This man has spent the last 20 years telling tax-free lies for Jesus


30 comments on “This man has spent the last 20 years telling tax-free lies for Jesus

  1. Great Video!! I appreciate you putting this up on your sight! I hope a lot of other people watch it!!

    Dawkins argues that secular science has converged that the earth is 4.5 billions years old. Whereas, the Christian scientists looking at the exact same evidence see a sudden moment of Creation that resulted in what appears to be age.

    Of course, secular scientists want to argue that the earth is 4.5 billion years based on the principle of uniformity; however, the Creationist is right to argue that the principle of uniformity is unjustified and believed by faith.

    It is a classic starting point for both faiths of Christianity and Atheism and is clearly a the faith starting point for both views.

    I was really encouraged by the video. Dawkins could not even get the guy to trip up on his words or thoughts. Dawkins was stunned on many occasions during the exchange because he is so biased and overwhelmed by the secular culture that he cannot even think outside the box.

    I do give two thumbs up to Dawkins for being willing to engage in the exchange. It tells me that he really doesn’t know for sure in his heart that his position is true.

  2. While I fully expected you to completely miss the point, it never ceases to amaze me how much you people actually enjoy being deeply wrong–it’s almost like it’s a badge of honour as to how much of the wrong end of the stick you can bite off and chew.

    John Mackay is well versed in his argument because he’s the one who made it up. His intellectual dishonesty is staggering. This is precisely why Dawkins and others refuse to debate creationists. If you can’t compete with someone’s surreal imagination with mere facts, logic and abundant independently acquired corroborative evidence, how on Earth are you supposed to point out the basic errors these people revel in repeatedly making?

    There is simply no way to converse with someone who, on one hand, asserts that evolutionary science “needs the Earth to be old to make any sense”, while on the other hand failing to realise this is exactly why everything they say couldn’t possibly be true. He undoes his own point with his own point. An impressive feat of self-delusion worthy of a Ronnie Barker sketch.

    If what he has to say made any sense, it would be an alternative theory embraced by the scientific community precisely because that’s what science does. Individual scientists might have a personal agenda, I accept that, but science as an unblinking method for establishing facts does not.

    You can not consider opinion to be equally valid as fact. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as the scientific method. It would be the “I have a good idea” method and anyone with an active imagination would be just as entitled to make truth-claims as everyone else; to call what they think about something true, regardless of their ability to prove it so.

  3. I am not sure how I can be deeply wrong. The scientific community at one time thought the world was flat. It just turns out they were wrong. Science in fact has been wrong on a ton of things.

    I personally think you just have a blind faith in the latest theory. If you could open your mind, you might be able to see other possibilities.

    I am not saying the creationist is correct or the evolutionist is correct. I am just saying that the principle of uniformity can be brought into question and is unjustified as a theory. The principle itself does not prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

    What if the earth had been formed through rapid cooling, you would expect to see a ton of layers show up almost immediately as it cooled. Is rapid cooling possible? I think it is…but you are caught in a box that won’t let you think in different ways.

  4. Pingback: Lousy Canuck » Some atheist readings

  5. Here is another example: Darwinian scientist use to believe that there was a homosexual ‘gene’; however, now the APA is advising that their is no evidence for the ‘gene’ They believe that it may be related to a mixture of nature and nurture.

    APA now states (website): “What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

    Check out the link!

  6. The fact is that science has never been able to repeat the history of the world. As such, Creationists are correct to state that we were not there and philosophical assumptions have to be applied. In fact all the dating methods are based on assumptions. I found it funny that Dawkins mentioned Carbon 14 dating. Three rocks from the same location were sent to three different labs using Carbon 14 dating and they all came up with wildly different dates for that rock…

    Since we have no eye-witnesses of the history that Darwinians are making a positive claim for, we have no credible evidence that can be used by the scientific method. They are faith assumptions based on your worldview.

    I find it interesting that Darwinians now believe that the moon ricochet off the earth; yet, they don’t believe in a worldwide flood. If the moon hit the earth, it is very reasonable to believe that there was a worldwide flood that would have been sudden and short term.

    In any event, that is just the type of inconsistencies that you get from Darwinians since they are religiously committed to their worldview and can’t think outside the box.

    In fact, you are not able to think outside the box. You implied in your post that you believe in the big bang theory. I personally believe that creation started at a point in time also; however, the uniform temperature of the universe has to yet be explained.

    Once again, you are going to have to think outside the box Jim and this is where I believe you have problems. You have been blinded by bias and can’t see anything but Darwinian theory which even Darwinians believe is riddled with problems and inconsistencies.

    In my opinion, the only means of explaining the universe is God speaking it into existence because no matter how you look at it, something came from nothing which is impossible using a naturalistic worldview.

  7. Reply to # 7 & 8 “ZDENNY”. But your theory is obviously also flawed. I visited your blog and it appears you are a creationist. No matter how man wholes you try to poke into scientific reason, it does not lend to your “belief”. You have mentioned Dawkins in your post, have you ever read “The God Delusion”. It can explain my point far better. Simply without even arguing any other point, we come to the inevitable problem of who created the creator. An end game of sorts. No matter what else is said, without explaining this point, no further argument can go on. But lets pretend this is not a factor. You mention the collision of the moon with the earth. As far as I have heard, the moon itself didn’t collide with the Earth, another object did. Blasting the moon out of a chunk of the Earth. The reason most scientists believe this is because geographical and rock samples from the Moon consist of the same elements that the Earth does. Suggesting they came from the same source. As far as a world wide flood? Once again as far as I know, their is no evidence to prove this. I will admit I have heard their was a massive flood in the known world at the time. But that lends to the fact that the bible is incorrect even more, because it lends to the fact that the bible is written by man. A man who only know his own small part of the world. This would also explain why several types of animals are never mentioned in the bible, because they had not been discovered yet. In your response you also mentioned the APA release saying there has never been found an evidence suggesting homosexuality is a genetic trait. I assume (sorry if the assumption is incorrect) that you then do not approve of homosexuality because it is against God? Well their is another study from the APA that says homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed. Not really nice of God to say homosexuals are an abomination and should be put to death, when all evidence shows they (we) cannot change our orientation.

    APA Report:

    I also wonder, has the APA ever found a gene that makes straight people straight? Just something to think about. That also brings up the fact, that science and reason, dooes not claim to know everything. If evidence was given to disprove evolution of prove God existed, legitimate scientists and myself included, would change our views. That is the difference between science and religion, science is based on evidence found, even if they are flawed, but changes when the evidence says it should, while religion is static. Evidence is set in stone. For generations that Vatican still claimed the Earth was flat. We obviously know very little in the grand scheme of things. But that still does not way to the theory of creation. Technically creation is not even a theory, considering their is no proof what so ever. You say that either way, something came from nothing. Like I said, even if we cannot explain all details, we must go with what we know, not with something passed down by the generations and obviously changed over time. Now your thinking with current philosophies. To understand the big bang theory, you can’t think like you are now. We are talking about extremely complicated physics. Like I said, read the God Delusion and you’ll get a much better grasp of what I’m trying to say. Have you heard the theory of the teapot. Their could be a teapot floating out in space, but we don’t believe their is. There is no way to prove 100% that their is no God, or that the teapot isn’t their. But we would not go through life believing in a teapot, why believe in God? You also seam to try to hit at the fact that not all scientists agree. Well I think it would be good to mention, that their are many religions. Religious people do not all agree with each other either. For example, traditional catholics do not believe in same sex marriage. But many churches do. Now for some reason, one religion often trumps another. So much for religious freedoms for everyone. Point being, many people also believe in physic abilities and witchcraft. Why not believe in these? There is just no evidence to prove God exist and we should only rely on what we know, no matter how limited it is. Even if we knew nothing about the world, assuming a God created everything still makes no sense. I do want to remind you though that I am not an expert on this. For the best information, head over to:

    Conversation is always a good thing however. If you personally asked me why I do not believe in God, I would say because I use my own mind, I don’t rely on my upbringing or what I am automatically told. For example much of my family is religious, and I was raised in a religious home, but I don’t rely on what my family told me, and I shouldn’t.

  8. Jim said, “Science as an unblinking method for establishing facts…”

    You miss the point Jim because there are no facts in history that can escape interpretation without credible witnesses.

    The evidence you site is merely circumstantial. It is not conclusive. Dawkins fails to realize that he has closed himself off to other possible explanation because of his blind belief in one particular theory.

    Dawkins is no where near scientific in this method. The scientific method requires the ability to duplicate an experiment in order to demonstrate that it is true. Dawkins himself has only been alive for 80 years so it is impossible for him to demonstrate his methods are in fact accurate.

    The dating methods may or may not be accurate based on the unproven assumptions contained in their calculations. We have no eye witness testimony that we can site going back to that time.

    If you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old based on circumstantial evidence, then you certainly can believe the gospel when it claims that Jesus rose from the dead since the evidence is not circumstantial; rather, it is based on eye witness testimony of the events which have a lot more credibility than the mere faith assumptions that are used to calculate the age of the earth.

    In order for the age of the earth to be scientific on a historical level, we would have to have eye witness testimony from a person in order to determine it beyond question; however, there are no written records that have been preserved showing the earth is beyond 10,000 years old.

    I find it interesting that Darwinians with all their assumptions agree with Creationist believe that man has walked the earth with an intellectual capacity for 8,000 to 10,000 years. We can agree on the date of man because the evidence supports this; however, to go back further in history is a faith assumption because we have no witnesses of the event and the dating methods assume assumptions that cannot be shown to be true at this time.

    What this means is that the field is really open to discussion as inquiry always should be. I don’t think we should make assertions and determine to narrow the field of inquiry based on unproven assumptions.

    Christians and Darwinians are actually a great check on each other and provide a balance to the field. If Darwinians assumptions are in fact not justified, then this results in a more limited inquiry closing the area of possibilities rather than being open to new evidence.

  9. The God Delusion is really a delusion by itself! You stated, “who created the creator”

    The problem with Dawkins is that he believes everything has a natural design; however, he does not realize that a design is that which has process, pattern and form which sums up all of reality. All of reality has been designed.

    However, God does not have process, pattern and form so God is not a design; rather, God is simple, unchanging and eternal. One of the main criteria for form is that a mind can recognize the form. God does not have form so if you saw God, you would not be able to recognize him since God does not have form.

    Russell and Dawkins made the same mistake and it is really an strange one to make that most theologians bat away without ever thinking about it.

    Even Jim thinks there is a couple seconds that you can stick God into the creation of the universe.

  10. “Even Jim thinks there is a couple seconds that you can stick God into the creation of the universe.”

    No, what I said was that you can try to crow-bar a creator into that billionth of a second if you want, but only if by doing so you give a better explanation than that which has already been given and yet can still describe natural phenomena without making assumptions as to their origin. You then went on to demonstrate you didn’t understand what this meant and continued to fall back on a premise I had already shown to be flawed and followed up on this by ignoring the problem altogether because the fallibility of individual scientists is the only talking point you know how to rest back on, despite that it was never in any doubt to start with.

    That you don’t fully understand just how narrow the remaining space left for a creator myth is, (let alone one which resembles Yahweh) is extremely telling of why so many of the other things you have to say only make sense to you. This is why you are so frustrated with me personally. You think that the only reason I am disagreeing with you is because I am an “atheists with an agenda” who wouldn’t be so lost if I only accepted Jesus into my life and so on. Newsflash. It is not that I don’t “get it”, because I’ve been hijacked by the devil’s close-mindedness, OK? It’s just that I happen to be able to prove you are wrong–not because that is my opinion alone–but because my opinion is supported by the very facts you refuse to recognise as legitimate evidence.

    Against that kind of dogmatic determination, even when by any ordinary standard you would be happy to admit your mistake, there is simply no way to reach an understanding–because while both of us use the same language, only one of us is communicating. You, my friend, are not receiving, you are broadcasting–and there is simply no way to engage with someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong and not in a small way.

    “In order for the age of the earth to be scientific on a historical level, we would have to have eye witness testimony from a person in order to determine it beyond question; however, there are no written records that have been preserved showing the earth is beyond 10,000 years old.”

    Let’s see how far this kind of thinking gets us when applied to a far shorter time-scale. Since we’re talking hypotheticals here, let’s go crazy and pretend there is no such invention as the camera. Let’s go further still and say that there is no means of mechanical data storage whatsoever. The only means of passing information on from one day to the next, from one person, tribe; from one continent to another, is by verbal face to face communication. How would you know your parents existed before you were born? How about their parents and their parents?

    Would you refuse to accept that your family existed before you were born because you’ve never spoken to your great-great grandfather? Let’s suppose that you did, despite that this simply isn’t borne out by the facts–not the least of which being your very existence. What witchcraft is this? How could it be that you exist despite having no recollection of the world before you were born–much less the people who made it?

    Nonsensical, isn’t it? And yet that is precisely the premiss upon which you are expecting us to accept not just as a reasonable reason to question existing collective wisdom, but as the ultimate compelling reason to abandon all existing means of gathering knowledge altogether. You are asking for nothing less than a suspension of our critical faculties simply in order to accommodate an idea which is proven to have no basis in fact.

    That is the very definition of close mindedness–and it punctuates the frustration felt in ordinary society towards religious extremists like you, whose only entitlement to speak on matters which they do not understand is borne of an emotional commitment to failed cognition which they believe should be shared by everyone–particularly those of us who have shown it to be arrogant, false and destructive.

    “If you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old based on circumstantial evidence, then you certainly can believe the gospel when it claims that Jesus rose from the dead since the evidence is not circumstantial; rather, it is based on eye witness testimony of the events which have a lot more credibility than the mere faith assumptions that are used to calculate the age of the earth.”

    I do not believe anything on circumstantial evidence. If I did, I might be the sort of person who believed that a book such as the bible was based upon eye witness reports–which, by the way, is a statement which exactly contradicts your earlier assertion that nothing is real unless you have observed it for yourself.

    Now, are you going to give me ONE example of a scientific theory which has been proven to be incorrect by non-scientific means, or not?

  11. From

    Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence. In England, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification “constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions”. Yet despite substantial anecdotal and scientific support for the proposition that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, it is held in high regard by jurors in criminal trials, even when “far outweighed by evidence of innocence.”

  12. First, The resurrection of Jesus has multiple eyewitnesses so your objection does not apply.

    Second, the evidence of the age of the earth is certainly circumstantial and not conclusive. The assumption is that the principle of uniformity applies; however, this is a faith statement on the part of a Darwinian which cannot be proven since history has only occured once.

    In order to demonstrate that the earth was 4.5 billion years old scientifically, we would have to have someone present 4.5 billion years ago to confirm it beyond question. The fact is that we only have evidence of human life for 6-10k years. The rest including the dating of rocks is based on circumstantial evidence and based on assumptions.

    Thanks for your thoughtful response; however, I don’t think you have been hi-jacked, etc.. I just think you are very closed minded and not willing to consider all the facts due to your faith.

    In my opinion, the evidence for Darwinian or the Creationist viewpoint is not conclusive. I am being honest with the facts even though I am personally a modified Creationist.

    You on the other hand are being dogmatic because your faith in Atheism rests on your scientific understanding of the world.

    I have noticed that Atheist get very insecure when they don’t have a foundation for their life and they can become very hostile. I have noticed that you are doing the same thing.

    Even Dawkins admits that we have never observed evolution itself; however, he assumes evolution based on the circumstantial evidence that he sees. While Dawkins admits circumstantial evidence, he believe that the circumstantial evidence is conclusive.

    You are not willing to follow Dawkins and admit probability applies to your argument and simply are falling back on dogmatism.

    I know how important security is. A Christian can be secure regardless of science since our lives are based on faith; however, an atheist does not have the same psychological ability to navigate life without having the crutch of certainty in science in order to ground their life.

    I think this is the main reason that secular scientist are so hostile to Christian viewpoints. They are closed minded due to the pscyhological necessity of having to have a foundation. When you mess with their paradigm, they can go crazy because they think you are attacking them personally.

    I really am not attacking you personally. I am just trying to help you be more open-minded to facts that don’t fit your paradigm. In order to become more open-minded, you will have to accept the love of God in your life so that your psychological foundation is not based on your understanding material reality.

  13. Bronze age man is not the earliest evidence we have of human civilisation. You are wrong. You don’t know what “circumstantial evidence” is. You have a different definition of the word “faith” than that which it is assumed to mean by 99.9% of the English speaking world; including the parts on which Popes, Bishops, Pastors and Priests in your country and mine live and preach. You represent a tiny minority within even your own sect–the vast majority of whom only think the way you do, because they do not understand the difference between opinion and fact.

    You are, I assume, American? That’s not a typical British pompous ass-hole question, it’s a genuine one. Because if you are, I entirely understand why you think the way you do and I don’t hate you for it, I just wish you realised the scale on which you are being lied to and have been since birth.

    The one thing we both, I guarantee you, have in common, is a desire to live in a world without hatred and ignorance. Intelligent Design flourishes on misinformation literally designed to sound appealing to exactly the sorts of people who are so keen to drink it in, they simply ignore any accepted principal by which their ideas might be presented for peer review.

    Choosing to opt-out of a system which disproves your ideas as false does not immediately make them true, simply because of how many people believe they are regardless of the facts. If you can’t disprove existing knowledge, you can’t prove your own–it’s as simple as that.

    I do not have faith in science. I have faith in myself and other people like me who have nothing to gain from lying to themselves or anyone else. I am an evolved ape and in common with you, I have a gland in my brain which thrives on a mix of adrenalin and dopamine, which feeds another part of my brain which is too small to vouchsafe anything processed by my sensory organs as absolute reality. That is why science stands back from human fallibility on the shoulders of arithmetic and logic.

    These axioms are not, by any means, infallible–but they are sufficiently demanding of evidence, that in the case of certain kinds of scientific theories, such as evolution by natural selection, faith they are true and the fact that they are true are semantically indistinguishable from each other.

    Science does not lack faith in a single idea from a single man who wrote a single book containing a single, completely unfalsifiable idea, dressed up to look like lots of different ideas; “You can have anything you want, as long as it’s Spam.” Science unblinkingly reveals the facts. What we do with that data is entirely the concern of our emotional, ape brain–advanced in its complexity it can invent the concept of ‘enlightenment’ and sufficiently stupid enough to make the custodian of its definition that ego driven part of us all which actively seeks the opposite.

    You bracket the bible as if it is a ridged slab of rock and interpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean. I am, according to you, an “atheist” and yet it would appear I have more respect for the historical value of scripture than you do. Because, make no mistake, the bible is a fascinating artefact in human history, alongside the Egyptian book of the dead, magna carta, the pyramids, Angkor Wat, Ring of Brodgar and Skara Brae–but that doesn’t make a single thing it has to say about reality true, precisely because of how clearly it is known, as a book, to be authored by that which we now know to be false.

    On personal attacks: I’m afraid you are somewhat confrontational without realising it, or why I am so personally offended by the idea that the whole of human history should be reducible to a childish Pagan myth.

    And then there’s the demonisation of free thinking and secular humanism in the church owned and government media. You might note, that Adolf Hitler didn’t fail to conquer the world because his plans entailed spreading peace, love and free enquiry to a world rid of superstition and hatred–and yet, I have no doubt, somewhere in your arsenal of reasons for mistrusting progressive atheism, is that old nugget about godless mass murderers, like Stalin and Pol Pot–as if the religious haven’t had their fair share of evil patriarchs.

    If it is your concern that I simply learn more about religion before I judge it, that is something I couldn’t possibly argue with–but that is because I enjoy understanding how things work. I am fully aware that good people everywhere do good things because they believe that they are doing so in the name of Jesus. I am also fully aware that the people who benefit from their altruism also believe they are in his service too. But that does not automatically mean that there is, therefore, a spiritual realm beyond the grave where special people write our special books for us.

    Nor, I grant you, does it mean that such a realm does not exist. But presuming that it does without any interest in seeking paradise in the life we know for an absolute 100% fact we are already living, and using the fear of not getting another stab at it when you’re dead as your only reason for behaving well towards other people, is not moral–it is selfish, which ironically, on a biological level, is exactly how our species has managed to survive this long.

    If you want to debate like an adult with people about the range of implications that this truism opens up, you have a pallet to express yourself which starts at music and art, passes through history and into the here and now, ending wherever you choose to take it. But blankly assuming that such a journey is anything other than your own subjective experience, to such an extent that the only way to win in a war of ideas is to cheat yourself of all the facts, makes you the one guilty of operating artificial selection–the very beast you’re so desperate to avoid.

    What is clear, from many discussions I have had of this kind, is that the vast majority of the creationist’s problem with evolution isn’t natural selection, because they don’t understand what that is. Their real fear is Darwinism–which is an entirely different kind of politics. No-one, in their right mind, would want to live in a world where the poorest people are trampled the hardest underfoot. To wish of such a thing is abhorrent. But we have a choice about inflicting this pain on others. The micro-organisms and bacteria, hormones and proteins which constitute DNA based life on Earth do not have any such choice, because they aren’t driven by artificial selection, they are natural processes, which have no mind or care about any specific direction, they simply drive towards survival.

  14. Jim, I once again appreciate the reflected thought in your answer. In all honesty apart from the Bible I believe that the universe is young.

    After studying the cosmos one thing hit me hard, we only have evidence of a few stars dying. The life of a star is limited and with billions and billions of stars, we should see thousands dying everyday if the universe was in fact 14 billion years old. However, we find only a few dying here and there.

    The second fact that hit me that you won’t find in most text books is that they have no direct observations of star formations. With the universe containing billions of stars, we should see these things forming on a daily basis; however, we don’t even have one example as of yet.

    When I looked at what the astronomers were saying, I felt like I was being feed a propaganda line and I was asking, “Can’t these folks think outside the box?” I find this very true in your case. You are caught in a box of faith and you write off Creation and God even though you can’t explain all of the conflicting data that exists.

    While I am a Christian, I am open to the evidence; however, it has to be coherent and right now it is very incoherent. The facts don’t fit the picture presented by the Darwinians.

    The big problem I find for old universe people is the decay of the magnetic field. Old Universe people have no evidence that suggest that these field oscillate. The magnetic decay rates put the universe right between 6-8k years. I find this amazing!! It is not just the earth; rather, the other planets are experiencing the same type of decay including the sun.

    While you have a blind faith in an old universe, I am just saying that you have to be open to the evidence. The evidence is not coherent and we have a ton yet to learn.

    I also find it fascinating that we float on a ball of matter racing around a nuclear reactor. Radiation fills space which makes space dangerous for man even with special equipment. I was really blown away after studying all the other planets realizing that earth is very unique and this is hard to miss. In fact one scientist thought the planet earth was really the strangest phenomena in the known universe.

    When it comes to science, I have to be honest that there seems to be facts that go both ways. The evidence for a young universe appears very strong; however, you also have some evidence for an old universe that appear to result more from faith than facts. I just don’t think it is wise to be dogmatic when so much learning and discovery stand in front of us.

  15. Please do something for me, Zdenny. I want you to promise me that the next available free time you have, you will go to your nearest Natural History Museum. Arrive early and leave late. Ring ahead before you set-off and plan your day around talking with the experts who work there. Ask them anything you want to know and if you don’t understand their answer ask them again. I guarantee you will not be asked to take anything they say on faith.

    When you have done that and you have tried your very best to understand the difference between opinion and fact, please feel free to come back here and tell us why you have either had your mind changed or you have had your existing beliefs reenforced.

    What there is no point in doing, until you have done that, is for both of us to continuously add more and more replies to this thread, where only one of us is listening to the answer. If that reads in a condescending way, it is unintentional. It is merely my intention to be honest with you, perhaps in a way in which no-one ever has taken the time to be with you, over these matters.

    All of your questions and confusions are based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. We can’t hope to approach an understanding of why you think this way, if you are to nevertheless continue making statements on reality which are not corroborated by evidence.

    I look forward to reading about what you have learned.

  16. When watching the video, I wanted to ask where on earth this guy got his idea that we ‘can’t view the past from the rules of the present.’ I wonder if, when he goes to his doctor, he has similar feelings of distrust regarding xrays, antibiotics, and other medical technology, that has been thoroughly tested to produce consistent results. I guess predicting the present from the past is okay, but not predicting the past from the present. Where exactly did this notion come from? Then I realized he’s just making it up.

    For a long time, (about 8 years) I accepted the theory of evolution while maintaining as a devout Christian, viewing natural selection as a tool of God’s creation. To be honest, were it not for other philosophical and moral complications in religion, I could probably still maintain that opinion (that God used evolution to create the world). From a pure biological perspective, evolution does NOT threaten Christianity except for the literal interpretation of genesis, which most faiths have given up on taking LITERALLY.

    I used to not understand why folks like this guy couldn’t just meet scientists in the middle — admitting that evolution is the best known theory of how life has come to be, while still standing strong on christian values, morals, stories, the bible, etc. I guess the biggest reason these folks CANT DO MIDDLE is the eventual question asking. Why do young people struggle between creationism and evolution?


    When you accept evolution as a scientific fact, you start to:

    1)Wonder what other ‘myths’ are presented as facts in the Bible. We’ve done the autopsies, and Adam isn’t missing a rib. Strike out.

    2)No longer have dominion over the animal kingdom. You ARE an animal. You lose your special ego trip over being the ‘best’ in the world (though to be fair, you still have the greatest amount of brain power and the ability to plan far into the future mixed with curiosity gives you an amazing survival advantage.)

    3)Start to wonder about the legitimacy of talking snakes.

    4) Start to ponder why ‘seeking knowledge’ is the first sin. Not sex, not nakedness… but seeking knowledge.

    5) Start to doubt the morality of visiting the sins of the father upon the son. (Um… Adam and Eve screw up, and now the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE is doomed to be born with sin.)

    6) For that matter, if God is so powerful and can see in the future, why allow Eve to ‘evolve’ into a risk-taking, curiousity-driven, apple-eating sinner? I mean, God KNEW, as a result of human sin, he’d have to send his son to be crucified. Could he not have had a pinch of prevention here to prevent the pound of cure?

    7) Hey, for that matter… why not God just ‘wooosh’ wipe the Adam/Eve sins clean from the get go? Why the hell does God require a blood sacrifice? Is this a WoW spell? God is the freaking creator of the universe, yet he needs to go through all this drama just to clean up a mistake?

    And so on.

    It’s late, I’m tired.

  17. But one more thing…

    It infuriates me to no end how Creationists refuse to accept dating methods as legitimate.

    “The only way to know if a sample really has a half life of 200 years is to measure it at the beginning and then 200 years later.”

    Really? Really? Is the only way to know what 5+5 equals is to count each individual finger every time? What about more complicated algebraic equations?

    For the record, science does not take samples, swish them around in test tubes, and then FEEL like the answer is 4.5 billion years old.

    Math isn’t just a fluke used to create numbers out of thin air, nor is scientific dating processes. If you really want to know WHY dating works, READ ABOUT IT. Don’t make ridiculous statements like, “The only way to know is…” People who do this have no knowledge of algebra, calculus, or what a half life is.

    “Google” how does carbon dating work

  18. I agree with Kaybee that Evolution is the best theory from a naturalist perspective. In fact, some form of it is the only option for belief if you assume that God does not exist; however, the evidence also supports a young universe which would point to the fact that evolution may not be a fact…

    The present is the key to understanding the past is an assumption and may be unwarranted based on the evidence. The past may actually contain processes that we are currently not aware of.

    For example, the magnetic field decay rates suggest that the universe is very young being only 6-8k years old. Instead of being honest with the evidence, the Darwinians came up with the oscillation theory which is an unproven assumption to make the data fit with an old universe theory needed to support evolution.

    Is that being honest though when we have no evidence to suggest the oscillation theory of magnetic field?

    A Christian says it is not honest and more investigation is needed until we are able to demonstrate that this is in fact true. Christians demand the scientific method be used rather than just shooting theories in the air in the hopes that it is correct.

    Darwinians still have yet to cause life to form from non-living matter. Once again, Christians demand that the scientific method be used rather than just shooting another theory in the air.

    All I am saying is that the evidence is not conclusive. If it was, there would be no debate on the issue. The fact that there is so much controversy is because the evidence goes both ways so you need to be open minded.

    Christians believe in being open-minded and allowing the facts of science to guide us to the correct conclusion. When you have evidence that is unsupported with the scientific method, then it is hard to be conclusive on either side. Christians support teaching both Evolution and Creationism for this reason. We believe that everyone needs to be open minded and be critical about all theories that exist. It is the dialogue that is helpful in reaching the correct conclusion.

    I thought it was funny that Jim said, “Natural History Museum” The assumption of naturalism is placed right in the name. You should really call it the Secular Interpretaion of History Museum” since this is what it really is.

  19. Magnetic decay? This is the thing you’re harping on now??


    1. The earth’s magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth’s history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth’s interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field’s polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).

    2. Empirical measurement of the earth’s magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

    3. T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth’s interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth’s core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser’s dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the “current” caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling’s theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.

    4. Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.

    Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments?

    Thompson, Tim, 1997. On creation science and the alleged decay of the earth’s magnetic field.

  20. The dynamo earth has already been demonstrated to be false. Of course, Darwinians believe in the theory anyway because it’s the only way to justify the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years old.

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. Instead of being honest with the facts, they will believe something that is false because they are more committed to Darwinian theology rather than the facts. The facts are not conclusive so why jump the gun and draw conclusions that are not justified.

    In order to be open-minded about science, your life cannot be based on science. Christians are open to all competing theories because our lives are not based on science. While we may that the Bible is true, we also know that the tool of science is a work in progress.

    As just one example, Christians were open to the idea that something came from nothing. Even Bertram Russell was closed to this idea and thought it was crazy. Now most believe it…

  21. Interesting debate. Jim on the basis of this comment “individual scientists might have a personal agenda, I accept that, but science as an unblinking method for establishing facts does not” I recommend you get yourself a copy of TS Kuhns ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’. It’s an old one now, but still as relevant as ever.

    The basic idea is that whilst science is a process of fact collection, those facts must still be interpreted by people, who are prone to do so within the confines of an overall paradigm.

    However analyses made in this way invariably prop up invalid theories above alternate explanations which may better fit explanations (for example BBT Vs The Electric/Plasma model) causing the incorrect models to become modified over and over again, becoming increasing complex and philosophical rather than simply accepting them as falsified.

    The outcome of this is cyclical ‘paradigm shifts’ or ‘revolutions’ which occur when the dominant theory eventually collapses under its own weight, or when its major proponents start to die out from old age, whichever comes first!

    I believe it is essential to consider things like this (and others such as the sources of funding, integrity of peer review etc) before placing ones faith in science as an answer in and of itself.

  22. At the risk of being the only comment on this being shorter then several paragraphs: Why do religious people so insist on saying things like “faith in science”? I was of the opinion that science is based on facts and logical reasoning. Science is just that, and does not require faith of any kind, whether you like it or not.

    And since it is based on facts, it is unvariably true. And no kind of blind belief in any kind of omniscient being can change this. Truth is truth and religion is false, deal with it. I’m sure this will sound incredibly rude and ignorant, just keep in mind that it is not as ignorant as some others commenting on this. I could write names but I doubt it’d do any good.

  23. Efrem, before posting comments such as the above, do yourself a favour and look into what ‘Science’ actually is. On second thought don’t bother, I will do it for you.

    From Wiki:

    “Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.
    In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research”

    What you call ‘science’ is simply a method for information gathering, it is not ‘based on facts’ it collects the facts. It is not ‘invariably true’ it is invariably open to interpretation, which is exactly what happens when scientific theories are developed.

    Science as a method is obviously invaluable, but do not doubt that as with any discipline involving the interpretation of raw data (statistics for example) it is possible to reach the wrong conclusions. This is the reason that people who elevate ‘Science’ into this grand overarching concept which absolves them of any responsibility to think for themselves tend to irk me, especially when they make statements such as “Truth is truth and religion is false, deal with it” whether I agree with them or not.

  24. Michael: Firstly, thanks for the link to ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’. It sounds like one of those books I had no idea I wanted to read until I heard about it. Thanks again.

    The larger point I was trying to make, which I assume you understood since that book sounds very much to be on this very topic, wasn’t a small point of saying, “science is always right, whether you like it or not”–unlike the overly simplified definition of materialism creationist commentators here like to congratulate themselves for making, over and over again.

    The statement you highlighted was in the context of reminding Zdenny that all the wish-thinking in the world doesn’t disprove a scientific theory, just because you want it to. I could have perhaps phrased it better than I did, but I think my later point on our ape brain’s ability to process information rather better padded out the point I was trying to make.

    Efrem: You’re preaching to the choir albeit rather more succinctly than I sometimes manage to. Please feel free to read more in the science and rationalism category on this blog and comment at will. Always good to see a new face, so to speak!

  25. No problem Jim, and just so you know your continued mention of the falsifiability principle has finally led me to take the plunge and get my self a copy of Popper’s ‘Logic of Scientific Discovery’, despite the fact the premise does seem to clash with Kuhn’s work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s