It’s Official: An Asteroid Wiped Out the Scientists 150 Years Ago

by Amanda Read | March 9th, 2010

After all, when in doubt, blame an asteroid.  No other disaster will do.

When I was a child I once acquired a mainstream “educational” coloring book about dinosaurs.  The last page in the book featured two parrots with the caption, “This is what dinosaurs look like today.”  But I thought they were called birds, and nobody forced me to think like that.  Following that train of thought, I would later conclude that Evolutionists don’t know science from Adam.

Consider this quick test: What is science?

If you answered, “The only unbiased, infallibly truthful source of answers that we know of,” then you are likely of evolutionary upbringing.  I don’t mean any personal offense, but you’re also wrong.  Science never gives us infallible answers.  Essentially, it only asks questions.  Science is a procedural tool used to discern evidence about the workings of the natural world (the key word being discern).  Colloquially speaking, the definition of science is more inclusive than that, but let us be technical here.  After all, the beginning of a good education in a subject should be to define the subject, shouldn’t it?  [Insert the next few thousand Socratic questions here]

Here is the buzz:

“Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution”

“Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth’s creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children ‘religious or moral instruction.’”

- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re/us_rel_home_school_evolution

Now for a little fact-checking from a homeschool graduate: We DON’T totally dismiss Darwin and evolution.  How then do we view them differently, you ask?  Frankly, my dears, we receive your sacred cows in their entirety, warts and all.  That’s why they look a little different from your airbrushed pinup versions in the public schools.

“‘If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they’re being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology,’ [Jerry Coyne] said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

[Jay Wile] countered that Coyne ‘feels compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis (evolution). We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up.’”

I grew up with a science textbook that said you can never claim to “prove” something through science because of its tentative nature.  My science textbook also said that science is such an expanding field that many things I learned in it might be outdated in a few years.  You call that bigotry?  Narrow-mindedness?  It’s a lot more integrity than can be found in this headline:

It’s official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs

LONDON (Reuters) – A giant asteroid smashing into Earth is the only plausible explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, a global scientific team said on Thursday, hoping to settle a row that has divided experts for decades.

A panel of 41 scientists from across the world reviewed 20 years’ worth of research to try to confirm the cause of the so-called Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) extinction, which created a “hellish environment” around 65 million years ago and wiped out more than half of all species on the planet.

Scientific opinion was split over whether the extinction was caused by an asteroid or by volcanic activity in the Deccan Traps in what is now India, where there were a series of super volcanic eruptions that lasted around 1.5 million years.

- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/sc_nm/us_dinosaurs_asteroid

It’s official? What is this, the final vote count on American Idol?  I see there were only two contestants in this thing: Asteroid vs. Volcanic Activity in the Deccan Traps.  Oh, and do let me guess…the dead dinosaurs appear to have been swimming in a violent torrent because they were clawing through parched sand in their final hours (I’ve actually heard that one before).  Note:  I believe the massive, chaotic fossil record to be a result of the kataklysmos, or Great Flood, though the complete disappearance of dinosaurs is likely due to post-flood factors that dwindled their population.  Maybe I can be a guest judge the next time this panel has an earth shattering decision to make.

You’ve got to put everything out on the dissection table in order to know hypothesis from theory, theory from law, fact from fiction.  Dismiss Darwin?  Why bother?  He was pretty good at dismissing himself.  The beloved evolutionary saint Charles Darwin was a naturalist (not a trained scientist), and his observations of microevolution were a decent contribution to our knowledge of the world.  Besides, every now and then he stumbled upon some interesting advice:

“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often long endure; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, as everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.”

- Charles Darwin

He was certainly right about the false facts part.

“The fact of evolution is the back bone of biology and is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith?”

- L. Harrison Matthews, evolutionist, writing a forward to an edition of On The Origin Of Species in 1971

*Gag* Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, and I’ve theorized that the asteroid 150 years ago might have affected the Associated Press as well.

“If you read the comments on my previous entry, you know that an AP article recently mentioned me and a textbook that I co-authored. Well, there have been a couple of developments you might want to know about.

First, I received an E-MAIL from the author of the story (Dylan T. Lovan). In my reply to his E-MAIL, I mentioned the fact that he truncated my quote about the demographic of homeschooling. He replied with the following:

“I had your full quote on the question of why the homeschool materials industry is dominated by Christian-based texts. I especially wish your last clever line about natural selection would’ve made it in.

“If I’m planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to homeschoolers … I’m going to at least find out what my demographic is. And that demographic is, according to most research, 85 to 90 percent conservative Christian. I think in the end if I were an evolutionist looking at that market I’d say, ‘I’m not going to waste my time on that nonsense.’ ” “If I’m a creationist looking at that market I’m thinking this is a place where my views will be received very well. So I think this is sort of a ‘natural selection.’”

So it was not his decision to truncate the quote to make it sound like I was saying something I clearly was not saying. It’s nice to know that, because Dylan does seem like a great guy. It also makes me wonder how much of the AP’s dismal record when it comes to bias and inaccuracies is not the fault of the reporters who write for the AP.”

Continue reading at Dr. Jay L. Wile’s blog

I’ve got a bunch of exams going on, so I’ll have to wait until Spring Break to respond to my latest commenter.  Check back in a week or so.

~Amanda~

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

37 Responses to “It’s Official: An Asteroid Wiped Out the Scientists 150 Years Ago”

  1. AH! So you did use the title I recommended to you!!

  2. Nice job, Amanda. You are right about the integrity issue. I read the major secular science outlets (Science, Nature, Science News, and Chemical and Engineering News) as well as the major creationist outlets (Answers in Genesis, ICR, and Creation Ministries International) and the major intelligent design outlets (ARN and the Discovery Institute). I find MUCH more integrity in the writings of creationists and the writings of the ID people than I do in the writing of the major secular science outlets.

  3. I believe you asserted on another thread that creationism is science.

    One defining characteristic of science is that any theory proposed can be falsified. For example a scientist makes predictions based upon the theory – e.g. If theory X is true then we should expect to find Y or Z. We find Y & Z therefore theory X is true.

    Evolution may be disproved in a number of ways. Here is one list of lines of evidence which would falsify evolution:
    •a static fossil record;
    •true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
    •a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
    •observations of organisms being created.
    Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

    Now my question is what would falsify creationism? To put it another way what would you accept as evidence which proves that creation did NOT happen? Without such a means of falsification creationism must always remain psuedo-science.

    I’ve provided some lines of falsification for evolution let’s see if you can do the same for creationism.

  4. Oh and for those of you who believe in a world-wide flood at the time of Noah I have two problems for you.

    Problem 1.
    The koala
    How did the koala get from Australia to the Middle East to boad the Ark? See the koala is just a little guy. He can’t move very fast & he ONLY eats certain types of gum leaves. Let’s examine the possibilities:
    1) Australia was discovered by Noah who rowed over here, grabbed up a couple of koalas as well as luckily grabbing just the right gum leaves Noah needed to feed his contented pair or
    2) Our koala couple felt an overpowering urge to migrate, then having marched through the deserts of Australia they swam from Island to island along Indonesia, dodging sharks along the way, then trudged through the indian sub continent dodging tigers and other nasties, before bording the ark.

    In either case after it was all over our poor koala couple had to live off the dead salt encrusted gum leaves dispite the fact that koalas are notoriously fickle where food is concerned.

    Problem 2
    Lack of a world-wide flood layer
    Floods leave flood layers. No flood layer equals no flood! A world wide flood would leave a world wide flood layer. Do we find this? No! We find localised floods at different times but NO world wide flood layer. It follows then that there was no world wide flood.

    Now I know that the ‘good’ people at AIG, etc will spin you a yarn out of whole cloth to explain all this but there is NO evidence to support their explanations. They just put such ad hoc explanations forward to defend their theological views. In other words their ideas are unfalsifiable. But we’ve already covered this in a previous post.

  5. Perhaps any of you who still believe in creation ‘science’ or a world wide flood better view these first:

    Dealing with creationism:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/24/xO7IT81h200

    Dealing with the impossibility of a world wide flood:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/f/1/_sD_7rxYoZY

  6. sorry I should have included the 2nd half of the flood video where the non-answers of creationists are addressed:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA&NR=1

  7. Lindy Abbott says:

    Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!!!!!!!

    My, finally an educated article to answer the question – “what is science?”

    Amanda, I love the wit in your writing because it takes a bit of intelligence to get it.

    This needs to be published in science magazines and sent to every science teacher in the Nation.

  8. Lindy Abbott says:

    Chris,

    Your limited view of the power of God limits your ability to see a koala or any other animal you may decide to choose ability to make it to the ark. Can you without a doubt provide any evidence that the koala was not on the ark? NO! You were not there and I have not seen any packing list or animal list in ark records. Have you?

    So again you must go to evidence. You can’t just disclaim something because you don’t believe it.

    I am comfortable to say I have not studied nor delve deeply enough into this topic and its evidence. I must read the work of scientist, people who are actually asking the questions and searching for answers by discerning evidence…. (evidence can be such a sticky point) when you are use to basing science on thoughts spouted by naturalist, like Darwin.

    Anybody can write their thoughts about the world down. Even I can do that. But science is a discipline that take work, controlled experimentation, careful observation and is always seeking to uncover and to know…not trying to prove or claim “official” (final authority) fact!

    Oh, how boring it must be to be a scientist in an evolutionary environment! To question the premises is to be scoffed at and ‘blackballed’ by other self-proclaimed intellectual in the evolutionary based University and Research Center “science” department.

    I say, set these Doctors and Professors free to question, question, question. Just think how much fun they would have getting to propose their own hypotheses and carefully studying it out. True science is always open to questions.

    What joy! What freedom! Wow! Maybe more intelligent people will want to enter the field knowing they don’t have to check their inquisitive brain in at the Science Department door.

  9. Amanda Read says:

    Chris, I will write a more in-depth response to your comments on my blog as soon as I can.

    For now, the Koala question is simple. Some continents broke up AFTER the Flood – massive climatic changes initiated Earth quakes, etc. Someone in post-Flood genealogy named their son “Peleg,” the name meaning that he was born in the age when the worlds divided.

    The koalas were likely already on the land mass that broke off and became known as Australia.

    ~Amanda~

  10. Amanda wrote “Your limited view of the power of God limits your ability to see a koala or any other animal you may decide to choose ability to make it to the ark. ”

    Goddidit is not falsifiable amanda. Just declaring that as your answer does not make it science.

    Amanda wrote “Can you without a doubt provide any evidence that the koala was not on the ark? NO! You were not there and I have not seen any packing list or animal list in ark records. Have you?”

    Are you aware that your argument is a logical fallacy? The appeal to ignorance to be precise.
    Check it out for yourself: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

    If your argument were valid I could prove the existence of santa by pointing out that you can prove he doesn’t exist. Do you believe santa exists? No of course you don’t! But it’s the same argument.

    Amanda wrote “For now, the Koala question is simple. Some continents broke up AFTER the Flood – massive climatic changes initiated Earth quakes, etc. Someone in post-Flood genealogy named their son “Peleg,” the name meaning that he was born in the age when the worlds divided.

    The koalas were likely already on the land mass that broke off and became known as Australia.”

    Two difficulties.
    1) You do realise that for the continents to have broken up a mere six thousand years ago & to have travelled to their current locations they would be moving so fast they’d create a wake. Wee continent racing :-)

    2) What possible physical mechanism whould cause them to ignore the laws of physics? Or do you dispute those too?

    3) That still doesn’t explain how the koala could escape much faster predators. Lions for example. The koala would never have gotten out of Australia.

    4) Even if the continents had migrated at super fast speed koalas don’t migrate. They move from their tree to the watering hole & back again. If Australia bumped into the middle east the koalas would have ignored it all.

    Now you could always reply that the answer to each one of these is Goddidit – but that makes this idea unfalsifiable & as I’ve already pointed out that makes it psuedo-science.

  11. Check out the videos that I’ve I’ve provided links for & then we can tackle a few other questions – like the absence of flood layers, the sorting of animals into nice, neat columns, etc. :-) Have fun.

  12. Amanda Read says:

    Excuse me, Chris, but you are mixed up. I did NOT say “Your limited view of the power of God limits your ability to see a koala or any other animal you may decide to choose ability to make it to the ark,” nor did I say “Can you without a doubt provide any evidence that the koala was not on the ark? NO! You were not there and I have not seen any packing list or animal list in ark records. Have you?”

    - Those comments were made by Mrs. Lindy Abbott.

    The least you can do is know to whom you are speaking. Your carelessness has just revealed a great deal about your argumentative style.

    “Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau. Mock on, Mock on, ’tis all in vain. You throw the sand against the wind, and the wind blows it back again.” – William Blake

    But I’ll have mercy on you for now and check out the materials you have linked to.

    ~Amanda~

  13. So do you have a source for “The only unbiased, infallibly truthful source of answers that we know of,” or is just your straw-man view of science so you can then pretend to know better?

    I love how snarky you are, it really lets the love of Jesus shine through. This should be fun.

  14. Hello Amanda.

    I agree with much of your writing: modern science journalism is a horribly sensationalistic phenomena. New outlets which allow actual scientists to vent their personal feelings, such as the scienceblogs community, reveal this rather clearly. The sensationalistic mess about Ida, for instance, was derided without mercy by that community.

    But at the same time, this doesn’t give you reason to doubt the actual science. The KT impact theory has a rather impressive amount of evidence in favor of it, including the Chicxulub impact crater, which dates to the correct range and is the correct size to trigger such an event. In comparison, the “Great Flood” theory not only has no corroberating evidence, it actually has a significant amount of contradictory evidence lined up against it.

    Interestingly, meteorite craters are one of the evidences against the great flood. If the entire fossil record was laid down in one hit, one would expect the >150 known major meteorite craters to either be: a) buried at the bottom (occured before the flood) or b) perfectly intact and not eroded (occured after the flood). In reality, there is a large spectrum of craters, some buried halfway down the record, some heavily eroded but still on the surface, etc. Even more damning is this fact: if all known impacts occured in the timespan creationist organisations like AiG promote, the earth would not be habitable due to sustained nuclear winter and ash falls. If they occured at one point in time (I have heard it claimed that all earth-based impacts occured during the great flood), the oceans would have boiled off.

    Your assertion that the breakup of Pangea occured in the last 4400 years is disprovable by island chains, such as the Hawaiian chains, which show where the plate slowly moved across a hotspot in the mantle. With the speeds you are proposing, the island chain would not have had time to form and erode to the extents that are seen. Many of the previously formed islands have entirely eroded (you can verify this with the “satellite” view of hawaii on google maps. The eroded islands are visible as underwater mountains with flat tops)

    Finally, the “massive, chaotic” fossil record is not at all chaotic. It matches neatly with the sedimentary layers and radiometic dating, as well as the nested heirachy predicted by the theory of evolution. We do occasionally find creatures that died in local catastophes, but these finds always correspond to an associated flood plane, volcanic ash layer, or drought layer. As Chris correctly states, there is no global flood plane.

  15. Amanda wrote “The least you can do is know to whom you are speaking. Your carelessness has just revealed a great deal about your argumentative style.”

    Irrelevant to the argument and a logical fallacy known as a red herring. I am somewhat abashed that I incorrectly identified the source of the quote but it revealed nothing apart from the fact that I was rushing when I posted my response. Sorry to disappoint.

  16. Oh and Amanda I noticed you didn’t respond to my counter to your assertions. Why not pray? To quote my own response:
    Amanda wrote “For now, the Koala question is simple. Some continents broke up AFTER the Flood – massive climatic changes initiated Earth quakes, etc. Someone in post-Flood genealogy named their son “Peleg,” the name meaning that he was born in the age when the worlds divided.

    The koalas were likely already on the land mass that broke off and became known as Australia.”

    Four [edit] difficulties.
    1) You do realise that for the continents to have broken up a mere six thousand years ago & to have travelled to their current locations they would be moving so fast they’d create a wake. Wee continent racing

    2) What possible physical mechanism whould cause them [the continents] to ignore the laws of physics? Or do you dispute those too?

    3) That still doesn’t explain how the koala could escape much faster predators. Lions for example. The koala would never have gotten out of Australia.

    4) Even if the continents had migrated at super fast speed koalas don’t migrate. They move from their tree to the watering hole & back again. If Australia bumped into the middle east the koalas would have ignored it all.

    Now you could always reply that the answer to each one of these is Goddidit – but that makes this idea unfalsifiable & as I’ve already pointed out that makes it psuedo-science.

  17. Amanda Read says:

    Red Herring accusation! Oh, Chris, that is sumptuous – exactly what I was expecting you to say. Don’t worry, I’ve studied logic.

    However, I now have evidence that you didn’t even read this article on my blog thoroughly. Notice this note at the bottom:

    “I’ve got a bunch of exams going on, so I’ll have to wait until Spring Break to respond to my latest commenter. Check back in a week or so.”

    That was referring to you, who commented on my post about archaeology, King Solomon et al. That is why I have not taken the time to respond to your challenges.

    Nevertheless, you’re slinging blades and pulling punches while I’m out. How chivalrous. (Ha ha ha).

    ~Amanda~

  18. Amanda wrote “Red Herring accusation! Oh, Chris, that is sumptuous – exactly what I was expecting you to say. Don’t worry, I’ve studied logic.”

    Really? Why don’t you use it more often? :-)

    My accusation of a red herring fallacy reffered to this remark of yours:
    “The least you can do is know to whom you are speaking. Your carelessness has just revealed a great deal about your argumentative style.”

    To which I replied “Irrelevant to the argument and a logical fallacy known as a red herring.”

    It had nothing to do with you responding about the koalas so…who hasn’t read the blog carefully again? :-)

    Now cut the personal insults and let’s debate ok?

  19. For those readers who don’t understand the red herring fallacy it goes like this. I provide an argument. An irrelevant detail is brought up as a counter.
    For those who would like to read about the fallacy themselves it’s here:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

    Example in point: I responded to an argument given by Lindy Abbott. Because I was rushed I put Amanda’s name to the quotes. Did that change the meaning of the quotes? No! Did that change my counter arguments? No! If I had assigned no name at all my argument would still have stood.

    What was Amanda’s response? To point out that I had assigned her name to a quote by Lindy Abbott. Amanda’s point was accurate but irrelevqant to my argument – hence a red herring.

    I would also like to point out that on the basis of one post Amanda asserted “Your [my] carelessness has just revealed a great deal about your argumentative style.”

    This is known as the fallacy of an unrepresentative sample.
    Check it out here:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html

    As tAs to your constant personal insults, etc all I can say is…” forgive you” & turn the other cheek. Would you like to insult me again?

  20. That last sentence should read

    As to your constant personal insults, etc all I can say is…”I forgive you” & turn the other cheek. Would you like to insult me again?

  21. Amanda wrote “Someone in post-Flood genealogy named their son “Peleg,” the name meaning that he was born in the age when the worlds divided.”

    I cannot find a single site with someone knowledgeable in hebrew who agrees with you Amanda.

    According to strong’s hebrew dictionary the word ‘Peleg’ means ‘a river, channel or canal’.
    Source: http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/6388.htm

    Abarim publications gives the meaning of Peleg as “The name Peleg means Division or Divider, although that word is commonly used to denote a channel or canal.”
    Source: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Peleg.html

    How is Peleg used in scripture?
    Well Netbible gives the literal meaning as division.
    Source: http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Peleg

    None seem to agree with you.

    Could you please provide a cite from someone holding at least a Masters in Hebrew who agrees that the name ‘peleg’ means ‘he was born in the age when the worlds divided’.
    Thank you in advance
    Chris

  22. @ Lindy Abbott

    Previously, due to being rushed on my part, I quoted a post of yours & attributed it to Amanda. I’m sorry if you felt slighted in anyway as such was not my intent.

    However you did write “I must read the work of scientist, people who are actually asking the questions and searching for answers by discerning evidence…. (evidence can be such a sticky point) when you are use to basing science on thoughts spouted by naturalist, like Darwin. ”

    Bravo!
    By all means examine the evidence for yourself. I would like to point out something if I may. The scientific method is an examination of the evidence, then the formation of a hypothesis, then another look at the evidence to see if it supports the hypothesis, then testing of the hypothesis through prediction & falsification & finally peer review.

    In peer review scientists will attempt to DISPROVE the proposed hypothesis. Only after it has past all these steps will a hypothesis finally be accepted as a theory. The theory MUST be formulated so it is falsifiabile. That word is very important. It means that the theory MUST be stated in such a way that evidence of one type or another will disprove the theory.

    In an earlier post I provided a list of the things which would disprove the theory of evolution. Here’s the list again.
    Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

    Now my question is what, to your mind, would disprove creationism? Give me two or three things that, if they were found would disprove creationism to you.

    True science is falsifiable. As I’ve shown the theory of evolution is falsifiable – can creationism say the same?

  23. Amanda Read says:

    Chris, I didn’t respond to your challenges because I don’t have time at the moment – but I did have time to point out that you tried to argue with me in regards to something I did not say. Thus, it wasn’t actually a real “Red Herring” because I did not intend to respond to your argument in that comment, nor did I intend to get out of responding later (that’s why I said I would examine your materials). I was only taking the moment to explain that I did not say what two-thirds of your argument said I said.

    Please calm down and be patient. I will answer what I ought in due time. I don’t want to answer hastily because I don’t want to make errors. You call it a personal insult to accuse somebody of having a hasty argumentative style? (Oh my goodness, you took the moment to change the subject to personal insults – RED HERRING!) Most all of you “skeptics” are like that. I was under the impression you were proud of it.

    Besides dude, people have said far worse about me.

    ~Amanda~

  24. Amanda wrote “Chris, I didn’t respond to your challenges because I don’t have time at the moment”

    Then please feel free not respond at all until time permits. I understand essay deadlines & the massive amount of study of required reading that university mandates.

    Amanda wrote ” – but I did have time to point out that you tried to argue with me in regards to something I did not say.”

    Incorrect which is why I quote you and then respond.

    Amanda wrote “Thus, it wasn’t actually a real “Red Herring” because I did not intend to respond to your argument in that comment, nor did I intend to get out of responding later (that’s why I said I would examine your materials).”

    If one did not intend to respond to the argument then one should not have responded at all. Though I will accept your assertion that your use of the red herring fallacy was accidental.

    Amanda wrote “I was only taking the moment to explain that I did not say what two-thirds of your argument said I said.”

    The explaination did not show this & the red herring, although it may well have been accidental was still used.

    Amanda wrote “Please calm down and be patient. ”

    I am calm. Please explain how you think you can assertain the emotional state of a person on the web. I am also quite prepared to wait until you have time to reply. Please stop taking time to reply to explain that you don’t have time to reply. :-)

    Amanda wrote “I will answer what I ought in due time. I don’t want to answer hastily because I don’t want to make errors. ”

    I commend your dilligence & will await your reply.

    Amanda wrote “You call it a personal insult to accuse somebody of having a hasty argumentative style? (Oh my goodness, you took the moment to change the subject to personal insults – RED HERRING!)”

    Two things:
    1) Are you aware this is the logical fallacy known as tu quoque fallacy.
    Check for yourself: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

    2) I did not accuse you of a personal insult merely because your arguments are hasty. I assert that you use personal insults due to your negative personal observations during your previous posts.

    Amanda wrote “Most all of you “skeptics” are like that. I was under the impression you were proud of it.”

    Three further points:
    1) Since you make an assertion as to how most skeptics behave could you please cite the study which gave you such information. If there is no study then I am afraid this is an example of a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalisation.
    Once again check it out for yourself: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/hastygen.html

    2) Allow me to substitute a word here to highlight something. If I wrote “Most asians are like this” Or “Most women are like this” it would be fairly obvious that I was, in fact, presenting a stereotype. Do you think the same can be said about this statement: “Most all of you “skeptics” are like that”?

    3) Why the scare quotes around the word skeptic? A skeptic is someone who asks for the evidence before believing an assertion. Since you assert that you are a truth seeker you also practice skepticism.

    The alternative to skepticism is either general gullibility [someone who will believe anything they are told] or special pleading [someone who uses skepticism to examine every position except their own].

    Amanda finally added “Besides dude, people have said far worse about me.”

    You are mistaken. I have said NOTHING either positive or negative about you. I have pointed out the use of logical fallacies. That says something about your arguments but not you. I have also pointed out the use of personal abuse. Once again that says something about your arguments rather than you.

    Please allow me to raise this additional point. Is it possible – even remotely – that you are using logical fallacies and personal abuse? Check out the definitions of said fallacies & if your arguments match the definitions then maybe, just maybe, you should consider ceasing their use?

  25. Science is a field of study and does not explain the origins of life or many other questions. To elevate it to the level of a religion, which many scientists and evolutionists do, is giving science power that it does not have. Even what Darwin proposed as the Origins of Species was a theory which was not provable. Micro evolution does not explain the origin of life. Creation Science begins with the presumption that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Can one prove that scientifically? Probably not. But there is probably more “evidence” scientifically that a Creator created it than that it all spontaneously erupted millions or billions of years ago. Much of the data and assumptions which scientists come up with regarding evolution get disproven ultimately, such as the various “missing links” like “piltdown man.” Which sounds more fantastical, that God created the heavens and the earth or that aliens from another galaxy seeded the earth, as Dawkins has suggested. If aliens did that, then where did the aliens come from? God tells us that He has always been, which is hard for human minds to get around. But there are a lot of things that are hard for human minds to comprehend. Some people think that if they cannot understand it or comprehend it, they won’t believe it.

    As for meteorite craters versus the global flood, well, we are viewing things after the fact. All one can do is reconstruct how the events could have happened, and look at the aftermath. There is evidence for a global flood and there are crators left where meteors have hit the earth. It is quite obvious that the continents split apart at some point in history, and one can see that just by simple observation.

    I don’t think Amanda is being snarky at all, bathtub, and she did not insult Chris either, any more than Chris has insulted people who believe in Creation Science. One thing you have to consider Chris, is that if there were a world-wide flood 4-6 thousand years ago, then there was a big shake up all over the earth. The flood layers would not have been uniform because of the violent ordeal. Since then, settling would have occurred, and probably differently in different places. Then given all the weather fluctuations and conditions since then, it would be hard to see anything uniform. Don’t you think that is possible? I have more science background than Darwin did, so I think I can suggest that.

    I actually don’t think debating logic in the realm of science is even useful. It has nothing to do with whether God created the earth or not, or whether evolution is real. Neither is provable scientifically, and both require faith. You either have faith that Jesus Christ was a real person (never mind that He is a documented historical figure who actually did walk on the face of the earth) who died on the cross and shed His blood (also documented fact), was buried, and then rose again (requires faith) – or you choose to ignore this and whom He claimed to be, and instead put your faith in Darwin – who was a real person and left real writings. But Darwin did not provide any real answers, only ideas and observations. Jesus made declarations about Himself that you can believe or not believe. When all is said and done, it requires faith to trust in a Creator God, and it requires faith to reject Him. Which one are you willing to risk?

  26. All you are doing Curious is showing that both you and Amanda have to fall back on creating these ridiculous strawmen of science.

    I mean, you have more science background that Darwin, wooo! No one idolizes Darwin more than Creationists.

    It’s always a great measure of Creationist honesty (which you just failed) when they lie that Dawkins believes Aliens seeded the planet. ‘That the aliens would have had to have come from somewhere’ was Dawkins point.

    Curious, could you answer me this question, how do *you* know Piltdown Man is a fake?

  27. Curious wrote “Science is a field of study and does not explain the origins of life or many other questions.”

    My reply: You are in error curious. One hypothesis proposed is that of abiogenesis – it does explain the origin of life. At the moment however it is a hypothesis rather than a theory since it does NOT have enough supporting evidence [it has some].

    Curious wrote “To elevate it to the level of a religion, which many scientists and evolutionists do, is giving science power that it does not have.”

    My reply: The theory of evolution is a scientific theory scince it has gone through the scientific method. It has NOTHING to do with the origin of life however. It merely explains why life has diversified after life began.

    Curious wrote: Even what Darwin proposed as the Origins of Species was a theory which was not provable.”

    My reply: Incorrect. Two points.
    1) Strictly speaking you can only ‘prove’ something in mathematics. In other areas of science you can have sufficient evidence to have a hypothesis accepted as a theory or not.
    2) Evolution has a variety of supporting evidence from many different disciplines.

    Curious wrote “Micro evolution does not explain the origin of life”.

    My reply: Absolutely correct! But then the theory of evolution, as previously stated, has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.

    Curious wrote “Creation Science begins with the presumption that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Can one prove that scientifically? Probably not. But there is probably more “evidence” scientifically that a Creator created it than that it all spontaneously erupted millions or billions of years ago. ”

    My reply: 2 points.

    1) First creationism has NO supporting evidence only evidence against evolution. I’ve even heard it argued that every argument against evolution is an argument for creation. That is incorrect! They could both be wrong or one could be wrong and the other correct. At the moment an overwhelming amount of evidence supports the theory of evolution.

    2) what you refer to by the phrase “But there is probably more “evidence” scientifically that a Creator created it than that it all spontaneously erupted millions or billions of years ago” refers to the Big Bang theory – i.e. the origin of the universe. This is a theory of cosmology. Evolution is a theory in biology – two entirely different scientific disciplines.

    Curious wrote “Much of the data and assumptions which scientists come up with regarding evolution get disproven ultimately, such as the various “missing links” like “piltdown man.” ”

    My reply: Two points.

    1) It was scientists who accepted the theory of evolution who disproved piltdowmn man. Why is their work, based upon the scientific method, acceptable in this area but unacceptable when it provides answers you don’t like?

    2) The term missing link hasn’t been used in scientific circles since the 19th century. If you are refering to the fossils known as transitional forms – those are steps inbetween one species of creature and another – science has found a huge number of them science Darwin’s day. For just one example try googling Tiktaalik.

    Curious wrote “Which sounds more fantastical, that God created the heavens and the earth or that aliens from another galaxy seeded the earth, as Dawkins has suggested. If aliens did that, then where did the aliens come from?”

    My reply: What you are refering to is known as Panspermia. This has NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution since it deals with the origin of life. A 2nd point is that Dawkins has asserted that he was suckered into saying that. He was asked if he could think of any way an intelligent designer could have started life. He responded with the idea of Panspermia – an idea he does NOT hold. But whether this is his view or not does not change the fact that it has NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution.

    Let me put it this way. God could well have started life, then allowed evolution to take it’s course. This idea is known as ‘Theistic Evolution’ & is the belief of a great many monothesitic scientists including Christian, Jewish & Moslem. They have no problem believing in God & accepting the evidence for evolution.

    Curious wrote “God tells us that He has always been, which is hard for human minds to get around. But there are a lot of things that are hard for human minds to comprehend. Some people think that if they cannot understand it or comprehend it, they won’t believe it. ”

    My reply: I couldn’t agree with you more. If anyone rejected belief on such flimsy grounds I’d believe they were just a twit.

    Curious wrote “As for meteorite craters versus the global flood, well, we are viewing things after the fact. All one can do is reconstruct how the events could have happened, and look at the aftermath. There is evidence for a global flood and there are crators left where meteors have hit the earth. It is quite obvious that the continents split apart at some point in history, and one can see that just by simple observation.”

    My reply: Several points to reply to here.
    1) If the flood were true then the craters would have been either eroded away if they hit before the flood, or be almost new looking if they hit after the flood. Four thousand years is the blink of an eye in geology. Not nearly enough time for the craters to show the erosion they do.

    2) There is no evidence for a global flood. Floods leave flood layers. No flood layers equal no flood. Now a world wide flood would have left a world wide flood layer. Do we find this? Nope! Therefore there was no world wide flood.

    Curious wrote “I don’t think Amanda is being snarky at all, bathtub, and she did not insult Chris either, any more than Chris has insulted people who believe in Creation Science.”

    My reply: You certainly have a right to your opinion but I beg to differ. However if my comments where interpreted as personal attacks then I apologise.

    Curious wrote “One thing you have to consider Chris, is that if there were a world-wide flood 4-6 thousand years ago, then there was a big shake up all over the earth. The flood layers would not have been uniform because of the violent ordeal. Since then, settling would have occurred, and probably differently in different places. Then given all the weather fluctuations and conditions since then, it would be hard to see anything uniform. Don’t you think that is possible? I have more science background than Darwin did, so I think I can suggest that.”

    My reply: Unfortunately what you suggest does NOT agree with the evidence. Let me put it this way. A world-wide turbulent flood would have left the fossils all jumbled up. We’d find some human remains low down & others up high. But this ISN’T what we find. Please watch the videos:
    #1
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/f/1/_sD_7rxYoZY

    #2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA&NR=1

    They explain far better than I ever could.

    Curious wrote “I actually don’t think debating logic in the realm of science is even useful. It has nothing to do with whether God created the earth or not, or whether evolution is real. Neither is provable scientifically, and both require faith.”

    My reply: You are incorrect.
    1) Science started out as a branch of philosophy, and as such it was subject to the rules of logic just like every other branch of philosophy.
    2) The scientific method requires that the scientist examines the evidence then proposes a conclusion based upon the evidence – in logic this is known as ‘induction’. Such a hypthesis must be falsifiable – that means able to be proven wrong! This is a concept in the philosophy of science argued by Popper.

    Curious wrote “You either have faith that Jesus Christ was a real person (never mind that He is a documented historical figure who actually did walk on the face of the earth) who died on the cross and shed His blood (also documented fact), was buried, and then rose again (requires faith) – or you choose to ignore this and whom He claimed to be, and instead put your faith in Darwin – who was a real person and left real writings.”

    My reply: You are mistaken. There are many, many scientists who are devout Christians who have no trouble accepting the evidence for the Theory of Evolution. If one had to give up his or her faith in order to accept the theory of Evolution then there wouldn’t be any Christians who accept it – i.e. they would all be atheists. Since, as I’ve pointed out, many Christians do accept it then the theory of evolution & faith must be compatible.

    Curious wrote “But Darwin did not provide any real answers, only ideas and observations.”

    My reply: This is only partially correct. Darwin provided observations AND proposed an explanation for those observations. This is what science is about – not just endlessly recording facts but also proposing an explanation [i.e. an hypothesis] for those facts. Then the scientific method takes over – i.e. observe data, propose hypothesis, test hypothesis, publish findings [making sure that the hypothesis is falsifiable], expose hypothesis to peer review.

    Curious wrote “Jesus made declarations about Himself that you can believe or not believe. When all is said and done, it requires faith to trust in a Creator God, and it requires faith to reject Him. Which one are you willing to risk?”

    My reply: Since I neither accept nor reject Jesus – I’m a Zoroastrian – I’m afraid my answer is that I will go wherever the evidence leads.

  28. Benjamin Franklin says:

    Ken Miller offers a better definition of science that what is put forth in your original post.

    Paraphrasing, he said – Science is the methodological study seeking to find natural explanations for natural phenomena.

    If you put forth supernatural explanations, whatever it is, it is not science.

  29. Bathtub, Creationists do not idolize Darwin, they just give him credit for starting the hoax of evolution. Piltdown man, as Chris correctly stated, was debunked by scientists who performed chemical analysis on the fossils in 1953. They found the teeth had been filed to fit and that the bones had been stained to appear old. The whole thing was a fraud. People also jumped to conclusions with Nebraska man (named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii), whom some heralded as an early ape-man in 1922. An artist’s rendering( or imagination) was even made of this being, and was even displayed at the Scope’s Trial. Three years later, scientists discovered this was a mistake. The tooth that started the excitement was found to be from an extinct pig. But these and other false assumptions concerning fossils, were not very well cleared in the public’s mind. I remember reading of Piltdown man in my science textbooks in the 60′s and 70′s, as though it were scientific truth. So you see, even when first conclusions paraded before the public as fact are proven false, the powers that be in the field of science don’t do a very good job of clarifying the reality. I suppose it is a bit embarrassing.

    Now, for both Chris and Bathtub, one of the main evidences that God (Yahweh) created the Heavens and the Earth is the evidence of intelligent design. What is meant by that is that there is just too much visual evidence and order in every aspect of nature, from wildlife to plants to the Seasons to the cell and innerworkings of the human body, to even consider that it all came together by random chance and mutations, which means that it could not possibly have evolved, even given billions of years. (By the way, do you know how many years that is? Do you really think the earth is that old?) I think this is what Dawkins was forced to admit – that there does seem to be order and intelligent design in nature, but he does not want it to be God that is responsible for it. There are numerous scientists who admit and adhere to intelligent design, but they are not well received by evolutionary scientists. That is to say, there is not honest and gentlemanly debate allowed, generally speaking, because evolutionary scientists cannot even entertain the idea that there could or might be such a thing as a God who did the creating in the beginning. Chris stated that there are plenty of evolutionists who believe in Christ, and maybe there are. There certainly are those who, as I said before, see evidence of intelligent design in every aspect of nature. But the idea of macro-evolution is not biblical because it assumes that God did not have anything to do with creation. So to believe in evolution and Jesus Christ as the Son of God is not compatible. They work against each other. Jesus Christ was the Word of God made flesh, and in the beginning was the Word. Now, I know you will reject this, but that is OK. You are free to believe what you want to believe. God will not cram Himself down your throat if you don’t want Him. But my problem with evolutionary science, the theory of evolution and scientists who refuse to even acknowledge a creationist scientist as a legitimate scientist, is that they parade such a theory, which has so many bogus elements in it, as a hard and fast fact. Millions of children are being brainwashed in schools to believe in evolution as a certain fact to the point that they think everything in the Bible is a myth, which it is not. This is a different discussion I know, but you see it is all connected. After all, the 10 Commandments are where we get our moral laws from in this Nation (check out Blackstone’s commentaries).

    Lastly, Chris, what do you mean that there is no flood layer on the earth that would indicate a world-wide flood? While most people think of the layers of mountain formations, etc on the earth as being due to millions and millions of years, is that the only way to look at them – with that pre-conceived notion? On this earth, there are three main features on the surface: 1) sedimentary rock which contains layers of sandstone, limestone and shale. These were clearly made by moving water. These layers of sedimentary rock that cover the entire earth are generally several miles deep down, but in some places only inches thick, and in some places hundreds of feet. 2) Volcanic rock layers are also over much of the earth, sometimes interspersed among the sedimentary layers, and with evidences of volcanic eruptions under water 3) Finally, fossils are found abundantly in the rock layers. Jumbled masses of all different kinds of fossilized bones found together are evidence of a catastrophic burial. Fossils are created only by a burial of some kind. It also does not take millions of years to create a fossil. For example, there are fossilized fish found in shale in a region that is 3,000 feet above sea level (in Wyoming)- they seem to have been choked to death in a flood of mud. I would say this is all evidence of a massive, world-wide flood. There are probably many evolutionary geologists that would see it all differently, but if they took away the millions of years idea, then perhaps you could see it more clearly. But perhaps you all think you know so much more than the rest of us, that you are somehow so much more educated. Perhaps I am wasting my time even responding. I do have a real life, so for now, I’m done talkin’.

  30. Curious wrote “Bathtub, Creationists do not idolize Darwin, they just give him credit for starting the hoax of evolution.”

    My reply: You are incorrect. Evolution was recognised by the ancient Greek philosophers. What was missing was the mechanism that made it function – i.e. natural selection.

    Curious wrote “Piltdown man, as Chris correctly stated, was debunked by scientists who performed chemical analysis on the fossils in 1953. They found the teeth had been filed to fit and that the bones had been stained to appear old. The whole thing was a fraud.”

    My reply: Only partially correct. Piltdown man was first suspected because it did not agree with the other pieces of evidence which were being examine. It was an anomaly. It was examined by scientists who accepted evolution & found to be a fraud.

    Curious wrote “People also jumped to conclusions with Nebraska man (named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii), whom some heralded as an early ape-man in 1922. An artist’s rendering( or imagination) was even made of this being, and was even displayed at the Scope’s Trial. Three years later, scientists discovered this was a mistake.”

    My reply: you are incorrect. To quote talk origin “The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett 1985; Gould 1991). Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.
    The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind”.

    Second the evidence was NEVER used ibn the Scopes trial. No evidence supporting evolution was allowed as the judge argued that such evidence was irrelevant to the case.

    Curious wrote “I remember reading of Piltdown man in my science textbooks in the 60’s and 70’s, as though it were scientific truth.”

    My reply: I doubt that very much. Unless the pages in question were demonstrating fraud & how it is detected.

    Curious wrote: So you see, even when first conclusions paraded before the public as fact are proven false, the powers that be in the field of science don’t do a very good job of clarifying the reality. I suppose it is a bit embarrassing.”

    My reply: 2 Points.
    1) It is scientists, not creationists, who are revealing these frauds. If all scientists were concerned about was protecting their dogma such would not be the case.
    2) These frauds were paraded by the press & NOT scientific journals. The press has a great reputation for sensationalising a story & then moving on. Creationist organisations & not their press however have been caught out in lie:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

    After lie:
    http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/

    After lie:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html

    Curious wrote “Now, for both Chris and Bathtub, one of the main evidences that God (Yahweh) created the Heavens and the Earth is the evidence of intelligent design. What is meant by that is that there is just too much visual evidence and order in every aspect of nature, from wildlife to plants to the Seasons to the cell and innerworkings of the human body, to even consider that it all came together by random chance and mutations, which means that it could not possibly have evolved, even given billions of years.”

    My reply: First ID was shown to be based upon ignorance at the Dover trial.
    2) The theory of evolution is NOT based upon chance. DNA produces imperfect replications of itself. Those which are beneficial to the organism survive & those which are harmful do not. That is about as random as the Earth orbiting the Sun.

    Curious wrote ” (By the way, do you know how many years that is? Do you really think the earth is that old?)

    My reply: You do realise that according to the ID movement the Earth is 4.54 billion years old don’t you?

    Curious wrote “There are numerous scientists who admit and adhere to intelligent design, but they are not well received by evolutionary scientists. That is to say, there is not honest and gentlemanly debate allowed, generally speaking, because evolutionary scientists cannot even entertain the idea that there could or might be such a thing as a God who did the creating in the beginning.”

    My reply: This is quite simply false. As I have previously pointed out there are a great many scientists who accept the evidence for evolution AND believe in God. Both can be done!

    Curious wrote “Chris stated that there are plenty of evolutionists who believe in Christ, and maybe there are. There certainly are those who, as I said before, see evidence of intelligent design in every aspect of nature.”

    My reply: Your acknowledgement that there are scientists who believe in God contradicts your assertion that the scientific community refuse to accept ID because of athiestic bias. Abviously believing scientists whould NOT hold such bias but they too dismiss ID as anti-science.

    Curious wrote “But the idea of macro-evolution is not biblical because it assumes that God did not have anything to do with creation.”

    My reply: You are, once again, incorrect. As I have previously pointed out Theistic Evolution proposes the idea that God started created the first form of life & started the evolutionary process.

    Curious wrote “So to believe in evolution and Jesus Christ as the Son of God is not compatible. They work against each other. Jesus Christ was the Word of God made flesh, and in the beginning was the Word.”

    My reply: This has NOTHING to do with evolution. You previously admitted that christian scientists existed & now you assert that the theory of evolution & christianity work against each other. Quite obviously since christian scietists exist this assertion is not true.

    Curious wrote “But my problem with evolutionary science, the theory of evolution and scientists who refuse to even acknowledge a creationist scientist as a legitimate scientist, is that they parade such a theory, which has so many bogus elements in it, as a hard and fast fact. ”

    My reply: I have pointed out several times what constitutes science. It must adhere to the scientific method. The theory of evolution does this but creationism does not. Therefore the theory of evolution is SCIENCE & creationism is NOT!

    Curious wrote “Millions of children are being brainwashed in schools to believe in evolution as a certain fact to the point that they think everything in the Bible is a myth, which it is not. This is a different discussion I know, but you see it is all connected. After all, the 10 Commandments are where we get our moral laws from in this Nation (check out Blackstone’s commentaries).”

    My reply: I have read blackstone’s commentaries. You are incorrect. The laws of the US are based in part upon Roman law & in part upon precedent. Examples: The bible says NOTHING about tort law. Tort laws exist in the US. Where did they come from if all laws are based upon the bible?

    Curious wrote “Lastly, Chris, what do you mean that there is no flood layer on the earth that would indicate a world-wide flood? While most people think of the layers of mountain formations, etc on the earth as being due to millions and millions of years, is that the only way to look at them – with that pre-conceived notion?”

    My reply: You are once again incorrect. The scientists who proposed an old date for the Earth were originally scientists who believed in a young Earth. The evidence convinced them otherwise.
    Creationists, on the other hand, if they work for a creationist organisation must sign a statement which declares that they MUST believe in a young Earth. Who is working from preconceived notions again?

    Curious wrote “On this earth, there are three main features on the surface: 1) sedimentary rock which contains layers of sandstone, limestone and shale. These were clearly made by moving water. These layers of sedimentary rock that cover the entire earth are generally several miles deep down, but in some places only inches thick, and in some places hundreds of feet. ”

    My reply: Strata that exist at different levels were laid down in different ages. That being so this cannot be evidence for a worldwide flood which must have laid down a flood layer in the SAME strata.

    Curious wrote “2) Volcanic rock layers are also over much of the earth, sometimes interspersed among the sedimentary layers, and with evidences of volcanic eruptions under water”

    My reply: True but this has NOTHING to do with a world wide flood.

    Curious wrote “3) Finally, fossils are found abundantly in the rock layers. Jumbled masses of all different kinds of fossilized bones found together are evidence of a catastrophic burial.”

    My reply: This is in fact totally wrong. If that were true we would find mammals mixed up with creatures from the Cambrian. We would find humans remains mixed up with the triassic. We don’t find this at all. Each fossil is neatly found in particular strata. Why is a universal flood jumbled all these fossils up do we find this? Answer: There was no universal flood!

    Curious wrote “Fossils are created only by a burial of some kind. It also does not take millions of years to create a fossil. For example, there are fossilized fish found in shale in a region that is 3,000 feet above sea level (in Wyoming)- they seem to have been choked to death in a flood of mud. I would say this is all evidence of a massive, world-wide flood.”

    My reply: Then how did Noah save the fish? If fish were smothered by the flood [and they would have had their gills clogged with all the silt] then why do fish still exist? Did Noah create tanks & then blow air into them every minute or so to airate the water?

    Curious wrote “There are probably many evolutionary geologists that would see it all differently, but if they took away the millions of years idea, then perhaps you could see it more clearly. But perhaps you all think you know so much more than the rest of us, that you are somehow so much more educated.”

    My reply: There is nothing unique about scientists. They have examined the evidence in their field, that’s all. Let me put it this way. Let’s say you have a series of blinding headaches. You go to see a specialist & he tells you the bad news – you need an operation. Natually you are quite concerned. But I tell you “don’t worry. The doctor is just using biased medical science. My book on plumbing says you’ll be fine.”
    Who are you going to listen too? The dosctor who relies on evidence & medical science or me? Someone who is basing my ideas not on evidence but on blind belief.

    Thank you for taking the time to reply.

  31. @ anyone interested
    As to where I’m coming from I WAS a creationist. Unfortunately I studied logic & I examined the evidence. Try watching the videos I suggested & then go off and do some thinking.
    Video #1
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/f/1/_sD_7rxYoZY

    Video #2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA&NR=1

    Video #3
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/a/u/1/BS5vid4GkEY

    This is the start of a series. Watch them for yourself.

  32. @ Everyone who’s interested

    You might like to consider this.
    Augustine wrote that, quite often, non-christians knew about the natural world. Now if christians make false or misleading statements about the natural world & claim it comes from scripture then those same christians have just ruined the chance of those same non-christians taking what the bible says about God, salvation & so on seriously. Why? Because those same non-christians know that what the christians are claiming about the natural world is simply NOT TRUE.

    Please, Curious, Lindy, Amanda, please check out your facts very carefully before you claim that they are true & supported by scripture. Consider what Augustine has said. Thank you.

  33. Curious wrote “After all, the 10 Commandments are where we get our moral laws from in this Nation (check out Blackstone’s commentaries).”

    Please allow me to deal with this in more depth.

    The 10 commandments:

    1. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Beside Me
    Except that you have a constitution in the US which guarantees the freedom of religion. You can’t have freedom of religion if an individual can only worship one God.

    2. Thou Shalt Not Worship Any Graven Images
    Once again this is against freedom of religion.

    3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain
    I think you will find that this violates the principle of freedom of speech as guaranteed in your constitution.

    4. Remember the Sabbath Day to Rest and Keep it Holy
    Which sabbath day – Saturday or Sunday?
    No matter which one you enforce there would always be one group which claim the other is correct. And that is only if you restrict the issue to Christian groups. What about other religions or those who hold no religious beliefs?

    5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.
    Two objections.
    1) This is NOT found reflected in any law even symbolically.
    2) What if the parents are evil [e.g. the parents are child molesters, murderers, etc] should the child still honour them? Seems silly doesn’t it?

    6. Thou Shalt Not Murder
    Yep I agree this is accepted in US law but it’s accepted in every other country in the world. Are they all basing their objection to murder on the biblical prohibition against it?

    7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.
    There were once laws in the US which prohibited adultery. Such laws have been repealed long ago. If such were not the case people like ted haggard as well as many other religious right leaders would have ended up in prison.

    8. Thou Shalt Not Steal.
    Another one that’s reflected in laws all over the world. Are we to believe that laws against theft in say Japan or China are actually based upon the biblical prohibition against theft?

    9) 9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.
    Whether this is expressed in US law depends on how it is interpreted. If it is a general prohibition against lying then it has never been reflected in US law. If it was then you’d have to arrest every politician in your country :-).
    If it is interpreted as a prohibition against lying in court then yes the US law prohibits that but so do many other countries. Are they all based upon the biblical injunction?

    10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Anything That is Thy Neighbor’s.
    How would this even be enforced? Since coverting can be strictly a mental activity how would anyone even find out? That being so how could it be made illegal?

    So out of the 10 commandments we’ve got a total of three, count ‘em, three commandments which MAY be written into US law. But there’s little to no evidence that the inspiration for laws against murder, theft, and perjury was the bible & not some other source.

  34. @ Curious

    You wrote “Curious wrote “Millions of children are being brainwashed in schools to believe in evolution as a certain fact to the point that they think everything in the Bible is a myth, which it is not. This is a different discussion I know, but you see it is all connected. After all, the 10 Commandments are where we get our moral laws from in this Nation (check out Blackstone’s commentaries).”

    I would like to discuss this further if I may.
    Firstly to argue that something should not be accepted because the consequences of its acceptence are bad is a logical fallacy known as an Argument to the Consequences.

    Let’s accept for the sake of argument that both evolution is true & that the laws of the US are based upon the 10 commandments. How does the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution affect the law? If a law is good it could have been inspired by a Disney cartoon for all I care. The only important considerations in a law is 1) is it just? & 2) Is it effective? The original inspiration for the law itself is irrelevant.

    Secondly you argue that evolution brings about disbelief in the bible. I disagree. It is creationists arguing that that either the bible is correct about creation or it is wrong about everything who are bringing the bible into disrepute. Merely prtoving that, in one area, the bible should be understood poetically is NOT to argue that it is all made up nor does it discourage belief.

    Allow me to present this example. There are several verses in scripture that speak of the Sun going round the Earth. Christians at the time argued that NOWHERE in scripture does it say that the Earth goes round the Sun. When scientists like Copernicus & Galilleo argued that the Earth orbited the Sun many christians were outraged.

    What was the result? The Church adapted to the idea of the Earth going round the Sun and read such verses as “the sun rises, the sun sets, & hastes to the place where it rose” as just poetic metaphore. Christianity wasn’t destroyed. Is your faith destroyed to learn that verse, and others like it, should be read as a metaphore? Of course it isn’t!

    It’s the same with creation. The bible doesn’t describe the how of God but the why. One professor I spoke to said “do you want to know the message of Genesis? It’s simply this – everything started by God’s will.” Now if God used evolution to decide on the form life would take after He started life in the first place who are you or I to say that isn’t good enough? That God’s creation must take exactly the form outlined by the poetic metaphore of Genesis?

    Or perhaps you still believe that the Sun goes round the Earth because the bible says so?

  35. Hello Chris – I do note that you studied logic and evolution and it seems to me you are thoroughly confused as a result. Your logic is illogical in some of your challenges to my comments. To begin with, Darwin most certainly IS given credit for promoting the idea of Evolution, and it does not matter if the Greeks thought about it too, or if the Babylonians did or whatever. Atheism has been around for a long time too, as the Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.” (Psalm 14:1). But I would also give Richard Dawkins credit for popularizing atheism, which has nothing to do with Evolution except that Evolution does not, in many scientists’ minds, need a God.

    I never said that the picture of Nebraska Man was used as evidence at the Scopes Trial, I said that it was displayed. I was not incorrect.

    I did read about Piltdown man as a child/young teen in science textbooks, and for you to imply that I am mistaken by saying “I seriously doubt that…” is only your opinion, and challenges my veracity.

    It does not matter to me who figures out a fraudulent fossil, or who makes a discovery that reveals a mistake concerning a particular theory about Evolution -whether it is a scientist or a creation scientist, a Christian or non-Christian. The discovery is what matters.

    I know how DNA replicates. If it replicates imperfectly, it is known as a mutation. This occurs in cancerous cells. Mutations are not known to be beneficial to cells and thus do not benefit an organism. Yes, weak or sick organisms tend to die out and not reproduce to further their kind. Generally, only the strong survive, only now, due to medical and technological advances, those individuals or animals that are born with genetic anomalies can hope to survive longer than they once did. I do not think that technological advances are a result of Evolutionary thinking though, since “survival of the fittest” would be more in line with Evolutionary thinking.

    It doesn’t matter to me that the ID scientists think the world is billions of years old. I simply disagree with them. One can be a Christian and believe the world is billions of years old or that God started the process and let it continue on its own or whatever. I personally don’t see that as even possible, but one can believe what one wants to believe. So it is not contradictory for me to say that “Yes, some scientists are Christians, but in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT, where there are ardent Evolutionists who do not believe in God and do not want Him anywhere in science, there is ugly opposition even to the thought of Creation Science.” I am quoting myself here because I just don’t have time to repeat everything I said or you said like you do. What I am saying is that Evolutionists will not entertain ID or Creationism because they say that is not science. My opinion is that Evolution may fit into the Scientific Method, but it has never advanced beyond theory or even hypothesis. Micro-evolution does exist certainly, where species evolve within their own species in order to adapt to their environment and everyone can acknowledge that.

    With regard to flood layers, I believe that the different eras such as Cambrian and Triassic, adhere to the imagination of scientists trying to separate the layers found according to the millions of years ideas. There is a round-about way they have of determining the age of the stratas and the age of fossils. They wrongly figure an age of the fossil (carbon dating has been proven to be incredibly inaccurate in many scenarios), then ascribe the age to the strata layer. Then they say that the fossils were found in a certain layer and must then be that old. And fossils do not always appear in neat layers. As for fish fossils being found, I would assert that not ALL fish were killed in the catastrophic flood, only some of them. There were waters bursting forth out of the earth in some areas as well as from the sky, so some parts of the waters were violently upset.

    I said that our moral laws came from the 10 Commandments. Our MORAL laws did. They of course are not all enforced, but it is absolutely true that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and authors of the Constitution, were entitled to assemble and declare their independence from England because of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” I have a copy of Blackstone’s commentaries, so perhaps I will be able to study them more thoroughly and get back to you.

    The only reason evolution brings about disbelief is that people think that if evolution is true, then the Bible can’t be true, because Evolution does not allow for an Intelligent Designer or a God. It does not matter that scientists will tell you that you can believe in God and believe in Evolution. They say that because they know that people who believe in God and believe the Bible, are not going to give up their faith for a theory that has yet to be proved. So they encourage people of faith to keep their faith in Church and out of Science. Some people don’t mind compartmentalizing. But I cannot give Evolution any credit at all, because the Bible was around before the current Theory of Evolution. You can argue with me all you want, but I still cannot give Evolution any veracity at all, whether you deem it is Science or not.

    The Bible is not here to prove science. The sun orbiting around the earth scenario you mention is not something that I would use to disprove Scripture or try to make up some Science to support it or any of that nonsense. The Bible does not declare that the sun orbits the earth. Maybe I will go and study it since it has been a long time since I read that particular verse. No one’s faith has to be destroyed unless their belief in God is destroyed. From what I see, Evolutionists would prefer that people forget about God all together, when I think it is far more exciting to seek God and what He can reveal about Creation. But people can believe what they want to believe, I just don’t want some scientist declaring that God does not exist and must not be allowed to be mentioned in the debate – which is what a lot of the die-hard Evolutionists do – you have to admit this.

    Good night and God bless.

  36. After research a few of the weblog posts on your web site now, and I truly like your method of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website record and will be checking back soon. Pls take a look at my web page as effectively and let me know what you think.

Leave a Reply

Be Forewarned…

The Alabama-based writer, filmmaker, Christian homeschool graduate, unconventional college graduate, military daughter and eldest of the 9 Read children. The origins of Sincerely Amanda are recounted here.

Subscribe to Amanda Read

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow Me on Pinterest Dresses from Shabby Apple

Interviews

Family

Friends & Acquaintances

The names mentioned above are friends and acquaintances that I have met in person. In other words, I know they're for real.
Active Compassion for the Persecuted – persecutionproject.org

Willing To Be Examined

"Man was at first a perfect upright Creature, The lively Image of his Great Creator: When Adam fell all men in him Transgress'd, And since that time they Err, that are the best, The Printer Errs, I Err much like the Rest. Welcome's that Man, for to complain of me, Whose Self & Works are quite from Error free."
- Nathaniel Ames (Almanack), 1729.
My constant prayer is to glorify the LORD far beyond my own finite imagination!

"Vindicate me, O LORD, for I have walked in my integrity, and I have trusted in the LORD without wavering. Examine me, O LORD, and try me; Test my mind and my heart."

- Psalm 26:1-2