News

THERE IS A NEW DISCIPLINE COMING TO TEXAS:

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.


The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.


The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

Note: Some 550 review copies of Volume 1 will be shipped to Texas school board members the week of Mar 23. You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

Visit the official website for additional information and to purchase a copy: http://questforright.com/

“A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC

Comment by C. David Parsons — March 19, 2008 @ 06:27PM

Forgive my TV brain but....after watching the History Channel series called "The Universe," I am compelled to believe the greatest "miracle" of all is that life came to exist at all given the seemingly random circumstances of how the planets are formed, let alone the concept of the big bang. We do however have Brother Sun and Sister Moon to thank, without whom evolution would not have taken place...and don't get me started on prehistoric asteroids. As a person of faith and a former Bible literal-ist, the biggest questions I had to ask myself in my twenties was "What is the problem I have about a God having created the Laws of Physics?" and "What difference does it make to me whether the world was created in six days or 6 billion years?" (Or was it 4.5 billion?) Compare the statements 'God created humankind out of clay' or 'Life evolved out of pond scum.' Gee...sounds kinda the same to me.

The BIG question I have now is, "Are the dinosaurs of fundamentalism going to evolve or will they just become extinct?" Or better...maybe they'll do what I did and just get over it. Peace & Love Y'all!

Comment by Charlie Rose — March 20, 2008 @ 04:01PM

Intelligent Design Is not Science.
I get very tired of the mantra, Intelligent design is not science. I have searched the internet for many months looking for the proof of evolution and the best I can find is an assortment of fraud, misstatements and outright lies being told by the supporters of evolution, in particular about what is referred to as Microevolution.
One of the many weak efforts put forth by Darwinists to prove evolution, is to explain that we see evolution every day when we breed for certain qualities in dogs ,cats, cattle etc. Of course any thinking person knows that what they are describing is variation within a species. This variation within a species is really called breeding (Microevolution) and has been practiced by humans for all of human history. Note in all that time we have never seen breeding (Microevolution) result in evolving a new species. We do not see breeding a pig into a fish or breeding a mouse into a whale. So the discussion that breeding within a species is proof of evolution is misleading and has nothing to do with evolving a new species.
That is why Darwinists attack the ID proponents instead of debating the real issues of science. When challenged the Darwinists usually start by saying Intelligent Design is not science and that it is Creationism in disguise. What is really interesting is that there is no science in the theory of Evolution. Their science consists in just so stories about how it might have happened. The kind of stories that you might make up for children at bed time. There is no scientific evidence to support those stories. All of the so called proof over the last 100 years has been shown to be wrong and sometimes shown to be fraudulent as in the case of the dark and light colored moths or in the case of the finch bird beaks of the Galapagus island. Again using variation within a species (Microevolution) to pretend that it explains evolving into a new species.
The staunch backers of evolution (Darwinists) are really Members of a religion called Atheism. They are very fearful of any evidence supporting a God or an Intelligent Designer. I suppose that they are in general acting in a very sinful way and fear any suggestion they might be held responsible. Thus the bazaar unreasonable fear and resistance to allowing a public discussion of Intelligent Design. They seem to be most fearful of exposing young school children to the empirical evidence of Intelligent Design even though there is more scientific evidence for ID then for Evolution at this time in history. The theory of Intelligent Design finds support using such scientific tools as mathematics (Informational theory and Probability) and biology.
In Biology we now know about DNA, RNA and the very complex machines and processes to be found in the living cell virtually rule out any possibility of an accidental combination of simple chemicals forming living cells. You know the one about the dust, air and lightning forming the first living cell. That story was ok 100 years ago but only the most mentally diminished would accept that story today.
So to all you Darwinists out there, I see no harm coming to you for believing in fairy tales. I see nothing in Intelligent Design that would suggest believers in ID would wish or want to do harm to believers in any religion including Atheists. The only time I even think about an Atheist is when they exhibit such irrational fear and hatred of believers in Intelligent Design and find it necessary to attack rather then debate their differences.
As far as teaching evolution in schools, I believe it would be appropriate to teach the known facts concerning Evolution both the good and the bad. The problem in schools today is that only pro-evolution information(Darwinium propaganda)is taught with no mention of the lies and fraud contained in the usual science textbooks.
tfagan

Comment by Thomas Fagan — March 21, 2008 @ 12:11PM

Excellent article. I'll be forwarding it to all of my teacher friends.

Comment by Holly — March 21, 2008 @ 12:14PM

Thank you for the in-depth article on the issue of the anti-science directions of the State Board of Education. All Texas citizens who want to see that our children are given a 21st century education should be terrified by SBOE events over the past few years. All it would take is one more person like Maddox to be elected, and the board swings away from science and toward state-sponsored teaching of superstition. We Texas citizens need to make sure that the board knows there is passionate support of science here, and we won't sit by idly if science standards are threatened.

In your sidebar "Arguments Creationists Make to Counter Evolution," one of the arguments listed is "Random mutations can only eliminate traits; they cannot create new ones." Kevin Fisher missed the main thrust of this common creationist argument, however. The answer is that random mutations typically add information, since a non-predictable random sequence has more mathematical information than a predictable one. The claim that mutations only eliminate information is patently false. It's then up to natural selection to weed out those harmful to the individual (presumably most of them), and prefer those infrequent mutations that are helpful.

Anyone who would like to browse a more complete list should see talkorigins.org's Index of Creationist Claims: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Comment by Curtis Cameron — March 21, 2008 @ 04:07PM

"I'm looking at a beautiful tree out here, and according to what's in those textbooks we share a common ancestor with that tree. We're not descended from the tree, but we share a common ancestor. I mean, that's a pretty bold claim, and it's not supported by any evidence."

It's not supported by evidence? How about actually doing the research before mouthing off? My Masters research found similarities in human and yeast, further from a human than that tree. This was a decade and a half ago, so it's not new, and it was examination of only one gene and others are the same.

Comment by Robert Myers — March 21, 2008 @ 05:09PM

I am disappointed by the level of bias presented in this article. Instead of grappling for the truth and presenting both sides of the issue, the writer of this article chose to portray the creationists as ignorant, old-fashioned, and extreme. For example, Barney Maddox was presented as not having anyone to talk to and whose glasses kept slipping off of his nose. Mr. Baugh was then presented as wearing "a Mr. Rogers-style cardigan" and that he could have "served as a stand-in for Dick Clark on American Bandstand". Well, I am a young-earth creationist, and since it appears to matter, I dress fairly well. I wear Docker's pants, Levi's, and I even wear Perry Ellis from time to time. I do not have glasses, but my clean haircut gives me a professional appearance that I try very hard to maintain. Although I am a young-earth creationsist, I am not "uneducated" as the writer would have you believe -- in fact I have a degree from the University of Texas at Austin in Electrical Engineering, and I graduated with Honors. But enough about me, what about all of the other young-earth creationists with PhD's such as Dr. John Baumgardner or Dr. Henry M. Morris? How about Dr. John Morris, Dr. Larry Vardiman, or Dr. Daniel Criswell? Also, instead of visiting the 60,000 square foot creation museum in Petersburg, KY, the writer chose to visit the creation museum located in a trailer in Glen Rose, Texas -- and then he or she (I cannot tell since the name of the writer is Jesse) chose to say that "there is perhaps no better place to start than the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose". By presenting young-earth creationists as uneducated and back-woods, the writer of this article has distracted the readers from the real issue at hand -- the question of origins. By straying from the facts and concentrating on belittling those he or she does not agree with, the writer has not given due diligence to the subject matter.

Unfortunately, this level of bias in the media and others in the "scientific" community towards those who seek truth on this subject is not new. For decades, scientists have strived to have their voice heard. This has become such an issue that the likes of Ben Stein have even made a movie about this phenomenon (it's called "Expelled" and should be coming out within the next few weeks).

It is amazing how only a quick search on the internet on just a few subjects might quickly change someone's perception of what the mainstream "scientific" community might have you believe. For example, just search for "Angkor Cambodia Stegosaurus", "Anasazi brontosaurus cave drawing", "Yarru Queensland Australia plesiosaur", or try "Mokele Mbembe Congo". I could continue to list these references, or just go to one of these websites for more information: www.icr.org, www.answersingenesis.org/, or for a lot of excellent pictures http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm .

Comment by Brad Bruce — March 22, 2008 @ 07:57PM

How long before we can expect those who are skeptical of intelligent design to be beaten with canes? The mind set of the ID crowd sounds identical to that of the mutaween in Saudi Arabia, and their motives are identical: obey the tenets of the faith or face punishment.

Comment by Michael — March 24, 2008 @ 08:55AM

There are indeed two sides to this story. Unfortunately, they are not, as ID proponents would like us to believe, equal. Evolutionary theory is science. ID is religion masquerading as science. I will not accept religion being taught in a science class any more than you would accept science being taught in a religious studies class.

No matter how strongly ID proponents advocate, or wrap their arguments in the Bible and the American flag, these two "opposing ideas" do NOT deserve equal time in the classroom. Why does this particular subject cause such intellectual vapor-lock amongst fundamentalists? Science does not harm your belief system. The only thing science does is to teach you to hold your observations up to scrutiny, and through this scrutiny, advance your knowledge and allow you to improve your life and your world.

For those who want to hold up any church as an arbiter of scientific knowledge, I have one name for you: Galileo Galilei. It took the church over two hundred years to remove his works on heliocentrism from its list of heretical writing.

The defense of your beliefs is a commendable act. The stubborn refusal to accept other viewpoints in the face of overwhelming evidence is at best foolhardy, and is at worst a callous disregard for everything mankind has accomplished over the past 2000 years.

Comment by Joe — March 24, 2008 @ 09:25AM

It saddens me to no end about how the religous right wants to devolve society into something seen over in the middle east. Is that what you people want? A theocracy? Lets see the repercussion of religion taking total control of a country. Stoning of women. Women wearing burkas. I think we had a society where christianity ruled absolutely it was called the The Dark Ages. You might want to go back and live in those time but you can count me out. You young Earth creationist freaks need to keep your religion to yourself.

Comment by Shawn — March 24, 2008 @ 07:10PM

Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge , depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion .

In science , a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena , capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation . It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation ), and the theory of general relativity .

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture , an opinion , or a speculation . In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts ; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality . This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them...........

Comment by wingtip — March 24, 2008 @ 11:36PM

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Theodosius Dobzhansky

Comment by John — March 25, 2008 @ 06:04PM

I am wondering who da frick put these people in charge of public education. I happen to believe that the god I serve actually made our world/ universe complicated enough to keep us mentally stimulated for 100,000 generations. If he is the creator of all things then he cannot be insulted by the pursuit of a scientific road map to find the origin our genetic material and the history associated with it. I do not subscribe to the rationale that middle-eastern goat herders represent the highest possible representation of human societal evolution. Last time I checked, our world class, Houston Med Center, heart surgeons have floors full of rich, fundamentalist, middle eastern high holy men who have no faith in science until their tickers miss a beat...

Comment by Vic — March 26, 2008 @ 01:02PM

I would appreciate people on any side of this debate (and there are many sides) expalining to me two things: What was there before the 'beginning', before either the creation or the big bang (and don't say a void, because the 'void' had to have come about somehow also)? How did the 'spark of life' get 'struck', and why is it not still being 'struck'?

Two more caveats:

One for the big bang - don't explain that there was a cycle of the universe expanding and contracting. I want to know what there was before, and how things could have started originally.

One for the intelligent design - Explain if the 'void' already existed, or was it designed? If the void already existed, where did the void come from?

I do not know the answers, but certainly enjoy the positive and thoughtful comments I have seen and heard on debates on these issues. Dismissing anybody's points out-of-hand does not serve any of us well. Differences will always exists, and no one of us completely understands the complete picture.

Comment by Ken — March 27, 2008 @ 09:37AM

I liked this article. Here are a few comments and corrections [my remarks are in brackets]:

"That's Max Palmer. He was 8-foot-2," he said wistfully. "He was a resident of Glen Rose and personal friends with Dr. Baugh."

[Everything in Carl Baugh's museum of errors is false, including the above statement. Palmer was 7'7" tall:

http://www.geostan.ca/killape.html
7'7" Max Palmer (1928-84) played the title character in this Jungle Jim entry. Wearing a bullet-proof fur piece, Palmer lumbered through the film using a gait that must have given the small fry nightmares, although, amusingly enough, when he walked through the screen credits at the film’s beginning, one sequence has him walking quite normally. Columbia’s premiere make-up man Clay Campbell added to the monster effect with an impressive face mask. Of course, Columbia added a foot to the giant's already substantial height for publicity purposes.

Palmer made only a few films and an occasional TV appearance in the early 50s before becoming a professional wrestler named, aptly enough, Paul Bunyan. He also worked in advertising stunts. After licking an alcohol problem in the mid-60s, Palmer turned to religion and became a circuit preacher, often working with troubled kids.

http://members.shaw.ca/harbord/heights.html
Max Palmer "Paul Bunyan" (tallest wrestler ever, 1928-84) claimed 8'2" more likely 7'7"
also see http://www.answers.com/topic/don-koehler?cat=health.

I have no idea if Baugh actually knew Palmer but I doubt it.]

As he began digging in the limestone bed of the river, he says, he uncovered several large three-toed footprints probably from sauropods, or as they are more commonly known, brontosaurs.

[The three-toed footprints were of theropods, not sauropods. Also, there are many types of sauropods, not just brontosaurs. Sauropod tracks, which definitely are not three-toed, are also found in the Paluxy River bed. Baugh doesn't know one type of dinosaur from another.]

But as he kept digging, he found what he was looking for--a winding path of footprints that looked like the tracks of a breed of giant men.

[These trackways are well-known by scientists. I investigated them myself in the 1980s. They were formed by three-toed theropods that stepped deeply into the lime mud and pulled out their feet in a way that caused the mud to flow back into the depression causing the outer two toe impressions to be covered in a way that left a large, elongate single track that superficially looks as if it was made by an animal with large, elongate feet with no toes. Locals called these "giant man-tracks" even though they have no human characteristics at all. They were described and correctly explained by the very first paleontologist to examine the Paluxy River dinosaur trails, Roland Bird.]

his degrees (which reportedly came from diploma mills)

[Baugh's advanced degree, his so-called "doctorate," is definitely from a degree mill. I think he has a legitimate minister's degree from a Bible college. He was a Baptist preacher in Springfield, MO, before he traveled to Glen Rose, TX, and set up his carnival sideshow-like Creation Museum. Baugh is not a con artist, however, but a sincere huckster. He really believes the nonsense he is peddling to visitors.]

Intelligent design, which does not define who the creator is and does not rely on the Bible as its foundation, has attracted more than 100 scientists--molecular biologists, biochemists and physicists among them--from places such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Chicago.

[Baugh or some other Creationist must have told you this. It is completely untrue. Intelligent Design is not considered scientific by scientists and many professional scientific organization have condemned it as pseudoscience. Over 100 apparently-legitimate scientists HAVE signed an ambiguous anti-Darwinism statement for the Discovery Institute, but the statement does not endorse ID or object to evolution; it criticizes certain evolutionary topics that individuals can interpret differently.]

"Let's face it, evolution is the only theory of science that needs laws on the books to protect it," he said.

[There is no law in the United States or the world that protects evolution. There IS a law that prevents religion and religious pseudoscience from being taught in public school science classes. It is called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.]

For most of its existence, the state board was not divided by political and religious ideologies. It occupied a sleepy corner of government, making headlines only when critics showed up to protest a sex ed book or the teaching of evolution. That began changing in the late 1980s, when the religious right began to realize the board's power.

[What is today called the Religious Right realized the State Board of Education's power in the early 1960s, when Fundamentalist Protestant Christians who believed in Creationism began using the Board's power to choose textbooks for the entire state of Texas to censor textbooks. Science textbooks were censored all through the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. The Religious Right has continuously attempted to use the Board's power--sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully--since the early 1960s. The scientific community and mainstream advocacy groups began to challenge this power in 1981. These included primarily what is today Texas Citizens for Science, founded by me, and People for the American Way. We were very successful in the 1980s for reasons and history I won't describe now. Both the State Board and the Religious Right members lost much of their power in 1994, as you correctly describe, and began to fight back to re-take that power, and they have succeeded or almost succeeded (it is close), again as you correctly describe.]

In 1998, he [Leininger] donated to the campaign of current chair Don McLeroy, and in 2004, he helped bankroll the candidacies of current board members Terri Leo, who directed attacks against a biology textbook in 2003; Barbara Cargill, the founder of a Bible-based science camp that teaches classes on intelligent design; and Gail Lowe, who also has advocated teaching the purported weaknesses of the theory of evolution.

[All true. Leininger also financially supported David Bradley. Cargill, who teaches Creationist biology in her church's summer science camp, was once a public school science teacher and considers herself knowledgeable about science. Like the others, however, she is a Creationist.]

Two years ago, he [Leininger] helped Cynthia Dunbar and Ken Mercer defeat their primary opponents by outspending them 3-to-1 and 5-to-1 respectively.

[Again true. Leininger also supported Barney Maddox who you describe earlier. The radical religious right-wing tilt of the Texas SBOE is primarily due to Leininger and his money. Right now, there are seven of them on the fifteen-person Board.]

These guidelines had little effect on the board. Factual errors, board members decided, could include ideological objections to material either in textbooks or missing from them. In 2003, for example, the board demanded that a reference to the Ice Age occurring "millions of years ago" be changed to "in the distant past." A passage saying that fossils "explained" evolution was changed to "may explain" evolution. These changes conformed to the young-Earth creationist views that many of the state board members held.

[All very true, amazingly so. State law allows the Board to change or reject textbooks if they contain factual errors. The Board members simply decided to take responsibility for themselves to decide what is or isn't a factual error, regardless of what scientists and informed experts might think. Supine publishers have mostly allowed them to get away with this travesty in order to keep their multi-million dollar book contracts. In practice, publishers will accept small, misleading changes--like those mentioned--in order not to accept really large and obvious changes, so there is a hypocritical "dance" or "game" or "understanding" between the radical religious right Board members and the textbook publishers. This often takes the form of pre-censorship (also known as self-censorship) by textbook publishers so they can avoid being forced to make too many changes. For example, contraception was pre-censored from all health education textbooks submitted in Texas in 2004. Since the early 1990s, biology textbooks have not been self-censored, although this was certainly the case prior to that for several decades going back to the 1960s.]

So apart from a few timeline and factual errors which may not be the author's fault because he believed some of his Creationist sources, the article is quite good and very relevant. Thanks.

Comment by Steven Schafersman — March 27, 2008 @ 04:27PM

There's no good side in this debate. Genesis should be read devotionally, not scientifically. Not even Augustin considered a literal reading of creation as essential to orthodoxy. Still, when people ask me if I believe in creationism, I think they really want to ask me, "Do you believe in a relational, imminent God who redeemed us." And my answer would be yes. For those reasons, creationism, intelligent design, whatever, should be moved from the science room to the philosophy room. Problem solved.

Comment by Richie Sullivan — April 2, 2008 @ 05:38PM

Intelligent design. Well, I wonder why educators insist on telling us the world is round? The Bible tells us that there are four corners. Jesus was an Englishman, who spoke in perfect Catholic King's English, its true, every time he speaks, it is in Red letters. That is in the Bible. So to keep up the search for truth, religious freedom,
and our Constutional Rights for separation of Church and state, as well as Freedom of the Press, which is also in the First Amendment, one could logically teach that the Earth is as Flat as a Table. Reason, it is in the Bible. Nuff said.

Comment by Winston Smith — April 3, 2008 @ 01:10PM

Thomas Fagan:
"I get very tired of the mantra, Intelligent design is not science. I have searched the internet for many months looking for the proof of evolution and the best I can find is an assortment of fraud, misstatements and outright lies being told by the supporters of evolution, in particular about what is referred to as Microevolution."

In other words, you skimmed creationist websites and swallowed their straw man fallacies like candy. Your parotting of the terms "Darwinist" and "atheism is a religion" just shows which quality sites those must have been.

Comment by Waut — April 8, 2008 @ 04:06AM

I'm quite disappointed with both the tone of the article, and the overall attitude that evolutionist take towards those who do not agree whole-heartedly about the theory of evolution. We’re not all idiots who believe the world is flat, Jesus spoke English (I’m not sure ANYONE really believes that – we do all know that the Bible has been translated Winston), or many of the other stereo types that are placed upon us by those who created and/or use the term “Fundamentalist.”

It seems to me that the creationist/intelligent design believers are the ones facing a total ban from consideration. Not once in the article is the case made that creationists think the theory of evolution should be banned from schools or that those who are from “right-wing religious group” would completely pull it out of schools. Sure, Mr. Maddox called it a “a pre-Civil War fairy tale,” and said he would have something to say about teaching it, but isn’t it fair to say that creationism is considered a “religious fairy-tale” by the evolutionist and that it is already completely banned from the public school system?

There are many things I do not understand about the (what seems to me) irrational banning of creationism. First and foremost is the fact that a true “seeker of knowledge” would never close his/her mind to any possibility, no matter how unlikely that possibility may be. It brings to mind the same close-mindedness that our forefathers ran from in establishing this great nation. If there is even a shred of possibility that life was formed by God, why not at least mention that possibility to the students? Who are we hurting by doing this, really? Millions of Christians have not been hurt by the theory of evolution, so how many Atheists, Agnostics, or others will be hurt by presenting another possibility?

I think that a lot of people are too concerned with being confused; can we not admit that we really do not know how this whole universe (therefore how we) came about? Are our egos so big that we have to say with certainty that “this is how it is” and not leave any space for the possibility of our own error (s)? Or is the necessity of being able to definitively map the beginning of our universe so large that it cannot be debated?

• In 1903, the president of the Michigan Savings Bank advised Henry Ford’s lawyer not to invest in Ford Motor Company, saying, “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad.”

• The city of Pompeii, Italy was forgotten for nearly 14 centuries despite over 80% of its residents escaping the destruction (point being, history should have been recorded and the city not forgotten).

• The lobotomy was a heralded procedure that won a Neurologist a Nobel Peace Prize in 1949, and was used in medicine as an acceptable treatment to mental illness until the late 1960’s.

• Newton’s “Law” of gravity was proven wrong by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which to this day cannot be proven wrong (not to say that it isn't).

I have no point with the above, other than to point out the most intelligent among us have been proven wrong countless times in the past. Without a doubt, humans and our theories will continue to be proven wrong; if for no other reason, because scientific theories of any kind cannot be proven to be true – only proven to be false.

One thing that cannot be proven false is the feeling that I have when I am in Church and am filled with the Holy Spirit. No one can tell me the surge of emotion that I feel when I am singing Jesus praise and worshipping Him is false. Or I take that back - you can tell me - but it will not take away the feeling that I can feel when I'm there. All your proclamations of my insanity will do, is cause me to wish all of you could feel it too. As to how He created the universe, world, and us – who cares if it took six days or six billion years; I still believe He did it. All I wish is that all theories could be presented, to all students at all levels, as a possibility.

I’d like to end with a few quotes from Albert Einstein all quoted by Des MacHale, in "Wisdom" (London, 2002):

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slightest details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.”

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

“Before God we are all equally wise - equally foolish.”

And

“There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 9, 2008 @ 04:31PM

Scott Wickstrum, it's not about completely banning ID/creationism. I have little problem if they were being taught as philosophy/religion. It's about keeping pseudoscience out of science class.
Since ID/creationism aren't making any predictions, are untestable, give an argument from ignorance or evoke the supernatural as an answer, they fail to be a scientific theory. What's worse, they base themselves on dogma and don't allow falsification which are the very tenets of science. Science can indeed be proven wrong and scientific theories of any kind can be falsifief. That's just the power of the scientific method in the first place.
Also, evolution theory itself doesn't make any claims about the origins of life, let alone the origin of the universe.

Comment by Waut — April 11, 2008 @ 04:54AM

Waut - Sure it is about completely banning creationism/ID, it has already been done; unless you mean it isn’t a problem because it’s already been banned, then you are right it’s not a problem for you. There may be a brief mention of Genesis in a Social Studies class that allows approximately a week to teach about 20 world religions - that is akin to a complete ban to me. This is a convenient way to completely put any creationist theories into a group of fanciful ideas (such as Greek gods) without actually mentioning the science behind it (which there is).

Also, evolution theory itself doesn't make any claims about the origins of life, let alone the origin of the universe.
I agree that evolution does not say anything about the origin of the universe; I was simply implying that the origin of life and the universe is still a mystery. However, saying that evolution does not make any "claims on the origins of life" is an easy escape clause for a science that CANNOT EXPLAIN how life was originated. "We don't say how life was formed, we only show how it evolved after it was formed.” How convenient…
Believe you me, if evolutionists could tell us how the first life was formed, they would - the fact is it cannot be done. Also, evolutionists do not claim to even know HOW the very thing they are teaching takes place, they just know it did…say what? So we’re learning about something that you know happened you just can’t explain the how. Gotcha.

Let’s compare that to another science, say forensics. A forensic scientist says, “Bob died - but how?” Then he/she does an autopsy, researches and finds the reason (not the reason he was killed but the reason he died), the time, and yes even HOW he died. Forensics can give us a cause of death, a time of death, and in most cases, can explain how the cause was inflicted. Or how about a fire investigator, can they give us these facts? Yup, they can tell you how the fire started, where it started, how it moved through the house, how it moved from one house to another, and how it was extinguished; among other things that I don’t even know about.

Evolutionists, however, say “Life exists as it is now – but how?” Then they answer, “EVOLUTION – But we don’t know how it started and we are not sure how it works, but it’s definitely evolution.” Sure, we have wonderful tree maps of how species may have evolved from cells to four-footed creatures, from four-footed creatures to bats and birds, etc, etc… The fact is the mechanisms and processes that changed these species are very unclear, and not even agreed upon among atheist evolutionists.

To your statement that “Since ID/creationism aren't making any predictions, are untestable, give an argument from ignorance or evoke the supernatural as an answer, they fail to be a scientific theory. What's worse, they base themselves on dogma and don't allow falsification which are the very tenets of science.” This is simply incorrect. Creationism does, in fact, have a lot of science behind it, for example creation states that:

Abiogenesis, the idea that the first life started with no intelligent designer, is contrary to real science. It contradicts:

•The Laws of Probability that calculate the chance of a thing happening,
•The Principle of Biogenesis (life only comes from life),
•The tendency of things to become disordered, described by the entropy of the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
•The observation of what happens in nature,
•The experimental evidence.
These statements are testable, do not argue from ignorance, offer the beginning of a scientific theory, are not based on dogma, and although they evoke a supernatural answer, there is no other answer with any more credence than the supernatural, so why is it any more unbelievable? “Lightning striking a pond of water,” which has been used by the evolutionists as an answer to where the first life came from is just as unbelievable to me, and many others

So why is evolution so much more accepted than creation, even though it is not much more scientifically sound? I think I have an answer to that; it was first to logically give direction of life that was not simply “God created man.” Evolution was the first theory that could explain life logically, especially to those who have a problem being created by a superior being, thus owing their lives to someone. It even leaves space for God to possibly be the ultimate creator for those of us who do not mind admitting that He may exist.

We should all agree evolution leaves so many unanswered questions. Questions that are so profound that we should allow other theories to be presented, for scientific opportunity. I won’t get into the, “It’s not fair,” debate, because the fair comes once a year in October. I will say that it is limiting possibilities that may very well be true just to keep “religion out of schools,” and that is just ridiculous.

Also, I should make it clear that I do not claim to have any idea how God created and/or evolved man and animals throughout history, it could have very well been with the very evolutionary process that we are discussing. I just think allowing other theories of the beginnings of life, and/or the forming of humans should be debated and right now there is not even an opportunity for that in public schools.

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 11, 2008 @ 12:29PM

Scott,

I don't think a comment section is the best place to have an intelligent debate on this matter i'm sure you've visited all the creationist websites to gleam all your information because you're just rehashing arguments that has been refuted so many time. You can go to www.talkorigins.org and they have a point by point rebuttal of all your arguments or you can go to www.infidels.org and post your points on their to have them rebutted.

Comment by Shawn — April 13, 2008 @ 03:41PM

So, what's next?
will the Paluxy river tracks and Malachite Man become the focus of the Texas science curriculum?
unbelievable

Comment by john wilcox — April 14, 2008 @ 02:52PM

Thanks Shawn, for letting me know that I am rehashing information from creationist websites, while you post links to two websites that support your cause. Sure I will (and have in the past) visit (ed) these sites and read the rebuffs to all of my points, not a problem. Keep in mind however, that the sites you mentioned are dedicated to disproving any creation/ID arguments, so of course they can find rebuttal arguments. If all you do is search for what you WANT to find, you are bound to find it.

Here are a couple of websites that give good points for ID, just to even the playing field... http://www.creationism.org/heinze/index.htm and http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ I'm sure you'll find points that are in dispute with yours on these websites.

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 16, 2008 @ 10:40AM

Scott,
There is no point for me to visit those sites because ID is not a supported scientific theory. It has zero scientific evidence and then posits at the end "god did it" i mean what is the point of that? It does not deserve any room in a science classroom. The theory of evolution has been around for well over a 100 years and is such a divisive issue among christians and have been scrutinize for ages but guess what?!?! It still stand as strong as ever or better yet it has even been reinforce more by evidence from other fields of science including paleontology, geology, genetics, molecular biology and genomics, developmental biology, biogeography and behavioral ecology. All of those sciences ,to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution. Just face the facts Scott evolution is fact with no controversy in the scientific community.

Comment by Shawn — April 17, 2008 @ 01:24PM

Shawn,
Unfortunately I do not have (nor do you, I'm guessing)the knowledge to be able to prove that the laundry list of sciences you just mentioned can or cannot prove the theory of evolution true or false. All we can do is read and/or listen to the evidence of those who have more knowledge than us in each respective category; not knowing if what is being reported is true or not because we are ignorant of the nuances of that particular discipline.

To say that this evidence is "to the dismay of people like you" is completely ridiculous and unwarranted. I did not say that evolution is not true in any portion of any one of my posts, and in fact, I believe I said that God may have used evolution to create man. And to say the the theory of evolution is not disprovable because it has been around for "over 100 years" is plain silly. Over 100 years is but a drop in the bucket of the over 6 billion years that evolutionists swear the universe (and life) has been in existence. Seems ironic that a century is a long time to someone who also believes the earth has been around for so long.

But who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we've never been wrong before. Geez, if there is a whole century of research to back up the theory that over 6 billion years ago life began by a lighting strike, then it has to be uncorruptably true. Give me a break. We are still in the infancy stage of our scientific knowledge, and your reluctance to look at any other evidence except that which backs up the theory you hold to be a "fact with no controversy," shows the ignorance many people like you are famous for.

Thanks for making my argument for me Shawn.

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 22, 2008 @ 02:58PM

Shawn,
Your comment that, “All of those sciences, to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution,” is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and a lame attempt at making me feel inferior to your supreme intelligence. If you have time, go back and read all of my posts all of the way through. I’m sure that you will see that not once did I dispute that evolution was true, and in fact, I believe I even said there is a possibility that God used evolution to create man. I do not attempt to prove to you that what I think is true because I realize the limitations of the arguments; I simply ask questions. And unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge (nor do you I would presume) to verify any of the data that your laundry list of sciences put forth. All I (and you) can do is take at face value the things the scientists in these disciplines put forth as the truth because we do not know the nuances of each and every one of them well enough to know if they are true or not.

Wow, we have over 100 years of scrutiny for the theory of evolution? That’s a long time! Of course it’s quite ironic that a person that believes the universe is over 6 billion years old (YOU) spout the length of time that the theory of evolution has been around as if it’s a LONG time. I have a hard time believing that someone who is so open to the evidence takes a theory that is .00000001666 (do the math - 100/6 billion) as old as the universe itself as a “fact with no controversy in the scientific community.” As I said before, if you look ONLY for what proves your point, you will find it.

Who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we’ve never been wrong before, right? If we have a theory that is over a century old, it has to be undisputable. Give me a break. The fact is we are in the infancy stage of our potential scientific knowledge. Your unwillingness to even look at any evidence that does anything but support what you believe to be true shows the ignorance that people like you are famous for. My argument was that it’s not the creationists that we need to be afraid of limiting our information or possibilities for the theories of life.

Thanks for making my argument for me, Shawn

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 22, 2008 @ 03:30PM

Shawn,
Your comment that, “All of those sciences, to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution” Is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and a lame attempt at making me feel inferior to your supreme intelligence. If you have time, go back and read all of my posts all of the way through. I’m sure that you will see that not once did I dispute that evolution was true, and in fact, I believe I even said there is a possibility that God used evolution to create man. I do not attempt to prove to you that what I think is true because I realize the limitations of the arguments; I simply ask questions. And unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge (nor do you I would presume) to verify any of the data that your laundry list of sciences put forth. All I (and you) can do is take at face value the things the scientists in these disciplines put forth as the truth because we do not know the nuances of each and every one of them well enough to know if they are true or not.

Wow, we have over 100 years of scrutiny for the theory of evolution? That’s a long time! Of course it’s quite ironic that a person that believes the universe is over 6 billion years old (YOU) spout the length of time that the theory of evolution has been around as if it’s a long time. I have a hard time believing that someone who is so open to the evidence takes a theory that is .00000001666 (do the math - 100/6 billion) as old as the universe itself as a “fact with no controversy in the scientific community.” As I said before, if you look ONLY for what proves your point, you will find it.

Who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we’ve never been wrong before right? If we have a theory that is over a century old, it has to be undisputable. Give me a break. The fact is we are in the infancy stage of our potential scientific knowledge. Your unwillingness to even look at any evidence that does anything but support what you believe to be true shows the ignorance that people like you are famous for. My argument was that it’s not the creationists that we need to be afraid of limiting our information or possibilities for the theories of life.

Thanks for making my argument for me, Shawn

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 22, 2008 @ 03:31PM

Shawn,
Your comment that, “All of those sciences, to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution” Is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and a lame attempt at making me feel inferior to your supreme intelligence. If you have time, go back and read all of my posts all of the way through. I’m sure that you will see that not once did I dispute that evolution was true, and in fact, I believe I even said there is a possibility that God used evolution to create man. I do not attempt to prove to you that what I think is true because I realize the limitations of the arguments; I simply ask questions. And unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge (nor do you I would presume) to verify any of the data that your laundry list of sciences put forth. All I (and you) can do is take at face value the things the scientists in these disciplines put forth as the truth because we do not know the nuances of each and every one of them well enough to know if they are true or not.

Wow, we have over 100 years of scrutiny for the theory of evolution? That’s a long time! Of course it’s quite ironic that a person that believes the universe is over 6 billion years old (YOU) spout the length of time that the theory of evolution has been around as if it’s a long time. I have a hard time believing that someone who is so open to the evidence takes a theory that is .00000001666 (do the math - 100/6 billion) as old as the universe itself as a “fact with no controversy in the scientific community.” As I said before, if you look ONLY for what proves your point, you will find it.

Who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we’ve never been wrong before right? If we have a theory that is over a century old, it has to be undisputable. Give me a break. The fact is we are in the infancy stage of our potential scientific knowledge. Your unwillingness to even look at any evidence that does anything but support what you believe to be true shows the ignorance that people like you are famous for. My argument was that it’s not the creationists that we need to be afraid of limiting our information or possibilities for the theories of life.

Thanks for making my argument for me, Shawn

Comment by Wickstrum, Scott — April 22, 2008 @ 03:33PM

Shawn,
Your comment that, “All of those sciences, to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution” Is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and a lame attempt at making me feel inferior to your supreme intelligence. If you have time, go back and read all of my posts all of the way through. I’m sure that you will see that not once did I dispute that evolution was true, and in fact, I believe I even said there is a possibility that God used evolution to create man. I do not attempt to prove to you that what I think is true because I realize the limitations of the arguments; I simply ask questions. And unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge (nor do you I would presume) to verify any of the data that your laundry list of sciences put forth. All I (and you) can do is take at face value the things the scientists in these disciplines put forth as the truth because we do not know the nuances of each and every one of them well enough to know if they are true or not.

Wow, we have over 100 years of scrutiny for the theory of evolution? That’s a long time! Of course it’s quite ironic that a person that believes the universe is over 6 billion years old (YOU) spout the length of time that the theory of evolution has been around as if it’s a long time. I have a hard time believing that someone who is so open to the evidence takes a theory that is .00000001666 (do the math - 100/6 billion) as old as the universe itself as a “fact with no controversy in the scientific community.” As I said before, if you look ONLY for what proves your point, you will find it.

Who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we’ve never been wrong before right? If we have a theory that is over a century old, it has to be undisputable. Give me a break. The fact is we are in the infancy stage of our potential scientific knowledge. Your unwillingness to even look at any evidence that does anything but support what you believe to be true shows the ignorance that people like you are famous for. My argument was that it’s not the creationists that we need to be afraid of limiting our information or possibilities for the theories of life.

Thanks for making my argument for me, Shawn

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 22, 2008 @ 03:35PM

Shawn,
Your comment that, “All of those sciences, to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution” Is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and a lame attempt at making me feel inferior to your supreme intelligence. If you have time, go back and read all of my posts all of the way through. I’m sure that you will see that not once did I dispute that evolution was true, and in fact, I believe I even said there is a possibility that God used evolution to create man. I do not attempt to prove to you that what I think is true because I realize the limitations of the arguments; I simply ask questions. And unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge (nor do you I would presume) to verify any of the data that your laundry list of sciences put forth. All I (and you) can do is take at face value the things the scientists in these disciplines put forth as the truth because we do not know the nuances of each and every one of them well enough to know if they are true or not.

Wow, we have over 100 years of scrutiny for the theory of evolution? That’s a long time! Of course it’s quite ironic that a person that believes the universe is over 6 billion years old (YOU) spout the length of time that the theory of evolution has been around as if it’s a long time. I have a hard time believing that someone who is so open to the evidence takes a theory that is .00000001666 (do the math - 100/6 billion) as old as the universe itself as a “fact with no controversy in the scientific community.” As I said before, if you look ONLY for what proves your point, you will find it.

Who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we’ve never been wrong before right? If we have a theory that is over a century old, it has to be undisputable. Give me a break. The fact is we are in the infancy stage of our potential scientific knowledge. Your unwillingness to even look at any evidence that does anything but support what you believe to be true shows the ignorance that people like you are famous for. My argument was that it’s not the creationists that we need to be afraid of limiting our information or possibilities for the theories of life.

Thanks for making my argument for me, Shawn

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 22, 2008 @ 03:36PM

Your comment that, “All of those sciences, to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution” Is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and a lame attempt at making me feel inferior to your supreme intelligence. If you have time, go back and read all of my posts all of the way through. I’m sure that you will see that not once did I dispute that evolution was true, and in fact, I believe I even said there is a possibility that God used evolution to create man. I do not attempt to prove to you that what I think is true because I realize the limitations of the arguments; I simply ask questions. And unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge (nor do you I would presume) to verify any of the data that your laundry list of sciences put forth. All I (and you) can do is take at face value the things the scientists in these disciplines put forth as the truth because we do not know the nuances of each and every one of them well enough to know if they are true or not.

Wow, we have over 100 years of scrutiny for the theory of evolution? That’s a long time! Of course it’s quite ironic that a person that believes the universe is over 6 billion years old (YOU) spout the length of time that the theory of evolution has been around as if it’s a long time. I have a hard time believing that someone who is so open to the evidence takes a theory that is .00000001666 (do the math - 100/6 billion) as old as the universe itself as a “fact with no controversy in the scientific community.” As I said before, if you look ONLY for what proves your point, you will find it.

Who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we’ve never been wrong before right? If we have a theory that is over a century old, it has to be undisputable. Give me a break. The fact is we are in the infancy stage of our potential scientific knowledge. Your unwillingness to even look at any evidence that does anything but support what you believe to be true shows the ignorance that people like you are famous for. As I said before, who’s it hurting by saying there are other possibilities? My argument has been that it’s not the creationists that we need to be afraid of limiting our information or possibilities for all the theories of life.

Thanks for making my argument for me, Shawn.

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 22, 2008 @ 04:57PM

Shawn,
Your comment that, “All of those sciences, to the dismay of people like you, have done nothing but offer evidences supporting evolution” Is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and a lame attempt at making me feel inferior to your supreme intelligence. If you have time, go back and read all of my posts all of the way through. I’m sure that you will see that not once did I dispute that evolution was true, and in fact, I believe I even said there is a possibility that God used evolution to create man. I do not attempt to prove to you that what I think is true because I realize the limitations of the arguments; I simply ask questions. And unfortunately, I do not have enough knowledge (nor do you I would presume) to verify any of the data that your laundry list of sciences put forth. All I (and you) can do is take at face value the things the scientists in these disciplines put forth as the truth because we do not know the nuances of each and every one of them well enough to know if they are true or not.

Wow, we have over 100 years of scrutiny for the theory of evolution? That’s a long time! Of course it’s quite ironic that a person that believes the universe is over 6 billion years old (YOU) spout the length of time that the theory of evolution has been around as if it’s a long time. I have a hard time believing that someone who is so open to the evidence takes a theory that is .00000001666 (do the math - 100/6 billion) as old as the universe itself as a “fact with no controversy in the scientific community.” As I said before, if you look ONLY for what proves your point, you will find it.

Who am I to doubt the brilliance of humanity? I mean we’ve never been wrong before right? If we have a theory that is over a century old, it has to be undisputable. Give me a break. The fact is we are in the infancy stage of our potential scientific knowledge. Your unwillingness to even look at any evidence that does anything but support what you believe to be true shows the ignorance that people like you are famous for. As I said before, who’s it hurting by saying there are other possibilities? My argument has been that it’s not the creationists that we need to be afraid of limiting our information or possibilities for all the theories of life.

Thanks for making my argument for me, Shawn.

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 23, 2008 @ 09:08AM

First off:

Wickstrum, you don't come across as a very intelligent person, when you don't even know how to press the "Submit" button ONCE on a forum.

Way to tell us the same shit... 7 times.

As for this issue...

1.To those that argue against evolution:

I think people are wasting their breath arguing about this stuff. Evolution happened, and is happening now. Get over it. It's been proven. Millions of years ago, there were ANCESTORS of species that are currently living. Animals that looked a lot like animals we see today, but had not adapted to become what they are now. It's real, and it's right in front of you. Conversely, there are animals that existed millions of years ago, that are not here today... yes, some of them went extinct, but many of them evolved (ADAPTED TO THEIR SURROUNDINGS) to what we see them as today.

However......

2. To those of you who argue against creationism:

As many people have said here... Scientists (to an extent) are pompous bastards. Our entire galaxy is just a tiny tiny piece of the "whole picture". Compared to what we "know" as a human race, there is a whole lot more that we DON'T know. Yes, scientists hypothesize, research, experiment, study, and come to more-often-than-not, valid conclusions for many things that go on on our planet. But for scientists to say, "We KNOW that God doesn't exist" is just utterly retarded. We can't even send a man to a neighboring planet, people! Yet, "scientists" KNOW how our entire universe was made?!?! Unrefutably??? Give me a break!!!! We know nothing... yet we cocky humans (Bible beaters included) presume to know everything.

3. And as for teaching creationism in the classroom:

I believe in God, but I am also quite confident that evolution happened. I think it makes perfect sense that we're all here because of a Creator... a creator that set certain events into motion that have evolved into what we see now. What's so hard to believe about that? Why couldn't God have created EVOLUTION?!?! I'm sure he's laughing at us right now.... bickering about all of this....

In other words Scientists can't 100% prove evolution, and Creationists can't 100% prove God. But... there's a hell of a lot of evidence that points to BOTH actually existing. Look at what's right in front of your eyes! It's all right there!

That being said...

In school, children must be taught core curriculum. Although everyone should experience spirituality in their life-time, spirituality is spiritual... not factual. It's a hell of a lot easier to show supporting evidence of evolution, than it is to provide evidence that God "rested on the seventh day".

Religion IS NOT science. Period. We can't have theology and philosophy seeping into a class that is based on method, research, and results. By all means, teach the children about God! Teach them about all religions! Teach them about all philosophy! But leave that in it's own class. And leave it up to the kids to DECIDE what to believe. Your faith is up to you. Science is science.

it's ridiculous and embarrassing that there are people in this country that would actually try to REPLACE science with Christianity!!! That's exactly what this douchebag (Barney Maddox and all the Bible beaters in Dallas) would do if they could. Hell, they would replace all books with the Bible.

It's funny that conservatives want to become the same kind of country as the very people we are at war with!!

The Taliban place the Quaran above EVERYTHING.... and if many conservatives had their way, they'd place the Bible above EVERYTHING!!!

...The same BIble that says we should stone unfaithful women to death....
(Thats called murder)

The price that many middle eastern countries have paid for replacing science with religion is obvious! It's the reason those countries remain technologically deficient. The same reason they have substandard health, and shorter life-expectancies. When you place religion above scientific advancement, it does NOT glorify God!!! It shows that you are too feeble minded to think for yourself, and to grow as a society!

As I said before, I am a Christian... but it's SO hard to be proud of that when the most vocal and visible representatives of my faith are COMPLETE MORONS. I am not ashamed to believe in God because I believe in God, but because I am surrounded by the the retarded herd of sheep that is Dallas, Texas.

It's one thing to personally believe that the Bible is fact. It's another to ignore science and replace it with religion, and feed it to our children as if it has been proven. Shame on you bible beaters! You've gone too far. Hopefully, God is taking note.

Comment by Matt — April 24, 2008 @ 05:29PM

Thanks "Christian" Matt for calling your “brethren” morons. By the way, the reason I "hit the submit button 7 times" is because the comments did not post for two days and I did not even know they posted at all. I eventually gave up and came back to see that every attempt I made actually did post. So, for that, I apologize, my bad.

As for your claim to be a Christian, I have my doubts. Are there Christian morons? Sure. Are there intelligent Christians? Absolutely. I submit that you are neither intelligent, nor a Christian. If you would like to see an example of intelligent Christians please see www.icr.org . Some of the country’s most intelligent men (lawyers, PhDs, ThDs, etc…) submit to the ICR website and magazine, so hopefully you can learn something.

If you would like to see an example of an ignorant Christian that has no idea of what they are saying, has obviously not been to church in a long time, does not read his Bible, and is not doing his “faith” any favors, read your own post.

As to your unbelievably ignorant statements, I do not feel the need to refute even one of them. The only advice I have for you is to go to church and read the Bible. And before you tell me that “I don’t need to go to church to believe in God,” let me tell you, YOU DO NEED IT. If you mention the Quran and the Bible in the same breath you are so obviously ignorant of your on supposed religion it’s not really funny. I used to think the same thing, and I found that I was completely fooling myself. You are obviously doing the same thing that I have done (and have since corrected by going to church and learning what the word is).

I will be praying for you so that you may actually become one of my Christian Brothers.

Comment by Scott Wickstrum — April 29, 2008 @ 12:16PM

Wickstrum.

I accept your apology for hitting the submit button so many times. Just try to learn how to use the "internet" some time soon.

My only question for you is, since when did you become Christ? You said things like:

"As for your claim to be a Christian, I have my doubts. "

"If you would like to see an example of an ignorant Christian that has no idea of what they are saying, has obviously not been to church in a long time, does not read his Bible, and is not doing his 'faith' any favors, read your own post."

"I will be praying for you so that you may actually become one of my Christian Brothers."

Wowwy Wickstrum! I didn't know YOU were the one who decides whether or not I am Christian! Cool!!! I hope some day, I can we worthy to touch your robes!

Thank you for PROVING why many Christians morons. You are a shining, example of it!
See, many Christians, like you, believe that Church/Christianity is a cool little country club, where people get to tell people whether or not they are "in". And it is apparent from your post that you are the same.

You, nor any of your "brethren" have a say as to whether or not I am Christian. Do you understand that? I don't have to fulfill your stupid little "requirements" to be a Christian. Not even YOU are perfect, despite what you may believe.

See Wickstrum, the only one I need to answer to is Christ.... not MAN (you, priests, pastors, etc). What bothers me is that there are people like you (Protestant Christians) that LOVE to run other people's lives! They love to do it, not because it glorifies God (which it doesn't) but because they love control! They think that because they are Christians, they have a license to condescend.


So let me let you in on a little secret.

Unless you are:

a.)God
b.)perfect

or

c.) all of the above

...you have no business giving me advice. How can a sinner tell m