This video contains graphic scenes of child abuse.


59 comments on “This video contains graphic scenes of child abuse.

  1. Well I can’t say that isn’t a bad thing and you’re right, this will have exactly the opposite effect it is intended to on the vast majority of these young minds, by the time they grow up. But imagine what effect it’ll have on that tiny 1% who carry on believing this stuff into adulthood. Today it’s the teabaggers, tomorrow it’s the book burners.

  2. The troubling aspect to all of this, isn’t’ that they’re openly lying, it’s that they’re doing it in language they know those of us who do accept the scientific method will find offensive. They’re literally using children to attack rationalism. I’ve called this approach passive aggressive fear theology, when I’ve had it aimed at me in the past. It’s played out sometimes very subtly; like adding “I’ll pray for your sins” as the sign off to an email. But occasionally it’s as blatant as it is in this video.

    My all time favourite, though, has to be in an email, sent to me by someone long time readers won’t need too big a hint identifying. “You abandon the Lord because your heart belongs to the devil”. This is a beautifully religious way of saying, ‘you’re evil, because you don’t agree with me’ and I love the symmetry of it. It helps me keep perspective on the mindset of the anti-science movement, at times when I might despair at what appears to be their wilful ignorance—when often times it’s simply that they’ve received nothing but misinformation since they were the age of these kids in this video.

    That’s why it’s important we call a spade a spade when we see these kinds of things being done. It’s just not OK to tell children that lies are true and the truth is lies.

  3. Pingback: Gap Hula Graphic Swim Trunks | Baby Gap

  4. I find this video highly degrading to these poor children. I’m sure I see one of the kids in the first section sitting there with the shocked expression of “wtf is this shit?” on his face.

  5. It’s been a long time sine I replied to anything in Jim’s blog but this…

    3:50 and I quit… I was trying to watch it all, but I couldn’t stand it at all at this point.
    Pop quiz: Why are these “adults” talking to children? Because anyone older would know they’re just spewing bullshit.

    Kill these people, now!
    If you can give me their whereabouts I’ll gladly take the job.
    Just… kill them.

    , Efrem

    P.S.: I’m not joking. Seriously, lynch them!, email me their adress and I’ll go over there and jab a knife into their useless body.
    Peace! ;)

  6. It’s comments like this that make ordinary Christians think “we” must be hiding something, to show so much hatred towards people with an opposing opinion. Yes, they’re morons of the highest order for thinking this stuff up and teaching it to children as fact, but educating them into realising just how deeply mistaken they are is a billion times more rewarding than behaving exactly as they imagine only atheists can. So if you’ve broken your silence to get me to agree with you on this one you’re sadly mistaken.

  7. I have a Christian friend who says he see’s hate group elements in some atheists on the internet. Even joking about killing people simply for what they believe is going to do nothing but fuel his belief. We are not Spanish Inquisitors, we are not Al Qaeda members. These were and are groups who kill those who disagree.

    I have loved ones who believe in a young earth. You want to kill them, your going to have to go through this atheist first.

  8. Your conscience is exactly why we need people like me. I just can’t stand the thought that these people are poisoning the minds of those who are the most vulnerable to this kind of bullshit. How can you just sit by and let this continue to happen? How can anyone?

    And no, I’m not trying to justify the complete innihilation of every single creationist. I’m not trying to justify genocide. I’m just saying, would it be that bad to kill an extremist? Sure, it’d make me an extremist too, but someone’s got to do it.

    And that’s probably what they themselves think…
    Wow, moment of clarity while typing that sentence, I’ll have to think about this.

  9. I won’t have hate speech or threats of violence directed at anyone on my blog. User is banned and reported to

    New comment on your post “This video contains graphic scenes of child abuse.”
    Author : Efrem (IP: ,
    E-mail :
    URL :
    Whois :
    Your conscience is exactly why we need people like me. I just can’t stand the thought that these people are poisoning the minds of those who are the most vulnerable to this kind of bullshit. How can you just sit by and let this continue to happen? How can anyone?

    And no, I’m not trying to justify the complete innihilation of every single creationist. I’m not trying to justify genocide. I’m just saying, would it be that bad to kill an extremist? Sure, it’d make me an extremist too, but someone’s got to do it.

    And that’s probably what they themselves think…
    Wow, moment of clarity while typing that sentence, I’ll have to think about this.

  10. Good move, Jim.

    He justifies killing them, they justify killing him. Where does it end?

    I get angry when I see what I perceive as wrong things being taught. Some tiny part of me would love to bomb a KKK rally or something, but that would only make things worse, and I know that they are only products of their upbringing.

  11. Threatening people with death if they don’t agree with you is the domain of the religious extremists. We’re supposed to be above all that. I can’t and won’t let any blog I admin be used for that kind of thing.

  12. I’m the Christian Mike was talking about who has seen hate group elements in some segments of the atheist community. I see hate group stuff in fundies too.

    I think the majority of Christians believe in Evolution. The things they guy on the film was saying were stupid of course (not to mention his music). He doesn’t’ understand evolution.

    Calling it child abuse is stupid. why is that abuse any more than teaching them Chicago school of economics economics is stupids? Anyone starting a lynch mob to go rid the world of monitorism?

    Doesn’t it occur to you the reason you so filled with anger is becasue it’s one ideology opposed to anther. If an atheist was up there he would be telling the kids of bunch of garbage that atheists get wrong. that’s just a difference in opinion in a democracy wee tolerate those things.

    The brain washed ideologue feels enraged to fight at the triggering mechanism of a rival ideology.

  13. Willfully lying to children, while perhaps not abusive in the sense that we normally think of it, is certainly irresponsible and neglectful. One hardly has to be angry to see that. There was noting angry at all about what Jim posted.

  14. Metacrock: Firstly, can I please direct you to other threads on this blog that specifically deal with the teaching of Darwinian evolution through natural selection, before either of us waste any time rehashing some already well covered topics.

    Secondly, as for the video itself these people are wilfully misleading young minds and exploiting their parents trust with information they know to be false. If you have a particular example of atheistic garbage being taught to children in the way you assert, which you would like to discuss further, I’d be only too happy to engage with you.

    But know this. If it is your intention to merely farm for quotes so you can run your mouth off about me on your own blog, fundamentally misrepresenting what I actually said, I’m just not interested in playing that game with you or anyone else. If you post replies to this topic you do it in this thread or you don’t do it all. I’m not chasing you around just to find out what you’re saying about me without giving me the right to reply, or showing me the common courtesy of printing what I actually said when you do.

    It’s not like we haven’t been there before, is it?

  15. “Willfully lying to children, while perhaps not abusive in the sense that we normally think of it, is certainly irresponsible and neglectful. One hardly has to be angry to see that. There was noting angry at all about what Jim posted.”

    “willful?” I thought they were just stupid and believed what they were saying.

    btw I do want to commend the mod for stopping hate speech.

  16. I agree that it is wrong to characterise this as child abuse because you happen to disagree with what they are teaching. Whether or not evolution is true is irrelevant. Animals can’t really talk does that mean Disney movies abuse children?

  17. When I was small, I vividly remember the day the teacher told us the Adam and Eve story. She went to great lengths to impress upon us that this was just a story; a simple way of describing ‘creation’ or how we came to be. There are many very neat stories in the bible which, so long as they are not taken as a literal account of “how God really did do it”, work perfectly well as part of a young child’s education within the curriculum of, what we call here in the UK, a faith school.

    But that isn’t’ how these stories are being used in this video. What they are doing here is telling the children that if any of those nasty godless fiends out there in the real world ever try to tell them about what is, in fact, the beautiful and truly awesome FACT of how we know humans are inextricably related to all life on Earth, they’re only doing so because they’re in the pay of the devil—and you too will burn for eternity alongside them if you allow yourself to “believe in” the scientific method.

    It is child abuse. Tax deductible, knowingly false, wilfully ignorant abuse of a child’s most precious asset—their mind. It is being systematically carried out by ‘trust me, I’m a Christian’ charlatans who know full well their claims are without any basis in fact. They have been presented with the evidence which rebuts each and every one of their claims time and time again and they ignore it—and defend their ‘right’ to ignore it and continue teaching this garbage to their children under the false premise that it is their religious freedom to do so, while behind closed doors they spend millions on lobbying to change the law so as to teach this stuff in non-religious, state run schools to non-religious children.

    People of this mind-set form the backbone of everything from the young-Earth creationism cabal, to the anti-vaccination campaign, which has led to an increase in childhood measles in areas of the world which were previously free of this killer disease for decades. It is the same group mentality which feeds into the ‘pray away the gay’, anti-equality movement, almost entirely funded by rightwing extremists with a stated aim of irradiating liberal democracy. The same group who have elected 3 of the last 5 American Presidents; one of whom kickstarted the economic fallacy of trickle-down wealth we’re still picking up the pieces from 30 years later, whose successor, the former head of the CIA and serving board member of the Carlyle Group sells weapons to opposing sides in the continuing middle east quagmire.

    In short, this video depicts children being taken up the first rung on the ladder towards political and religious extremism that has no place in any 21st century democracy and anyone who enables this behaviour to continue, on the fundamentally deluded notion that it’s just a talking animals story for toddlers, is enabling by their inaction the destruction of those children’s minds as much as the sickos who lie to them for a living in the deluded belief it serves a greater good.

  18. It’s been a couple of days since I watched this video, but as far as I remember the ‘lecturers’ in it were liberal with the use of the phrase ‘I believe’ before sharing their views. I never heard anyone mention burning in hell.

    In the last paragraph of your rant you call my analogy deluded, but you haven’t shown why. As for being culpable in the ‘destruction of those children’s minds’…wow. So, to you, anyone who isn’t an atheist materialist who believes in evolution has a ‘destroyed mind’? And you call them extremists? Wow.

  19. Wow Jim, thanks! Not only have you got it right, you are proving that this kind of propaganda is incorrect in any area of life.

    The “stuff” that a growing person must wade through to make informed decisions in their life is almost too mind boggling even for someone with a growing head on their shoulders to comprehend. Even choosing a toothpaste is misinformed info these days.

    Is there a start/end line to all these “lies”? What is the use – because in the end IT IS between a person and death that defines what a truth is, and by that time it is too late to make any last breath changes.

    I can see why so many people are “unhappy” and must take up a battle cry for “themselves” to embrace. Some self proclaimed Christians are shouting down the well just to hear their own voice echo nowhere. They do not even speak as they have been taught to in order to acheive an open audience. And all in the name of “I’m right an’ you’re wrong.”

    Since you and I met here to debate in August 2008, I have been distracted more times by what “we” Christians say and do than what is expressed and promoted by “your” camps endeavors.

    I have been taught that if I do not understand something in this world, then I should keep my mouth shut until I acheive knowledge & understanding. How many of us have fallen short of that sage advice? I can’t count how many times I have. And it was you Jim that taught me a difference between “religion” & a “personal belief.”

    Just to ask some open question, what if we are facing a mix of evolution and creatism as the answer to how it all happened? Has anyone epressed how they have/have not approached God in this? And how do we answer a child’s ignorance, when they come to us with these questions (if they do)?

    The Bible says that Jesus was found in the Temple by His parents, at the age of twelve, asking His questions and learning answers that developed His beliefs. Then we didn’t hear from Him until He was 30 or so.

    This expresses to me that; Jesus didn’t have someone making His life anymore dificult than it was going to be. In other words, why are we teaching children in such extremes? I am supported here by standard ECE practices and the common sense of parents, we do not let children play with matches or guns until they learn how to not PLAY with them at all.

    It looks like we have alot of children in the guise of adulthood acting as gods, with loaded guns

    Thus being the case, children are being abused in a manner that we as adults would not tolerate. A child does not want to displease authority, so they try to comply with “US”

    As an open-minded, free thinking person who just happens to be a “beleiver” of GJHS, and ignorant in many respects I’ll leave these simple thoughts with you.

    Sincerely: Darren Kyme Nicholson

  20. what if we are facing a mix of evolution and creatism [sic] as the answer to how it all happened?

    Darwinian evolution by natural selection does not propose to answer the question of how life came to be in the first place. It simply describes what happened to life once it appeared, eventually leading to you and me and everything else. The deliberate omission of this basic fact is the clearest indicator one could wish for that the extremist religions at the heart of the anti-science movement aren’t actually interested in learning what evolution theory actually is. This is made all the more perplexing as it is the fact that evolution does not deal with origins which makes it so compatible with the various creation narratives at the heart of most mainstream religions in the world which do attempt to answer that question. They do not reject the scientific facts of evolution or indeed the teaching of those facts to their children because how we came to be has nothing to do with the question of where we came from in the first place.

    So whilst I would remind you that God is only ever attributed to that which we do not understand, until the point at which we find out (when supernaturalism immediately gives way to naturalism for irrefutable reasons) the religious are perfectly entitled to continue believing whatever they want to believe about what happened before the selection mechanism itself evolved.

    And how do we answer a child’s ignorance, when they come to us with these questions?

    As honestly as you can.

    As an open-minded, free thinking person who just happens to be a “beleiver” [sic] of GJHS

    Upon what evidence do base your beliefs and are you open minded towards having those beliefs proven wrong? What, to you, would constitute a reasonable set of evidence to prove your beliefs are mistaken?

  21. My mistakes:
    How and When do we answer a child’s ignorance? How about as you offered – “as honestly as you can,” and when it is appropriate with a child’s level of maturity?

    I have been making ignorant mistakes all my life. Knowing this about myself offers me an opportunity to step forward in life and beliefs. My beliefs have been created and continue to evolve, and I do not want to be one of those who: follow blindly or keep their head stuck in the sand. That’s why I’m here at all.

    I am just a believer of God, Jesus, & the Holy Spirit. I do not follow a church doctrine or such anymore. There are many things that I have had to relearn in my life. Without rehashing my personal history, I can’t stand here and say that I’m right in everything or know everything.

    I just try to keep my mind open to understand what others have to offer or express with respect and dignity, and I’m hoping that others will return in same. There would be no reasonable set of evidence as of yet to prove my beliefs are mistaken.

    I approach my beliefs with personal conviction in: heart, mind, & soul. Is that more or less than others know about themselves? And certain things have occured in my life that leave me here alive, some call it luck in a bad situation. But I can only speak for myself in faith.

    For example; I beleive that the discussion of creation vs evolution is a deflect to distract as other things are going on, and how it is being accomplished is being discussed in forums such as this.

    Let’s continue, but with our manners intact, because in the end we either lose or win. I’m pointing out to some of the disrespectful replies that we have to suffer as we wade through.

    Thanks Jim.

  22. With respect that doesn’t answer the question. However, you’re in good company. I’ve attempted to elicit an answer to this question from lots of different people over the years, who without wanting to be rude about it almost always describe themselves as “open minded, but…” and in common with them, despite that I’m sure you don’t mean to, you have once again tip toed around what is a very straight forward question.

    You cannot assert your open mindedness to the fundamental unanswered questions on life origins, whilst simultaneously maintaining a giant caveat clause that precludes being proven wrong in your existing position. That is the very definition of close mindedness—albeit one which it is exceptionally easy to fall into, when ones learning and knowledge and experience is skewed by ones religious views*.

    The immediate response to having this fact pointed out, when I have outlined it on numerous occasions in the past—as I say, to many other believers in belief before you—is a falling back on a sort of artificial presumption of stalemate; that it is better to convince oneself that there is a similar paradox at the heart of the argument from atheism which somehow balances out the intellectual shortfall in the argument from design. But this ignores the fact that it is not the atheistic position that there are no gods. Atheism is the factual assertion that there is no evidence of any gods—or any supernatural aspect to reality whatsoever. This is why we talk about the burden of proof being upon those who make extraordinary claims to present extraordinary evidence.

    If it was the case that there existed a gap in our knowledge of the universe and of life itself sufficiently broad that it allowed for a reasonable case to be argued in favour of, say, design or ‘first cause instigation’ then it would be entirely legitimate to continue to hold that view. But as we see in the video above, the only people who continue to make this argument, in the case of life on Earth, do so on the misguided opinion that scientific methodology precludes genuinely critical enquiry—a fundamental misrepresentation of deductive logic and what the evidence it reveals tells us about reality.

    *This, incidentally, is where we during various other debates around these issues, here and elsewhere, have become sidetracked by discussing various confirmation bias phenomena. I’d like to avoid that here if we can and stick to evidence of design.

    So I restate the question: What, to you, would constitute reasonable evidence to show that your existing position is mistaken?

  23. I knew if I waited long enough, the truth would come out! Thank you for accepting your origin Jim.

    Isn’t genetics just like fingerpainting!
    The more you mix them up, the greyer the end results.

    And I’m releived that you didn’t take offense when you were labled as a baboon. I was going to make a further reference to buffoon.

    Dierct answer? It would take OUR LORD JESUS to show me that my current position is mistaken.

  24. So, in your own words, the only way you would accept that you are mistaken, is the emergence of evidence you are correct? Do you now at least understand why it is asserted so often of the deistic world-view that it is circular and self-congratulatory in nature?

    I hope you also accept that it is very difficult to point this out to people without offending them. This is unfortunate as it is unintentional. But there is no easy way to walk somebody through exactly what makes them closed-minded, without their assuming this is in some way intended to belittle them or ridicule their cherished beliefs. Again, this is not my intention; merely is it my hope that by raising consciousness, one blog commentator at a time, as to the logical paradox inherent to the “I’m open minded, but…” mindset, that we can slowly but surely begin to expose the insecurities and fear mechanisms behind the teaching of anti-rationalism to children and adults alike.

  25. This new topic may benefit from a quick defining of the terms.

    Jim, do you accept the following definition of atheism as your position:

    “Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.”

    I believe this is a fairly standard representation.

    Darren Kyme, what are the key pillars of your religion? Could you summarise your position in a similar manner to the above?

    This could be interesting.

  26. Yes, all I would add to that is what I’ve already said in reply 30, “…it is not the atheistic position that there are no gods. Atheism is the factual assertion that there is no evidence of any gods—or any supernatural aspect to reality whatsoever.” [emphasis added]

  27. Well that’s problematic because it directly contradicts the definition in 35. You can’t have a definition which says there are no supernatural or transcendental forces. phenomena or enties which exist or even can exist and then say that isn’t the atheists position. Well, maybe you could, but it wouldn’t be cogent.

    Your definition above (‘there is no evidence of any gods’) is more like agnosticism than atheism (‘there is no God’).

  28. I’ve written at length about the uselessness of labels. I think, in brief, the difference between agnosticism and anti-theism is that the latter wouldn’t wish that any of it were true even if you could prove it, whereas the former don’t wish it were true either, they just don’t like to go on about it too much. For my part, the idea of being watched by what Hitchens calls a celestial dictatorship, who demands that we unconditionally love Him, or suffer an eternity of torture for the sin of thinking clearly, is both repellent and nonsensical in equal measure.

    But I don’t say, “there are no supernatural or transcendental forces, phenomena or enties which exist or even can exist“—nor do I say that, simply because I don’t like it, their existence is therefore impossible. I simply say that there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural aspect and I don’t understand why you say this is contradictory, when as far as I’m aware this is the classic definition of atheism and nothing I’ve said here or elsewhere challenges that.

    I concede, however, that this confusion of definitions is a legitimate problem which I’m not unaware of the need to resolve—and I don’t shy away from at least trying. For example it is often asserted on behalf of atheism that its adherents “believe in nothing”—which is as unhelpful in understanding why so many people are non-religous as it would be to accuse the religious of only being so because they, “believe in everything”.

    Clearly a blind belief in whatever drifts along, so long as it is dressed up in religious vocabulary, does not equate to having an open mind and is not the kind of faith the vast majority of Christians hold onto. Most Christians measure the official teaching of their church against empirical and verifiable evidence and operate the kind of ordinary rationalism under which we all operate almost without question. Most of the religious we’re talking about raising consciousness among, here, by highlighting the ignorance of, say, creationism or any form of anti-science, all make a measured personal judgement about a whole slew of canon laws in exactly the same way as they do the civil laws of the land. What it should be our job to do is at least be honest and practical about that fact, not just with each other but everyone we hope to influence for the better.

    It’s also true to say that refusing to believe in evidence which might happen to corroborate the religious position would be just as ignorant were it held by a lazy atheist; who merely defines herself as such for the convenience of not thinking about any of “it” at all. Unfortunately the career religionists featured in the video clip which begun this thread, often lose site of the fact that positive atheism isn’t unaware of this and they tar us all with the same brush—just as we might be accused of repeatedly citing Pat Robertson or Sarah Palin to the neglect of Alistair McGrath or Dinesh D’souza—who despite their philosophical weaknesses are not without merit as theological thinkers and are an order of magnitude more sophisticated in their albeit self-congratulatroy beliefs than the headline grabbing Christian extremists of the rightwing agenda, known more for the blatant superficiality of their belief in the authority of scripture as they are their intolerance of others.

    Yet allowing such extremists to educate our children on matters which have already been settled, on the deeply mistaken belief that there is a supernatural alternative to irrefutable fact, is exactly what these people are arguing for—and on behalf of those moderate Christians in the middle who believe it can do no harm to “teach both sides”; which sounds like such an appealing solution, particularly in the case of teaching Darwinian evolution, anyone who points out that in fact there isn’t any actual evidence on the religious side of the debate, in favour of design, is immediately cast as the villain. Hence the impasse we now face with our friend Darren Kyme Nicholson.

    It’s getting folks like Darren to realise they’re being lied to by those they might have a natural tendency to trust the most which is the real challenge—not discrediting the creationists, that’s easy. All you have to do to highlight their inadequacy, is repeat what they actually teach but stripped of the various semantic tricks they usually only get away with when their audience is comprised of preschoolers.

    It’s reaching the kind of adult who those preschoolers grow up into that comprises the best opportunity rationalists have had in a long while, to genuinely change the zeitgeist. If we can expose the logic loops and circular thinking which underpin the kind of thinking exemplified by Darren’s previous comments—legitimately and sincerely made though I’m sure they were—we stand a real chance of winning the war on extremism, in a way far in advance of anything our political overlords could dream of achieving through knee-jerk legislation and draconian surveillance of our social discourse.

  29. It isn’t contradictory in and of itself, it becomes contradictory when it is affixed to the end of the definition I got from american atheists.

    Your definition is a little more adaptive than the usual definitions I have seen. I guess the next step would be to define the term ‘evidence’, although there probably is no point unless the Christian will be involved also.

  30. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. There are no requirements to believe or not believe in the supernatural. Many atheists do – one needs only to point towards atheist religions such as Taoism, (some types) of Buddhism, and Scientology to see that. The term you’re trying to define, Michael, is more accurately defined as a rationalist.

  31. No the term I was trying to define was atheism. I don’t believe Rationalism would fit the definition Jim gave any better than Agnosticism. An atheist who defines their position as ‘there is no evidence for God’ encounters a problem because without omniscience they must add ‘..that I am aware of’ for that definition to remain logical. That adjustment however obviously makes them an agnostic. Obviously rationalism itself has its own preconceptions which may overlap with this position but I feel agnosticism is a better fit.

    Your definition that Atheism is ‘simply the lack of belief in Gods’ is better, although I think ‘believe there is no God’ would be more useful. ‘Lack of belief’ is too reticent. A non-position is not particularly useful for the purposes of debate.

    I agree with you that atheists must not necessarily be materialists.

  32. On a light note; a man was witnessed shoving pieces of meat through the eye of a needle. He was asked why he was doing that. he replied he was ensuring that at least one camel was going to make into heaven. One of the answers to “angels dancing” is, infinite – but they might have to do it one at a time.

    I am only able to speak with the faith of a simple layman. All my life I have had this simple beleif that God is real. As I grow older this faith grows stronger. If I may say, I have never seen an atom or a proton, but I beleive that they exist
    too. There are many things snaller and larger than me, just because I can’t see them doesn’t mean that they do not exiat. And I learned this in school and by reading just a few books.

    I understand that some of you don’t want me to come here spouting scripture (nor do I want to), so I find other ways of expression. If any of you can find a way for me to express myself to your satisfaction; let me know, and I will certainly consider your request.

    I am quite ignorant on “Atheism<" so please pardon me for stepping aside on that topic – Jim taught me that –
    but I do watch and listen to you people express yourselves, and I am learning to understand some of the more"liberal?" points expressed here.

    Michael; I am a Christian in faith, not by church. I cannot define for you "Pillars." A lot of ny work involves people of faith who get disgruntled with what is taught to them by "churches."

    Mike aka: thanks for the chuckle, sorry about your head – hoping the angels are not dancing on it too hard.

    That's all for now, flog ne later friends – I'm on email alert to trhis thread

  33. I’ve invited a Twitter evangelical called @JoeCienkowski—who describes himself as a biologist—to comment on this thread. In that light, might I slightly modify the question which Darren has politely and very honestly admitted he doesn’t have an answer to, so that it relates more directly to Michael’s reply number 39:

    What, to you, would constitute reasonable evidence to prove that proponents of creationism are mistaken when they assert Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection is not science? Or to put it another way, how do creationists falsify the theory of intelligent design?

  34. I forgot something.

    Jim expressed to me in 2008 that he is versed in Christianity. His views are informed in more ways that alot of us are. I refuse to be a biased zealot like some that leave their garbage here.

    If there is one thing that God has taught me; to accept, not to deny, because that act offers everyone an opportunity in their way to promote truth. And how many times have I been wrong? STILL COUNTING.

    I was writing this before The email alert.

  35. I’m sorry. I tried to embed a video regarding the truth of evolution and wasn’t able to.


  36. It would appear, in fact, Joe Cienkowski isn’t interested in giving us a break down on how creation biologists falsify their theories:

    If I do manage to find anyone out there who is interested in helping us understand more about this I’ll be sure to let everyone subscribed to this thread know.

  37. It always makes me smile when advocates of religion such as Mr Cienkowski attempt to criticise evolution by calling it a religion.

    Of course I haven’t heard his argument justifying that assertion but the sheer irony alone makes it entertaining regardless of it’s validity :-)

  38. That’s very perceptive of you, Michael. He does indeed make that claim and there are some hilarious reviews of his books on amazon by people who he has similarly failed to impress.

  39. Did this “Christian” bioligist bail on us? There’s nothing @ twitter either

  40. I’m afraid so Darren, yes. If you want to go out there and encourage someone else to respond please make them aware of the reformulated question in reply 45. TIA

  41. It also seems that Joe Cienkowski is one of those “I’m right, fuck you” no-argument all ego “Christians” we talk about when we debate received opinion Fox News viewers, who think faith is a virtue and belligerence passes for debate.

  42. Pingback: So you believe we all came from a rock? « How good is that?

  43. Pingback: So you believe we all came from a rock? « How good is that?

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