd biologists, geologists, physicists who are creationists or ID proponents.

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:24am

      No its Science, the provlem is that brainless Christians that can not accepted anything that is not in their book of fairy tales.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:31am

      I’m one of those brainless christians who happens to be an engineer that works with science everyday. I actually get paid for my knowledge of science, how about you?

      Thanks anyways though. Anytime a godless infidel calls me brainless without any fact to back it up, I know I’m winning the argument.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:48am

      @Squid

      “There is nothing unscientific about Creation.”

      Do you mean Creationism? If so, you used the incorrect wording. There is nothing scientific about Creationism. It’s fine as a belief; but it has zero science behind it. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is the theory that best fits the scientific facts that we do know. Could it be wrong? Sure. But the evidence supports the theory and does not contradict it.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:02am

      @LOCKED.

      Spare me the condencending semantics lesson. The word Creation with the capital “C” means that it is the subject verb of an event an not an ideology such as creationism. So I used it correctly.

      Secondly, I doubt you have any idea at all what the creationists theories (and there are more than one) are about the origins. Yes, we believe the Biblical. There is nothing in known science that can prove or discredit it. There is however, plenty of scientific laws and evidence to contradict macro-evolution such as DNA. It all comes down to faith. You either believe God created it all, or time and chance did. My theory requires less faith and is more logical.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:10am

      @Squid

      “Spare me the condencending semantics lesson. The word Creation with the capital “C” means that it is the subject verb of an event an not an ideology such as creationism. So I used it correctly.”

      Why would you capitalize it if it’s a verb, even a subject verb? It was used as a noun; otherwise it would have been lower-case. I wouldn’t go into the semantics here unless you tried to come back and “school me.” At any rate, if you were NOT referring to Creationism, then it’s really not applicable. Sorry for thinking you were talking about it… as you continued to do so below.

      “Secondly, I doubt you have any idea at all what the creationists theories (and there are more than one) are about the origins.”

      And you’d be wrong. Don DeYoung ring a bell? I’ve attended several meetings with him. Interesting guy. I think Young Earth Creationism is scientifically impossible, but that doesn’t stop him from trying to find a way to make it so.

      “There is nothing in known science that can prove or discredit it. ”

      Exactly. It’s entirely based on faith, whereas evolution is based on scientific observation. I’m glad we agree.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:36am

      SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:31am
      I’m one of those brainless christians who happens to be an engineer that works with science everyday. I actually get paid for my knowledge of science, how about you?
      _________________
      If you paid even a cent for your “knowledge of science” than you were scammed, clearly you have none if you can with a straight face argue that myths are science.

      Report Post »  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:33pm

      Squidvet-You provided a marvelous explanation. It is too bad that some can’t let go of their macro-evolutionary faith system. The Lord Jesus provided a way for people to free themselves from the lies. I guess some prefer the darkness and are so shaken by the truth they have to resort to insults.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
  • Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:16am

    http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/photo-preview/
    Most informative trip I’ve ever made. Regardless what you believe, you owe it to yourself to go check this place out!!!!!

    Report Post » Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:21am

      An episode of the Flintstones is more scientifically accurate than that scam of a “museum.”

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:33am

      And the Flinststones must be where ENCINOM has received all of his scientific training. Yabba dabba do!

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:16am

      That museum, . . . IF what it showed were actually true, would be accepted by main stream science. Why isn’t it??? You should be able to answer that question on your own. . . . . . . . . without throwing in the “tin foil hat”/“conspiracy theory” argument of “THEY don‘t want you to know the truth becaue THEY don’t WANT it to be true. . . . . so that they can go off an sin without being held accountable to it.”

      Let’s use our grown up minds.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:34pm

      DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:16am
      That museum, . . . IF what it showed were actually true, would be accepted by main stream science. Why isn’t it??? You should be able to answer that question on your own. . . . . . . . . without throwing in the “tin foil hat”/“conspiracy theory” argument of “THEY don‘t want you to know the truth becaue THEY don’t WANT it to be true. . . . . so that they can go off an sin without being held accountable to it.”

      Let’s use our grown up minds.
      _______________________________
      Please use your geown up mind and stop believing in fairy tales. Evolution is not a part of some tin foil hat conspiracy and creationism is just a throw back to the days when our ancestors huddled in caves fearful of the unseen and unkown.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:54pm

      Encinom, are you just piggy backing off my comment? I can’t tell from how you posted.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:44pm

      deavon-I think he was attacking one of his own(you). Cannibalism is a common practice among h o m o s e x u a l s. Most of his friends are probably in the refrigerator.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
  • stage9
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:14am

    When all the evidence is weighed, reason reveals that evolution’s claims are shown time and again to be scientifically invalidated. The West lacks reason.

    Report Post » stage9  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:23am

      Sorry, but that is a bald face lie, creationism is not science, while evolution has been tested and accepted. The problem is that brain dead Christians can not put down the book of fairy tales and join the real world.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:42am

      As opposed to your book of fairy tales “The Origin of Species or the Struggle for Life Among the Favoured Races”? Which race would that be exactly.

      You fairy tail is based on a man who got mad at God, seen a bunch a finches with different beaks and EUREKA! we all came from an ape! The only thing missing was “Once upon a time on a island far, far away…..”

      Still waiting on that evidenence……..

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Georgia Born and Bred
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:53am

      ENCINOM
      I know your not a believer b/c you make that clear over and over with all your brain dead Christian comments but have you ever seen God at work? The majority of the greatest minds of all time were believers: Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Newton. Even Einstein, while never fully acknowledging God, recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. Were the guys who defined modern science and the ideologies that we all still believe in today brain-dead as well? Now I know there are a tons and tons of “churches” out there that preach God and His Word but don‘t live it and so it’s really easy to confuse all of us as one in the same, but the God who created all of this is very real. People are all the time asking for signs and wonders to prove His existence and they’re rampant if you know where to look. Find a couple of people who have experienced super natural healing from things that doctors can’t explain. They’re out there. How does cancer just disappear overnight? How are people blind from birth given back their vision? How about people with Rheumatoid arthritis so bad they’re basically crippled and they just miraculously get better? I know people who fit these bills. The most scientific minds of today can’t explain these things. Can you?

      Report Post »  
  • Rayblue
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:10am

    Why have creation sagas from all cultures survived along with the first written records themselves ? Why was it deemed by the dawn civilizations important enough to attempt to preserve the records ? Was it because, as the deniers suggest, because of “fairy tale” entertainment much like a clay script cartoon program ? That is not the case for the facts of discovery in temples of worship where the tablets were found. The clay pots hidden from the defilers in remote caves to keep the words safe from those who would destroy them. It was important enough to die for the words many times. That isn’t for a “theory”. Would evolutionists die for their beliefs ? The inquisition didn’t occur for the execution of deniers of the faith. It was specifically for the acquisition of property and land for the corrupt of the day. The crusades were for the eradication of the forces that occupied the holy lands that were in the process of murdering the Christian populace outright. Even the Salem witch trials are shown to be a product of mans greed rather than a religious fanaticism. The Word survives for a reason. The reason of it’s intrinsic reality for millions here today, yesterday and for the future of the mind and body of man and woman who live in the light of the world and the light of stars made by the invisible but accessible hand of God.

    Report Post » Rayblue  
  • mcmeador
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:05am

    I’m sure Charles Johnson is throwing a fit about this.

    Report Post »  
  • SAS6907
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:01am

    Their is no proof whatsoever, that any species evolved into another species.
    That is the problem for evolutionist. All things were made to adapt, if they do not adapt to their environment, they will perish. We are so different than any other living thing, because we are allowed to create, change, or move entire environments. We were told in the beginning by the Lord our God:
    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “ Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

    Report Post »  
  • chameleonx
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:00am

    I have already replied to other comments but wanted to publish my own comment. My question to other members who are critical about evolution. I’m curious as to why you see evolution is a negative light. The reason I support evolution is because of my studies and the evidence that supports evolution. I do not understand how there can be people who would not accept evolution. This is why I’m curious for your answers.

    Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:08am

      Before anyone answers I would like to share a page from Facebook. This is page dedicated to evolution and the reasons why I love evolution. I love learning about all kinds of animals that adapt to their environments to survive, the various plants that make our world beautiful and everything else in-between. Whatever your views on evolution I ask you to view this Facebook page. In my opinion many people see evolution in a negative light. I want to show the beauty and magic in evolution.
      https://www.facebook.com/evolutionarybiology

      Report Post »  
    • Georgia Born and Bred
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:19am

      CHAMELEONX
      I myself am a Christian who believes whole heartedly in creationism. It‘s not that I don’t believe in evolution b/c as a Christian you have to up to a certain extent. All one needs to do is look around and see that evolution is present in life all around you (i.e. different races, different subspecies of animals, etc etc) however since the beginning of the evolutionist idealology not one iota of evidence has been brought forth to say that a species can change from one thing to another. I know this is the age old question but if we evolved from apes why aren’t apes still evolving? Why haven’t humans continued on in the evolutionary chain? Why are we no different today than we were thousands of years ago?

      Report Post »  
    • mama6
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:23am

      The reason I see evolution in a negative light is because it’s a lie!!!! God created the world, he created life & yes, even the beautiful flowers & trees. He created animals for us to enjoy & use as food. We did not evolve, we were created by Almighty God. That’s just what I believe!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • stage9
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:24am

      Sorry friend but the theory of evolution does NOT produce “beauty”! It produces a “survival of the fittest”, “by hook or by crook” survivalism. It was God who created EVERYTHING “good”.

      New Finch Species Shows Conservation, Not Macroevolution
      http://www.icr.org/article/new-finch-species-shows-conservation/

      Does ‘The Beak Of The Finch’ Prove Darwin Was Right?
      http://www.icr.org/article/does-the-beak-finch-prove-darwin-was-right/

      Small Change
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/small-change

      More Peeks at Darwin’s Beaks
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/darwins-beaks

      Report Post » stage9  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:28am

      That is understanding. There is a lot of evidence to transitional species. What I do not understand that people do not understand there have been species that adapt to their environments and continue to do so. Here is a good list from Talk Origins. There have been many, many sites I have came across through browsing the web. Yes, you can believe in creationism and accept evolution. I’m just trying to show that evolution is true and there are evidence to support evolution.
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

      Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:39am

      I have a lot of reply to so there will be time between comments. The funny thing about debating is that the other side will most likely never agree with the other. Growing up I was religious. As I got older and studied I became critical of religion and accepted science more and more. That is why I comment that I accept evolution. I will review your links. However, I wouldn’t doubt it would be similar arguments I have seen against evolution that have been disproved or proven incorrect.

      Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:47am

      SQUIDVETOHIO and other members. I’m going to take a quick break. I wanted to post several links that will go over many questions and explain evolution science. It is up to you not me or anyone else to make you accept or deny evolution. I’m only a messenger haha. I love biology and so does my family. My wife is black and I’m white. I’m a mutt mixed with all kinds of different racial background. The reason i mentioned this is that I do not see evolution as racist and I’m glad many blacks like my wife and her family do accept evolution.
      http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
      http://www.talkorigins.org/
      http://humanorigins.si.edu/research
      http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
      http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
      http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Huge_genome-scale_phylogenetic_study_of_birds_rewrites_evolutionary_tree-of-life.asp
      http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/behe-vs-lamprey.html
      http://introducedrat.com/evolution.htm
      There are many more I have that I would like to share.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:50am

      @CHAMELEONX

      Your example is of micro-evolution or adaptation. Creationists do not deny micro-evolution (or adaptation) . Sun tans prove micro-evolution. What we object to is micro evolution. I have no problem believing all dogs probably came from one kind of dog. But, it was a dog, not a horse or a bird which would be macro-evolution.

      You see, that is the game evolutionists play. They offer up examples of micro-evolution and then say that macro-evolution must be true. Totally different things.

      Finally, you cannot believe in evolution and believe the God of the Bible. Evolution would mean the Bible is lying. Evolution means that death happened before sin. Since the BIble states clearly “by one man’s sin death entered the word”, then it’s stating there was no sin before Adam. For Adam to have come from an evolutionary chain, many things had to die for him to get here. Also, God created the plants before He created the sun. If evolution takes place over millions of years, how did the plants survive with no sun and no moon? One of them is wrong.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:58am

      There are actually two different creation accounts in the bible and the bible stories borrow heavenly from similar myths and legends. How can the bible offer truth to life and science if there are contradictions and stories based on other stories.
      http://www.christianitydisproved.com/bible/two-creation-stories-in-genesis.html

      Look at the story of Noah and see the story of Gilgamesh before it. How can you claim that that genesis offers evidence to the history of the world and creation when the stories are copied from other cultures and myths.
      http://www.christianitydisproved.com/bible.html
      You ask for evidence for evolution and against creation. Here in my view are good examples as to why I accept evolution and do not believe in the bible or any other religion.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:10am

      @CHAMLEONX

      This is also my last post. The two creations argument is a farce. You gotta come better than that. There was not two creations. God created everything and then Adam last. God then created one of everything he already created in front of Adam to name. Read the story. If God created a million horses, I have no problem believing He created on more for Adam to name.

      To answer you second part: The story of creation would have been passed down to the gentiles through the decendents of Cain and others that had become pagans. The stories get changed over time as they are want to do (which is what makes the Bible so amazing is that it has not changed). Job is the oldest known book of the Bible. Some of the other distorted stories of creation may well have been copied before Genesis. That does NOT mean the Bible copied from it. You would have to prove that the authors even knew of it. Moses was raised in Egypt and then lived as shepard. I don’t think he was roaming the libraries of Greece.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:21am

      I would imagine this is my last post. The point I wanted to make is to prove evidence or to share why I accept evolution. Look at the links and continue the study. The reason I do not accept religion is because there is no proof in my opinion. No evidence for the creation story, to Abraham and the Jews in ancient Egypt, to whatever. Websites like
      http://www.usbible.com/usbible/
      http://www.christianitydisproved.com/
      go over how religions changed like the Abrahamic religions and why these events most likely never happened. As I said it’s your choice to believe what you believe in your life. I’m happier with reality and common sense. Thank you and have a good day.

      Report Post »  
    • huntinwabbits
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:33am

      @Squid has put it very nicely. I am also an engineer in OH and have had my battles with evolutionists. I remember when I was in high school having a conversation with my friends mom who was a Christian and a science teacher (that alone blows evolutionists minds). She did a very good job explaining to me the difference between the theory and process of evolution or in squids terms, micro vs macro. I like him have no problem with micro as I know that 40 degree weather seems warm coming out of winter yet cold coming out of summer. But to try and convince me that life came from nothing? That the big bang was caused by parallel universes colliding in the 11th dimension? That chaos creates order? That an asexual organism somehow became a sexual organism? And for what reason? How does survival of the fittest fit in with creating more mouths to feed? Does survival of the species outweigh the fittest? Or the fact that Darwin stated that women and blacks are not fully developed as white humans? We could go on and on. That’s why it is still called a theory and not a law.

      To be honest, if you truly study evolution, it takes more faith to believe in it than it does creationism.

      Report Post »  
    • BornAmish
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:43am

      Macro-evolutionalists have much more faith than creationists. For example, all matter in the known universe existing in a less than pin-point of space that doesn’t exist, “something” sparked, into nothingness, expanding outward into nothingness, defying all known laws of physics in the first few nano-seconds, life from non-life, simple to complex life forms (reality is opposite), one species to another (never observed!!), and on and on and on. But the icing on the cake, for me anyways, is the symbiotic relationships that ALL have to exist simultaneously for life to exist on earth (median-aged sun, right distance, Jupiter at edge to clear debris, moon for additional protection, earth atmosphere makeup, trees, plants, earth’s crust, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, human bodies [eyes, heart, lungs, liver, ...], and on and on and on. In summary, the ONLY way Macro-evolution can stand is the assumption of infinite time where it’s assumed anything can happen. Unfortunately for Macro-evolutionists, our finite universe did not have near amount of time required for everything to happen perfectly the way it is by random chance. The Holy Bible is the Word of God (in the original ancient manuscripts) and is absolute truth. All good identifiable physical evidence has always confirmed the Bible to scientific truths. I truely admire your great faith; if only Christians could attain half of it!

      Report Post »  
    • Brainmuffin
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:46am

      It is quite simple. Evolutionism as a theory of origins was first disproved when Mendel’s work on genetics was release. Darwin had to change is first theory because of that work. Evolutionism has repeatedly been disproved by science. It is pure faith to believe small steps of adaptation and loss of genetic information will eventually lead to a very new animal.

      Report Post »  
    • hi
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:02am

      Animals already have the ability to adapt in their genetic makeup.

      Variation is lateral change. It is not species change where one animal becomes a new species.

      Note that animals only breed with their distinct kind.

      Report Post » hi  
    • Fight_Ignorance
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:56am

      Thank you STAGE-9!!! However you are providing facts and they dont do well with that. Reason and logic? Forget about it! They believe in Virgin births, People who live over 900 years old, Talking snakes, Walking on water, resurrections and a whole slew of rip offs from polytheistic mythology from a thousand years before the bible was ever concieved. The sun revolves around the earth!! A flat earth.. It would be halairious if it wasn’t so pathetic and sad. These are grown adults too. PRAISE ZUES!

      Report Post »  
    • Gup20
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:44pm

      “I love learning about all kinds of animals that adapt to their environments to survive, the various plants that make our world beautiful and everything else in-between.”

      Look at the beauty and wonder… look at this animal stuggling to survive, isn’t that beautiful? Look how this animal tears the flesh from this other animal and since he’s stronger, he’s going to pass on his genes in this brutal struggle for survival. Just gorgeous.

      Are you serious? Are you enthralled with death and the struggle against it? Do you believe brutally struggling to survive, starvation, pain, and suffering are beautiful things to be admired?

      I don’t think so. I don’t believe in evolution because I am a Christian, and the Bible tells a much different story. The Bible tells us how we were created perfect, without pain or suffering. And then Adam sinned and death came as a punishment to that sin. It was not originally part of the creation. But there is good news; God created a way whereby we can be restored to him in spite of our sin.

      I believe if the beauty of nature is your motivation, you can do much better than the corrupted, dying, and decaying world we live in today.

      Report Post »  
  • BLACKDIAMONDSKIER
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:48am

    Hey……You die hard Communists and Socialists better get to work. You know all to well you will never get the world to convert to the slavery of your ideas without first removing the only firm basis of liberty and freedom in it…….The Bible and the Constitution.

    Report Post »  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:45pm

      Slavery?
      Christians were the first to institutionalize slavery in America…
      No where in the bible is Slavery outright condemned.
      Arranged marriages, 30 some year olds marrying 12 year olds girls, are the norm in the bible.
      And a pedophile god impregnating a 12/13 year old girl is the entire bases of your religion.
      No sire, liberty and freedom didn’t come from your bible… The only thing that book provides is excuses for pious ignorance.

      http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/americanlaw.htm
      https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCC1EE539274B4461
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QWwzT4ulkA

      Report Post » Pontiac  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:14pm

      The Bible is antithetical to the values of the Constitution.

      Please, Blackdiamondskier — show us where in the Bible you can find anything similar to the Constitution.

      You can’t.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:37pm

      These two will probably argue that it wasn’t Christians that worked to abolish slavery in this country while decrying the lack of education in our country. They are probably Obama supporters wishing to enslave us all in some reprobate version of Marxism-socialism. They long for slavery which is why they must lie about our founders and distort history.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:31pm

      @beckwasfox
      [They are probably Obama supporters wishing to enslave us all in some reprobate version of Marxism-socialism.]
      Yes, that’s it…you got me. I’ve been a poster for more than a year now, slightly longer than you, and in all this time I’ve been promoting the virtues of Marxism and Communism… Because there is no possible way an atheist would be a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE with all you irrational-right-wing-religious-nut-jobs ALIENATING PEOPLE from a perfectly logical position of smaller government and less spending.

      I’ll say it again, there is nothing in the bible that condemns slavery. The bible contains very few morals and what morals are found are not exclusive or original. The bible teaches people to be submissive to their masters and subservient to god. God as defined by men that wish to monopolize power and subjugate you.

      Government enslaves the body, religion enslaves the mind, neither is used exclusively.
      Communism demands both your mind and body.
      Marxism demands both your mind and body.
      Theocracies (christain, jewish, muslim etc) demand both your mind and body.
      Atheism and Evolution demand neither. If you’re not willing to fight for liberty or freedom because someone convinces you to stop believing in god then that is an issue with you. Not atheism or evolution.

      Report Post » Pontiac  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:48pm

      Does a mother or father enslave a child because they teach and protect? And the reason they do this is out of love. Most times a child is willing that the parent be the parent. I actually don’t mind being a “slave” if you wish to use that word, to the owner of all things willing to share all of those things with His children, and that loves those enough that he is willing to die for them ….it’s OK, I don’t expect you to understand, but neither do I vote against you.

      Report Post »  
  • allyoucaneatbaby
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:46am

    Good, now we just need a bunch of other countries who were succeeding based on common sense solutions to be more irrational like this and USA will be on top again.

    Report Post »  
  • FatFreedom
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:46am

    The theory of evolution is a THEORY not Science! That does not mean that one can’t teach any part that is prooven such as adaptations we can see within various species, and not that man evolved from a rock.

    Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:55am

      Do you know the definition of scientific theory? Yes, evolution is a proven scientific “theory” because there is evidence to support evolution.
      “A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can in fact be tested.”
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

      Report Post »  
    • imfrzn
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:23am

      CHAMELEONX. Oh stop! There is no such thing as a “proven theory”. That would mean there is no room for doubt. This puts you into the realm of what we call “Laws”. “Evolution” is FAR from this! You would gain much more respect if you just had the courage to say that you reject the idea of God and are exploring the idea of “Evolution”. At least then we could start to have a civil conversation on the topic. To declare “evolution” as a forgone conclusion that is undebatable is disingenuous, ridiculous and indicates the sandy foundation you’re building on.

      Report Post » imfrzn  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:33am

      @IMFRZN: I would have to respectfully disagree with your comment. As I mentioned in science a theory means something that can be tested. Again I will post the definition. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
      We can sit back and babble back and forth what science means and how evolution fits into the picture. The point I’m trying to make is that there is evidence to support evolution and that indeed evolution is both a scientific theory and fact. I’m a deist so I have my own concept of God. You can bot believe in God and accept evolution.

      Report Post »  
    • tzion
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:51am

      Actually chameleon, that isn’t the case. There’s a reason why we call it the Law of Natural Selection. Even the scientists who adhere to the Theory of Evolution likely can’t explain how small mutations can cause certain members of a species to be incapable of reproducing with the others. A theory in science is an attempt to provide an explanation to an observed phenomenon. A law is a testable guideline for how things behave under specified conditions. The Theory of Evolution was developed to explain the phenomenon of fossil evidence existing for creatures that no longer exist while existing creatures don’t appear in archeological evidence from the same time period. To prove the theory one would need to be able to scientifically test it.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:55am

      @CHAMELEONX

      Sorry, it’s not a theory by your own definition. It isn’t even a hypothesis since it has never been “observed”. We have NEVER observed a biological change from one type of creature or plant to another. We have only observed variations within a kind. Nor does the fossil record prove any such change. Calling macro-evolution a scientific theory is dishonest.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:03am

      “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
      ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

      Neil comment is 100% correct when it comes to this debate. I have presented evidence through the links I included and it is your choice to disagree with my position. I have looked over many creationist and anti-evolutions accounts. To me non of them stack up because they have been played out so many times and religion is about faith and belief. Science is much different than that.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:09am

      In the scientific realm, “theory” has a different definition than “I have a theory about this.”

      Have you ever taken a Music Theory class?

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • huntinwabbits
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:48am

      With so many wikipedia scholars it is amazing we even need school anymore.

      Report Post »  
    • SONOFNANYE-HI
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:27pm

      @CAMELEONX
      Hey thanks for the definition. Now I know that I can tell my Daughter that her teacher was wrong about the “THEORY” that the long neck of the Giraffe was caused by the short neck Giraffe‘s not being able to reach the food in the tall trees so they died out and only long neck Giraffe’s survived. This is not a THEORY but only a HYPOTHESIS since it has never been observed, no fossil record of a short neck Giraffe. Funny after all these years that this is still being touted as a theory to support evolution. Wonder how many other things are a big leap of faith or lie?

      Report Post » SONOFNANYE-HI  
  • NewLife56
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:43am

    If women and people of color would just read what Darwin said and wrote about them, 25% more of the population would reject Darwin. I invite all women and minorities to please read Darwin’s books, and see what he wrote.

    Quick Ex:
    1. Women can never achieve the mental level of men
    2. People of Color will always be inferior to the White Race because they have smaller brains
    3. Darwin also said we eveolved from Whales, trees etc…

    Read his Books!!! If people would actually read them they would see, he was guessing.

    Report Post » NewLife56  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:53am

      I have not read the Origins of Species by Darwin but I wouldn’t doubt evolution science has come a long way. There is evidence to support evolution and yes, there have been people who used evolution as a means to feel more powerful than others. So, have people who use religion. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Hebrew Israelites have used racism in their religious views. Throughout the centuries many saw that the Mark of Cain or the Curse of Ham were signs of black skin. You can see why both groups are guilty.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:27am

      @CHAMELIX

      Difference is Darwin himself was a blatant racist and sexist and the evidence is throughout his book. God is not and there is no evidence in His book. The Klan acts in defiance to the Bible, not in accordance with it.

      Anyone can call themselves a football player (or a christian), that doesn’t mean they actually play football.

      But if macro-evolution is true, then isn’t racism justified? Shouldn’t the stronger races work to eliminate the weaker races? There is no moral argument against it if evolution is true because who’s morality standard do we use? Society’s? What if I have out-evolved society?

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:36am

      I have debated with many Christians about what is Christianity and what is not. Everyone has their own two-cents to chip in. But history stands that many people have used religion as a form of racism. You can say these people are not real Christians or they not living according to the bible but what I see goes hand and hand with passages of the “good” book. I wouldn’t Darwin made a few mistakes or sided with the politics of his day. I would have to look more into it. But I will still continue to accept evolution. It’s not a religion, it’s science! :)

      Report Post »  
    • huntinwabbits
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:10am

      I wish I would have read these comments first. I refuse to debate with anyone claiming to know evolution but has never read Darwin’s work. That is absurd. There would be absolutely zero credibility given to someone who tries to defend the Bible without ever reading it. In that same spirit go read Darwin. Learn what he said. Your sources are all wiki‘s and you admit to not have even read Darwin’s work and yet we are supposed to count you as credible? You don’t belong on the same stage. It is no wonder you have little idea what you speak of. The true science concerning evolution goes much much deeper than your few web resources can explain to you.

      Report Post »  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:07pm

      This demonstrates the weakness of the Creationist position. They must focus on Origin of the Species, much of which has been found to be inaccurate, instead of the research and findings over the past ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS.

      Creationists, the ignorant lot, should be careful when accusing Darwin of being racist and sexist, and therefore invalidating all of evolution. These same people once used the Bible to promote slavery this same book, which they rely on to this day, says that women are inferior to men.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:06pm

      Bruce-don’t you know that Jesus Christ came to free the slaves? So much for you being more educated than Christians…Be free Bruce…be free.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
  • Chris
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:33am

    Why would you want to teach science in a science class, after all?

    Report Post »  
  • lgccac
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:18am

    The Bible is the absolute truth, the Word of God.

    Report Post »  
  • EP46
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:12am

    Well………some did ‘evolve’….obama just admitted that he did .

    Report Post »  
  • HKS
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:03am

    Why did some monkeys evolve and others did not?

    Report Post » HKS  
    • qpwillie
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:14am

      All monkeys (and apes) evolved to become the present day species. The theory doesn’t contend that humans evolved from monkeys.

      I believe the Bible but you’re not helping your case. Before you try to argue on a subject, you need to know what both sides of the argument are.

      Report Post » qpwillie  
  • blackyb
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:02am

    This is wonderful news. Now to get our schools back on tract her in the U.S.

    The man who started this, Darwin, realized on his death bed he had misled many according to different accounts.

    Report Post » blackyb  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:48am

      I find it funny creationist always say Darwin repented on his death bed or did that but they’re wrong. Charles Darwin did not repent nor did he renounce evolution. In fact there is numerous evidence for evolution. Here is a link I‘m currently reading up on and wouldn’t mind sharing more. Sometimes the Blaze doesn’t allow many links to be posted.
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ten-great-advances-evolution.html

      Report Post »  
    • marssnw
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:50am

      Thats something the evos will not admit. They also will not admit that it is pretty much impossible to have evolved. They can’t explain why evolution does not still exist. They also can not explain where the universe came from. Everything has to have a beginning. You can’t make water with out Hydrogen and Oxygen. You also can not have a bang without their being some type of reactants. You can’t have reactants without God. Everything has a beginning except God.

      Report Post » marssnw  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 7:57am

      That is the beauty of science Marssnw. There is a lot of study and exploration. I‘m critical of the idea of God even though I’m a deist. Science doesn’t profess to know all the answers. Science is a way to find how things work and what is life. All that stuff.

      Report Post »  
    • qpwillie
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:53am

      Well now, nobody says evolution doesn’t still exist. It’s a very slow process. Not something you can stand back and watch happen.

      Report Post » qpwillie  
    • Marine25
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:53am

      MARSSNW
      Evolution does not still exist? You mean because you can‘t see in in the mirror over time you don’t believe it? Do you realize what 100 million years is? It’s okay, Darwin showed that intellects like yours won’t last long anyway.

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:13am

      I checked out you’re site … for the sake of saving time I suggest you check out this site (and there are others) … “Answers in Genesis” is a fairly popular site and you will probably be able to find “the other explination” to the ideas discussed on the one you posted. Evolutionists have a tendency to not see things as they really are, or they assume based on their theory. I suggest that you form no pre suppositions, but let the FACTS speak for themselves. Do not just listen to the evolutionists ( and their links) find the opposing viewpoint. Many evolutionists are not interested in the truth. God say’s “seek and you shall find” … seek what? truth … truth is Himself. I am interested in the truth, I despise being lied to and have NO desire to be deceived. Scripture say’s that “the heart is deceitful above all things”. I suggest that you proceed with caution.
      A word to the wise … a judge never listens to one side of the story to form his opinion.

      Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 9:25am

      I have heard and read many creationist arguments. Most do not hold up and are easily defeated. Look at websites like http://www.talkorigins.org/ to see how they demises creationist arguments.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:16am

      Not sure why my post was deleted. . . other than someone doesn’t like being exposed to the truth. Let positions stay so that people can see both sides and make up their OWN minds!

      Anyway, marssnw, can you not see the error in making the statement “everything has a beginning except god”? You have negated your own comment . . . because in your estimation, something CAN “have no beginning”. Also, you make a claim based upon the words of ancient palestinian mystics who made assumptions based upon their own selfish consideration that SOME human type being can be “perfect”, . . . a type of “superman”. Consider the following:

      “We are often sick. HE never gets sick.“ ”We are bound to one place at a time. HE is everywhere [very pantheistic].“ ”We don’t know everything. HE is omniscient!“ ”We have limited power. HE is all powerful!“ ”We are finite, being born and dying. HE has always existed!”

      It is our own arrogance that projects ourselves onto such a being, . . . . and onto our “afterlife when he makes US perfect like he is. . . where we never die”.

      As for this topic, just because the scientific community doesn’t understand how something might have happened, fully, . . . that should never automatically mean “a magical being caused it”.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • RamonPreston
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:06am

      How about these evolutionist clowns investigate the fact that the earth isn’t old enough for evolutiion to have occured. They believe everything taught to them in school. Micro-evolution is a fact. One KIND can evolve into a similar KIND. Dogs, wolves, foxes are all the same kind. Dogs can not evolve into cows or pigs. Macro-evolution is false.
      America is FULL of wicked and evil men who dispise God. Good going, South Korea.
      http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

      Report Post » RamonPreston  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:17am

      Ramon. . . . . those are all based upon misconceptions and have been answered YEARS ago. You are best to get information from all sources, not just apologetic ones.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:23am

      Ramon: No, it is not possible for a dog to evolve into a pig or for a pig to evolve into a dog. But it is perfectly possible for an early, undifferentiated mammal species, of which there are many in the fossil record, to have some descendants that are dogs, and some that are pigs, and some that are humans.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • Bruce P.
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:10pm

      I would ask that everyone click on RAMON’s list and read what is there. Then, research the claims there for yourself. You will find that the claims are far from accurate.

      Report Post » Bruce P.  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:52pm

      @DeavonReye

      You’re killing me Smalls. Please stop making inane metaphysical arguments you do not understand.

      Christians understand G-d as Actus Purus. Pure act. The literal essence of existence. Both as a matter of metaphysics and as a matter of observation via the Tetragrammaton. G-d does not need a cause because He is logically necessary in the formal sense. That means that the negation of a proposition represents a logical contradiction. The negation of G-d as existence would be nothing exists. No-thing existing is a logical contradiction. Thus G-d is logically necessary and needs no cause. There is simply no other possible state of reality.

      As the essence of existence G-d is necessarily present at every point of reality that can be said to exist thus He is omnipresent, He is omniscient and He is omnipotent. Christians are pan-en-theists. Not pantheists. Big difference.

      Our ability to understand a mechanism of action does not remove it from the purview of G-d. Nuclear fission is as much a result of G-d as any other event, including those that many term miracles. The events that you understand are no different in kind than those you do not. It is the logical fallacy of incredulity to say otherwise.

      The scientific method is limited in scope to empirical phenomenon. Science is irrelevant to any argument containing a metaphysical proposition because it cannot account for any metaphysical factors. An atheist can never use science as an excuse for disbelief.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:17pm

      Petey, your “William Lane Craig” style of arguments are highly flawed. You can put ANY deity [or alien monster] in place of “god” in your scenario. Just because YOU may not be able to understand “a world without an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent god” doesn’t make one absolute, nor necessary for life.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:24pm

      Yo Chameleonx:

      This is the 3rd post I have made to you concerning Gilgamesh, the previous 2 did not go through. What you say is factually not true, but before I post again I will see if this goes through.

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:40pm

      Yeah it went through,

      Let me start here as I am now running out of time.
      The basic facts are that the myth of the Epic of Gilgamesh was written hundreds of years after the account of Moses in the bible….this is a known fact.
      Also the ark is described as a cube… have you ever seen how a cube floats ??? This is a joke.
      The discription in scripture has the dimensions equal to that of our modern day tankers and this being what, 4000 years prior.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:41pm

      BTW, Petey, show me an example of the metaphysical. I am genuinely interested in looking into it.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 6:43pm

      I can easily demonstrate the metaphysical for you. If fact every time you make a mathematical deduction about a non-empirical object you demonstrate it yourself. The sum of the angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees. This true statement can be derived without any empirical input whatsoever. The same is true for shapes in any number of dimensions for which there is no empirical analog.

      Of course the implication of your question is really that metaphysical constructs do not exist. So even though I just demonstrated that you do actually believe they exist, I want to address the issue raised.

      You like many atheists confuse confuse the adjective “empirical” which limits the scope of the scientific method with “epistemic empiricism” the theory of knowledge that was discarded by epistemologists more than 50 years ago. For a very good reason. All formulations of that theory strong enough to exclude metaphysical statements result in a logical contradiction. Take this proposition as a general example.

      “In order for a proposition to be verifiable/falsifiable/meaningful/true it must be empirically evidenced”

      This proposition is not empirically evidenced. Thus it self refutes forming a logical contradiction. By violating the Principle of Non Contradiction we can see that the basis of the “New Atheism” is a belief in the truth of a logical contradiction, an impossibility. The literal definition of rationality.

      Clearly Theism is a superior belief

      Epistemi

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:16pm

      @ Deavon

      You cannot replace G-d in that argument with another term. I have written 3 explanations and none will post.

      Report Post »  
    • DeavonReye
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 9:35am

      Petey, I was talking more about “metaphisics” in a more “supernatural” way, . . . not about what you submitted. I’m fine with various mathmatical “metaphysical” equations. But when it comes to the more “supernatural”, since I have yet to see/experience it, I do not trust those who merely TELL me that it “is real”.

      Also, I’m not an atheist. I’m agnostic. I will not be arrogant in making a definite claim about that which I cannot know for sure. However, I will error on the side of caution, especially when claims are fantastic.

      Report Post » DeavonReye  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love