Ben Stein's work in his new controversial movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has earned him praises and now an award from the intelligent design community.
The multi-talented star of his Comedy Central show “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” who is also known for his lead role in the film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” was named the recipient of the 2008 Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth, an award created to honor one of the founding fathers of the intelligent design movement.
Stein will receive the award through Biola University’s masters in science and religion program in a ceremony on March 27, one month before “Expelled” hits theaters.
In his movie, Stein explores the long-standing controversial debate between supporters of Darwinism and proponents of intelligent design. Through interviews with experts and professors from both camps, he discovers an elitist scientific establishment that punishes the scientific proponents of intelligent design because they reject some of the claims of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over,” Caroline Crocker, a former biology teacher at George Mason University, shared in the film's trailer.
She is among several professors featured in the film who claims they were ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for discussing problems with Darwinism.
Makers of the documentary said in a recent teleconference that the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered.
Biola, a private Christian university in Southern California, established the award in 2004 to honor legal scholar and Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, who was the award's first recipient. Johnson, who became a born-again Christian as a tenured professor, is the co-founder of the Center for Science and Culture of Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank on intelligent design.
"The award," noted Biola, "recognizes Johnson’s pivotal role in advancing our understanding of design in the universe by opening up informed dissent to Darwinian and materialistic theories of evolution."
In 2006, the award was given to British philosopher Antony Flew, once considered the most prominent defender of atheism in the English-speaking world. He argued in books such as God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984) that one should presuppose atheism until evidence for God proves otherwise. He later abandoned his long-held atheism on account of design arguments and after “following the evidence where it leads."
Stein will be the third recipient of the Johnson award.
RSS
Talk about arrogance. Intelligent design is just creationism in a new label. Ideas left over from ancient history, when most people were totally uneducated.
We've come a long way, and are around the corner from being able to assemble from non-living material the 480 =- genes needed to create basic life from non-life.
And then these churches will have another great scandal as intelligent, not brainwashed people, realize that the church never wants to change, for that would admit their house of cards was wrong, and the whole thing gets questioned. And faith dissolves. Just as it dissolved about all kinds of other church beliefs. From the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, the sun being a flaming chariot, etc etc etc
Religion has always been used to answer questions for which we did not have answers. But with the ever increasing rate of scientific advancement, religion will be seen as throwbacks to the days of ignorance.
And we are prob only about 25-50 years max from building computer systems that are aware of their own existance, totally different then the preprogrammed robots.
And the churches will have a choice. To become social service and charitable groups only, or to wither and die.
And if you look at the whole history of western civilization, you will see that religion has been the cause of or a a main participant in most wars, in denigrating and denying equality to blacks, gays, Jews, and all other minorities.
And btw, mankinds genetic code is now well understood. We are all related to a single mother who lived about 200,000 years ago, and was the real prototype homosapiens. And we have 93 to 97% the same genetic code as Gorillas and Chimps, who we are related to via a common ancestor of them and us, though they are on a different branch of the tree.
It would be nice if the church changed it's mind. Before the good it could do gets lost in its dogma and stubborness and it's fear its power will end as its errors are exposed.
I saw the movie. It was very well presented. Each time Ben interviewed a scientist who considered Intelligent design (and they were blacklisted), he played the devil's advocate. It was a very fair movie, asking very real & honest questions. I loved it.
0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub
100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school
300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school
500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school
so, why not, tracking schools to go. I don´t really see the problem, it´s just a way to track teachers to go there - for, if they all think like you - they are not really willing to seriously look behind different views and wont go. What if students then have questions the teacher can not answer, they might worry. I know more then one teacher who is in that problem here in my hometown. Having doubt in the evolution theory and no way out - here is a way and it is even paid well.
So keep on donating Ben, schools need the money and the education.
I'm so glad Ben Stein is finally taking on Darwin, the father of the Holocaust! Cuz' I always thought the roots of that sad episode lay more with the Blood Libel of the Catholic Church and there...you know...centuries of institutional bigotry. How dumb was I?
Way to go Ben Stein,
Now it appears they are offering $$ for people to go see their movie as they expect bad ratings.
http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/05/1280114-create-the-controversy-expelled-movie-team-to-bribe-moviegoers
No, I also have a life (with my friends!), you sound envious....(though I may be wrong).
BW
Steve
clown...hahaha. yeah that's nothing like a jester. c'mon...is that all you've got?
Dear JITKC, I'm not sure jester is the right name I think you sholuld change it to clown. Kind regards Steve
That's so cute. stevie's got hisself a bunch of groupies. sycophants who thrill off of pretending to be christians so they can say "see! we're creative evolutionists. the best of both worlds"
I've got some close friends who are athiests who believe in the literal 6 day theory of creationism. Sounds dorky. So does your claim.
I"m sorry steve are you mad because we can refute your argument that Christian aren;t smart
Hello Tom, some of my closest friends are Christians who happen to accept evolution as an explanation for the biodiversity on this planet so I am quite aware that there are smart Christians around. Regards, Steve
prophet "Like I care."
back at you jack
citsonga,
"As an agnostic, your view of what God is seems really, really silly to me."
Like I care.
jesus4me "No wonder our wold is going upsidedown: Here is the equation- The US Supreme Court rules for the first time in favor of using case law to remove prayer from public schools in 1962"
Oh yes, Before 1962 the US was a grand and wonderful place, no racism, no poverty, no disease, no war, no hatred, no STD's, no abortions, no divorce, no homosexuals, no murders, no lynchng, no pollution, no alcoholics, no drug addicts, no fornication.......the US was a grand and glorious place. If only we had prayer in schools , the US would again be a perfect plce.....LOL .....LOL...........LOL
Dude, get a clue...........
Tom "He [God]wants His people to put Him first to worship Him"
Wow, God expects lowly humans to worship him. Does God have a fragile ego and is in need of worship and praise by the lowly human animal on a little speck of a planet in a galaxy made of billions of star systems in a universe made up of billions of galaxies. Surely, if God had the power and ability to create the cosmos , then God would have much better things to do than to expect the lowly human animal to sit around and tell him how great he is. I'm sure God-creator of the universe, if God exists, already knows he is pretty great. Dont think God needs his creation telling him that.
As an agnostic, your view of what God is seems really, really silly to me. I will say this though, your posts are interesting in showing me how religious folks view the world. As a scientist, I cant relate to it at all- makes no sense what so ever.
Religious belief is really rooted in science- the field of genetics. Some folks, such as you may be predisposed by genetics to be religious, thats a survival mechanism for you. I dont seem to have the religiosity genes.
What is it that bothers you atheists? If God does not exist to you, then why do you feel threatened with the evidence for a creation, and a Creator? If there is no threat, then you will not be bothered by it, but because the Truth is coming out and impacting many, many scientists who are forced to push failed Darwinianism into the feeble minds of our youth, we are having this debate. I'm so happy someone like Ben Stein is coming out with a factual documentary on the double standard that exists in today's scientific community, liberal academia, the news media, and in the once Christian university's which are now secular humanistic university's. No wonder our wold is going upsidedown: Here is the equation- The US Supreme Court rules for the first time in favor of using case law to remove prayer from public schools in 1962. Count down from 1962 all the way till today and see if there are more numbers of illegitimate children, STD's, lack of a moral compass because of situational ethics, etc., check out the rise in illegal drug use, promiscuity, AIDS, broken homes, etc. You be the judge. On another note, there is hope in Jesus Christ. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near. When Christ comes back for His Church, and God's wrath is poured out on sinful, rebellious, and stubborn unrepentant humanity, don't blame God, and don't blame His messengers the Christians. We have tried to show you the way to Christ, yet you are blind in your "knowledge" and "wisdom".
1 Corinthians 1:18
[ Christ the Power and Wisdom of God ] For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:17-19 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 1 (Whole Chapter)
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”;
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 3 (Whole Chapter)
I"m sorry steve are you mad because we can refute your argument that Christian aren;t smart or are you just throwing out words meant to hurt, kind of like throwing a temper tantram because we have called you on it and you have been found wanting. It isn't right because of mught, it is right because the evidence shows it to be. Sorry. Gods Blessing on ya both
In Christ Tom
There you go danny, thousands if not millions smarter than you have believed so it must be true because might makes right !!
:-p
Steve
It is funny Danny at the hate you are spilling out, by your ignorance i suppose. I could name you hundreds if not thousands if not millions of people smarter then yourself or me, (If we had time) who over the years did not give up there ability to think as they accepted this Creator, this Savior, in fact it increased there intelligence not dimished it as they relied on the one who does know it all in stead of relying on ones self. Hmmmm I think it may be true what it says in His word "only the fool says in his heart there is no God" Danny I sincerly wish that God will become very real to you. So real that you will not be able to deny that He exists. reject him, your choice, but not be able to say that He doesn't exist. I think you will have a great testimony when or if you bend the knee and accept Jesus as Lord. I pray that you do. Gods Blessing on you and yours.
In Christ
Tom
Sorry citgonga wrong again what he is saying to people like you is that your supposed intelligences and/or wisdom is just plain silly to Him and His wisdom and Intelligence will make yours look foolish. He does say in His word that the fear of the Lord is the beginng of all wisdom. and the funny thing is if you look at history since at least the 1st coming of Christ, Thousand of very intelligent people confessed that this God, this Jesus is real. Hmmmmm have we as a people gotten ah less intelligent as time goes by? Seem to me that is what happen when we rely on our own ah wisdom? Yes He wants His people to put Him first to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, Are you ready to accept this Jesus who is the Way and the Truth and the Life. To be able to have a Wisdom beyond anything man could ever imagine? If you are then you need to Believe and accept Jesus as Lord and to repent of your sins to trun away from the sins you are walking in now. He, Jesus said that He came to set the captive free. People like your self. He said if I (Jesus) set you free you will be free indeed. Are ya ready, We will be praying for ya.
Gods Blessing
In Christ
Tom
danny
God loves you danny. May He help you.
citsonga,
No. lol. Not even near to being frustrated. My part is to speak the truth. That's all God told me to do. I cannot change hearts, only He can. He merely told me to speak, which I do faithfully. So, there is no frustration on my part. But thanks for your concern.
Tom "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligetent I will fustrate."
Doesn't make any sense. So lets see what your saying: Gods plan is to destroy those that are intelligent- only interested in people that dont do a lot of thinking? Sounds like something along the lines of dictatorships to kill off the intelligentsia. Is your god interested in only a theocracy- where only monolithic beings go around worshipping the creator?
I am sorry I don't believe citsonga is looking for answers just arguments. But you know the Bible does say the He,God said I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligetent I will fustrate. Seem it is coming true in todays world.
Oh well we will keep praying.
In Christ
Tom
star2, I respect the fact that you admit that you dont have an answer for me yet. Rather than ignore my post, you resonded to it. Most times when I pose difficult questions, they go unanswered.
hawk49
I would recommend using quotation marks when refering to creationism as science, as "creation science". As far as i can tell there does not seem to be much science involved.
prophet,
I sense a very frustrated person in you in that you cant get the world to go along with your faith based world view. I consider myself an agnostic (that does not mean atheist). I use observation and logic. Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg used logic and observation -science, to formulate the two most important theories of the 20th century to help describe the nature of the universe. Theologians and philosophers have been debating the nature of the universe for centuries with nothing to show for it. You use mysticism and magic to explain the world, its simply not credible in the 21st C to describe the world (say the supposed flood) as supernatural events. If that works for you to get through life, I say thats really good for you. Your views and attitude are the perfect reason though to keep religion out of the public domain- schools, government and the courts.
Star2; Here's one last thought for you.
Ken Ham's Answers in Genisis website and the Henry Morris' Institute for Creation Research have loads of scientific discussions about the flood and Noah that supports the reliability of scripture.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
If citsonga is truly seeking answers these should be the sites for him to explore as well. They are based on creation science so he probably will have a natural aversion to the thought.
Prophet,
You're right. The Word cuts deep through our witnessing, but it has to be the Holy Spirit that does the transformation within a listener. If the person won't listen then the effort won't work. These discussions may be of benefit in the long run if some of these nonbelievers come here seeking. Most seem to come to CP just to taunt. We are challenged, however, to destroy false philosophies.
Our God is an awesome God but too many will deny Him and pay the ultimate price for that denial.
I do believe this thread has run it course. Meet you and Star2 at another thread one of these days.
God Bless
Citsonga said "There are too many problems with flood scenario for there to be any truth in it other than a story. "
What you forgot to include in your figures is divine intervention. We are talking about God. And He doesn't fit in neatly within our very narrow view of creation. He's outside of our measley wisdom and knowledge. He made a donkey speak. He caused the earth to quit spinning for a short time, and even caused it to spin backwards at one time. He caused skeletons to rise up from the ground, and skin, muscles, organs, and such to be recreated on them and caused them to live again. He healed the blind, lame, deaf, and even raised the dead. I'm sure the small "problem" of taking care of His animals during the flood was well within His capabilites.
But these are the issues we are dealing with here:
1: You don't believe in God. Thus, any supernatural intervention or event does not register to you. You do not believe in God, so you do not believe in anything the Bible, or Christians, say He's done.
2: Well, there is not #2.
You look for physical evidence in a faith-filled religion. You do not believe in God. No amount of humanistic arguing or evidence will sway you otherwise. We try to convince you of God's existence using the humanistic, non-faith avenue. It does not work. Without faith you will not believe. So be it.
I'm tired of these endless games of trying to persuade someone who has no intentions whatsoever of hearing. You have no faith, nor do you want any.
citsonga
There is an answer but I don't know what it is yet.
Evolution is full of problems much more than you can find with creationism.
star2 "I can't really answer your questions about the sea animals and their water habitats (salt or fresh) right now."
Thats only one of many problems associated with the noahs ark story. There are too many problems with flood scenario for there to be any truth in it other than a story.
danny,
Yes, your atheism and belief in Darwinian evolution (some call this scientism)constitutes a religious worldview such as Marxist or secular humanism.
The only mechanicsm the evolutionists have is a combination of random variation and natural selection. This Dawinian mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy (ie: faulty belief system) with no real scientific basis (ie: scientism).
danny, no. Are you denying man's infantcide?
danny
Re:My religious worldview?
If you think science and/or atheism is a religion, then you are a total waste of time.
Will you just please leave the CP?
danny,
you appear to have a difficult time dealing with truth that differs from your religious worldview:
The uniformitarian orthodoxy could not ignore the work of J Harlen Bretz, so a series of rebuttal papers were issued by some of the world’s foremost glacial geologists. A bitter debate among geologists occurred, spanning four decades. Bretz was the solitary champion of the flood hypothesis.
The persistence of Bretz throughout the decades of debate paid off. Geologists did begin to see that the “approved” uniformitarian agents were incapable of accounting for the size, position, and actual existence of landforms of eastern Washington. A turning point in the debate came in the 1960s, when the International Association for Quaternary Research did an extensive tour of the Channeled Scabland and Lake Missoula. In 1965, a busload of geologists sent J Harlen Bretz a telegram: “Greetings and salutations….We are now all catastrophists.”
danny
You said the following:"All debates are a waste of time, especially when there's a creationist in it. Creationists are not interested in learning anything. Also, they don't seem to have the ability to learn anything."
Then why don't you leave the CP?
Danny,
Well, humans are no better with the massive infantcide that continues on today. Innocent babies having their brains sucked out in the name of convenience.
danny
Re:I just stopped believing in the sky fairy because I figured out it was a myth just like any other childish myth like the tooth fairy.
When and how did you figure this out?
citsogna
Re:OK star2, thanx for the feed back. What about fish and other water creatures? Was the flood made up of fresh water or sea water? What happened to the fish and other water dwelling animals that cannot survive in one type of water or the other?
Genesis 7:21-22 tells us that everything on dry land that had breath in its nostrils died.
I can't really answer your questions about the sea animals and their water habitats (salt or fresh) right now.
OK star2, thanx for the feed back. What about fish and other water creatures? Was the flood made up of fresh water or sea water? What happened to the fish and other water dwelling animals that cannot survive in one type of water or the other?
citsonga
Re: Question: were all of the animals on earth put on the ark?
This is what the Word of God says in several different places in Genesis 7:
Genesis 7 (King James Version)
1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
Noah did not select the animals and put them in the Ark himself. God selected the animals and commanded them (placed in their hearts) to go into the Ark.
I asked God about the kind and size of the animals. He said that it was every kind that He had made and that they were small.
God loves you citsogna.
Question: were all of the animals on earth put on the ark?
danny
Have you read up on the archaeology finds of Noah's Ark?
Here are the Web sites
http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/noah.htm
www.wyattmuseum.com
The belief in magic that one creature magically transformed into another, that magically transformed into another.....
There's some magic for ya.
danny
Evolution is not real science. It is the kind of science you read about in science fiction novels.
The laws of genetics will never allow evolution to happen. That is why you have never observed it in nature nor in the lab. It is mathematiclly impossible for it to have ever happened. I showed you that last night.
To believe that life came about by evolutionary means when it is mathematiclly impossible and when it has to violate the laws of genetics requires a tremendous amount of faith and a whole bunch of magic.
Magic - Isn't that what fairy tales are all about?
When are you going to be honest with yourself and admit evolution is bad science and a lie?
Danny cuts and pastes from his sources, and it's truth. If a Christian cuts and pastes for their source it's a lie. Go figure.
I wonder what Danny will do when the Ark is discovered. Probably claim that those people who discovered it cut and pasted from their lying sources.
OhioJJ; you proclaim hollow bluster. Creationism and ID are founded on two totally different philosophies. ID is solid science as demonstrated by many peer reviewed articles.
In addition, numbers don't mean very much with an emerging hypothesis or theory. Galileo was only one contending against the dogma of the other astronomers of his day. ID appears to be going through the same process
"Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”
Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.
We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design...." Discovery Institute
Intelligent Design is exclusively rooted in fundamentalist religion (not all religion, but the fervent 'born again' types). Having once been a believer in intelligent design (and not coincidentally, scientifically illiterate at the time, even though I was a blow hard and thought I knew what I was talking about), I know it is a sham. Saying "May God bless you with the truth" and "I love Jesus with all my heart" will not make ID the "truth". Millions of other Christians disagree with those who think ID is science. Millions of other Christians know what science is, and not coincidentally, they don't support ID. Also, the fact that escaped me when I was n ID supporter, and seems to escape current ID supporters, is that evolution is not a controversy with those who know what science is, namely, scientists. If you point to 50% of the general public supporting ID, I can point to over 99% of those who know what science is (namely, scientists) who know it's a sham. It's demonstrable.
danny
Re:That's OK because science doesn't require faith.
To believe in evolution requires faith. It is mathematically impossible for evolution to have produced life.
Re: Unlike your religious myths, scientific ideas have evidence.
There is no evidence for evolution.
Re: Unfortunately, you don't understand what scientific evidence is, you don't understand science, and you never will understand science.
Can you say that you do?
Good night to you danny. May God bless you with the truth.
danny
Re:With all due respect you're a complete waste of time.
I do not feel that way about you.
danny
Go to the following link for proof that Noah's Ark existed: http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/noah.htm
As for evolution: No one has ever seen macro evolution in the lab or in nature. They have observed micro evolution but they have never witnessed it to produce macro evolution. I have shown you mathematically that it is impossible for evolution to happen.
Show me the evidence that macro evolution has taken place. Agentorange's human chromsome 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERVs between the chimp and the human is not proof. It neither prove or disproves evolution. Nor does it prove or disproves creationism. Prove to me mathematically that evolution can happen. If you can't, then to continue to believe in a theory that cannot happen is to believe in fairy tales.
danny
My life depends on Jesus christ who redeemed me from sin and supernaturally changed my life. I do not place my faith in science.
If there was evidence that Noah's Ark existed are you open minded enough to accept it?
danny
How do you know that Noah's Ark didn't exist?
danny
Do this mean you are leaving the debate?
danny,
You said "Christian beliefs are too crazy for civilized people to take seriously."
And yet there are scientists, doctors, engineers, surgeons, etc, etc who all believe in God. If they're not civilized, and they are far more intelligent than you....well...I think we know how you rate among them.
danny
Evolutionists have no proof that one life form evolved into an entirely different life form. The can see micro evolution happen but they have never observed nor will they ever observe macro evolution. The laws of genetics will never allow it.
Mathematically it is impossible for life to emerge from a common gene pool or a bunch of chemicals or whatever explanation evolutionists come up with.
Let us look at the odds of one protein molecule being created by chance. I have heard that a single protein molecule is made up of it 20 amino acids. If that is the case, then the odds that a single protein molecule can form from a random combination of the amino acids is 1 in n!
1 in 20! is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 or approximatelly 1 in 2.4 x 10^18. There is a 4.2 x 10^-17 % chance that the 20 amino acids will come together to form a single protein molecule. That is 0.000000000000000042 % chance that just one protein molecule can form by chance. That is, for all practical purposes, zero.
As complex even the simplest form of life is, the odds that it can happen by chance is so astronomically small that the chance of that happening is zero.
Evolution just cannot produce the diverse form of life we see today. It is mathematically impossible.
Believing that evolution can happen with those kind of odds, isn't that a fairy tale?
danny
Did you at once believe in God but when you relied on Him you felt like He wasn't there for you? So, after many diappointments you abandoned the idea that there was a God?
danny
Thanks for responding. Were you by chance raised in a Christian home? If so, what denomination was it?
danny
What is your beef with Christianity?
Is my belief in God any less childish than believing in the story of Noah?
Good excuses Danny.
Hi Danny. Let's have a public debate. I will fly to your city and debate you on a college campus on the topic of Creation vs. Evolution. We can exchange our thought provoking ideas in front of eager, young fertile minds and have some fun. In my debates I am always kind and respectful. Email me at BillyJack!@hotmail.com and lets see if you are willing to defend evolutionism in public. If anyone else knows an evolutionist who wants to debate have them email me. Thank you!
I believe in God. If you think that's a fairytale, more power to you. But that "fairytale" has healed my wife, daughter, and son...as well as many others I've known. That's more than any "real" science could ever accomplish.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark.html
Prophet: You are corect from a Biblical view. Here is a scientific view to support the Word.
Prior to the 19th century, most geologists were catastrophists who believed that the earth's fossiliferous rock was the result of the Biblical global flood. Around 1850 a major shift in thinking started to take hold, and the geological discipline began to develop into what it is today. As evolutionary theory began to spread, so did the idea that the earth was very old. Geologists began to interpret features, such as flood plains and canyons, based on current rates of deposition and erosion. Uniform rates and intensities were instead proposed as being the force behind the monumental quantities of flood sediment that covers the world. Uniformitarianism still governs the minds of geologists today.
Modern geology has been largely founded upon the need by naturalists to explain our world independent of supernatural Biblical references such as the global flood. Even a suggestion that massive floods were involved with the formation of geologic features can subject a person to scorn and cause them to become ostracized by their fellow peers.
prophet "What do words of the faithless have on the truth? None."
To paraphrase: What do words of the nonsense have on the truth? None.
There are legitimate disagreements with earth science. Here is only a small portion of an article:
"This conclusion is addtionally confirmed by the fact that primordial Po halos in granites are uniquely distinguished from secondary 210Po halos in coalified wood by the distinctly different 206Pb:207Pb ratios. The latter unambiguously reflects an origin from U-decay products whereas the former can be traced to the decay of primordial polonium. The scientific laboratory evidence is clear and unequivocal: primordial polonium halos do exist in Earth's foundation rocks, the granites. Biblically this is exactly what we expect because their discovery in these rocks fits with the precise description of the rocks God created in the beginning. 'In the beginning, LORD, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands' (Heb. 1:10).
Possibly Wise's difficulty in accepting the Po-halo evidence for creation can be traced to how he interprets earth history.9 The abstract of his talk at the First International Conference on Creationism (1986) contains the following statement: 'Geologists commonly use only three dating methods. Creationists commonly claim each of these techniques is invalid. Carefully considered, each technique has difficulties, but none of them can be considered faulty enough to be invalid"....'All this is fallacious reasoning. In fact dating techniques don't date anything. A 'radioactive date' is in reality only an inference obtained by interpreting the ratio of the parent and daughter isotopes using the assumption of uniform radioactive decay. the proven existence of primordial Po halos in Earth's foundation rocks effectively disproves the entire uniformitarian principle upon which all those dating techniques are based.6,10-12
http://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo-1998-fingerprints-of-creation.htm
Hi Prophet
citsonga,
What do words of the faithless have on the truth? None.
prophet: ""We cannot determine the age of the Earth because it was created in it mature form. What ages are determined are only apparent ages and not the actual age.""
what, are you kidding? your expertise I take it. is not earth science....more like theological fantasy, you are not of this century.
danny: "It's really nutty to think there's a magician hiding in the clouds."
I think that's enough magician slights. And science regularly assumes the presence of invisible matter/phenomena. But their effects can be felt. Like the effects of an existent God. We can feel him.
"God, also known as magic, is an anti-science idea."
Nonsense. God invented science. He designed DNA. He thought up the funny antics of the monkey. He allowed for human thought and reason to discover his magnificent creation that is science. It's sad that some try to use his work to disprove him. In the end, it is futile - he made it. I believe that scientific pursuit is a form of worship, but that humans are perfectly capable of misinterpreting his creation and making mistakes when they rely soley on their own wisdom or reason. God invented science - you can't beat him at it.
"All gods are man-made inventions."
God*s* are man-made inventions, but God as in the God as in the Lord as in our divine Creator invented us. You got it backward there, bro.
And as for the senile comment about Flew, here's a fun fact: The medical definition of "senile" is like that of "juvenile" - it is a statement of age, which is no indicator of mental condition or ability. But I know what you meant. ;-P
danny,
You are very fast a loose with unsubstantiated claims.
Luckily there are more reliable persons than yourself to speak the truth.
"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York's best doctors by New York Magazine.
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
"We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others," added Egnor. "The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They've never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things."
"More scientists than ever before are now standing up and saying that it is time to rethink Darwin's theory of evolution in light of new scientific evidence that shows the theory is inadequate," said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture. "Darwinists are busy making up holidays to turn Charles Darwin into a saint, even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge."
ep,
Hahahahaha! That was classic! I love that! The kid sleeping with his head on his desk, drooling.
I love Ben Stein. Glad he is getting his due. But he hardly had a lead role in Ferriss Buelers day off. More like a cameo.
"Anyone....anyone....what is voodoo economics."
star,
www.blogspot.com is a good way for beginners to start. That's where my blog is located. It's free. The options are limited, but it's still a good place to get started. There are other places that you can get an actual website with a url and address for as little as $10 a month. Although I believe there is some cost to the initial set up. I'm still praying about whether God wants me to take that route.
danny,
Would it make you feel better if he were younger?
Prophet
Have you been to your blog page yet? I left you my email address on the President Bush posting. I also left some comment on the article you did on love (showing God's love thru helping people).
On the 'love' posting I you my name. clicking on my name will take you to my YahooAnswers page. You might be interested in some stuff I wrote on that. God has been having me spend my time on CP so I don't do YahooAnswers anymore. I might return; maybe not. I want to do a blog myself. It will mainly deal with how to live the Christian life. then I want to do a web page on How to be ready for the coming of the Lord. All these things are in the future though.
I also like what you said in another article
"We cannot determine the age of the Earth because it was created in it mature form. What ages are determined are only apparent ages and not the actual age."
That is so true too. God could have made the earth (as well as the universe) 600 billion years old, if He so chose to.
star,
I'm not much into formulas and such. I try to grasp what I can. But your comment:
"Scripture tells us that God opens and shuts the womb. Since God wanted to repopulate the Earth in a short amount of time He enabled them to be very fruitful. We see the evidence of that in the Hebrew Nation. When Jacob, his sons, wives, and children joined Joseph in Egypt the scripture tells us there were a total of 70 Hebrew souls. When the Hebrew Nation left Egypt some 430 years later those 70 people grew to nearly 2 millions people. This rapid growth gives us a glimpse of how rapidly God can enable people to reproduce."
That is so true. God could very well have every child that is born being able to live a full life ( 500-800 years back then) with the blessings of producing 8-12 children themselves. Which, if that were true, I showed how 6 people could populate into over 35 million in 1000 years.
But what is also true, is that we are talking to people who have no faith or belief in God or His abilities. So, those stats fall on deaf ears.
Prophet
They start on page 3.
Were your posts on this article?
I jump around between like six articles, so sometimes its easy to get confused where someone said what. LOL
prophet
I went to your blog. I commented on two postings.
Did you read my stuff from yesterday? what did you think?
Hey star! How are ya? I'm sorry I didn't respond to your last post quickly. I had my prayer time with God, so I wa away from the computer for a time.
Hi Prohpet
What is going on?
Danny,
"Mr. Flew is senile. "
That's pretty straight forward. Incorrect, since you are not his medical doctor.
Insults are left to those who have no argument.
danny;
Wolfgang is most eminently qualified as a philosopher of science. Science is based on philosophical assumptions. Paleontologists are also most eminently qualified based upon the fossil record. Mathematicians who study the probabilities of biological processes are also emenitly qualified.
The real issue is about intellectual honesty Vs deeply entrenched dogma. Antony Flew is another eminently qualified philosopher to judge Darwinian evolution.
"Mr. Flew vacillated, sometimes saying that he thought he was becoming a theist but then concluding, "I'm an atheist with big questions."
Mr. Flew asked for titles of books on Intelligent Design. He wrote Mr. Habermas that he was finding William Dembski's mathematics in The Design Inference over his head but that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is an "incredible book." That title argues that the minimal cellular and biochemical requirements for life display an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be random but must have been designed. In January 2004, Mr. Flew told Mr. Habermas that he had definitely become a theist.
Mr. Habermas says the impact on the atheist movement is similar to what would happen in the evangelical world if Billy Graham or J.I. Packer renounced Christianity. Atheists have gone into damage-control mode, insisting that Mr. Flew is just proposing a hypothesis or that he is accepting only a very minimal God so that the change is no big deal. But, as Mr. Habermas told WORLD, for a leading atheist spokesman to believe in a Creator whom he calls God is a very big deal indeed.
For the 81-year-old Mr. Flew, renouncing his life's work and the reason for his fame is a matter of intellectual honesty. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates," he says. "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Hello s_vawter, being in a diffrent time zone I was tucked up in bed when you asked me the question about athiests trotting out miracles, Danny gave the answer I would have so I don't thnk I have anything further to add. Regards, Steve
Who flagged danny? I think it is sad that he feels the way he does about the Lord Jesus Christ but he is entitled to his opinion.
Prophet
I've been to your blog. I really liked the most recent entry you have on President Bush. I am going to do a blog too one day. I have been praying about it; you know, what the theme of it should be.
Prophet
Re:But did you see my figures that I put out to orange showing how 6 people could populate the earth to over 30 million in 1000 years?
Yes, I saw it. I thought it was pretty good.
Hey star! It's good to hear from you again. I hope everything is going good for you. No, I haven't checked out your posts yet. But did you see my figures that I put out to orange showing how 6 people could populate the earth to over 30 million in 1000 years? I'm not sure if it was this post, or another that I did it. These two posts have kind of melded together, making it a little confusing.
I do agree with you that it could have happened if God so desired it to. He made the sun to stand still, and brought the bones of dead people back to life (putting mucsles and skin on the skeletons even). So, if God wanted to repopulate the world in 1000 years, He could of easily done it.
I haven't heard from you on my website. That's okay. It was just an offer. I'll have to check out your posts that you put on here earlier.
Prophet
Did you read all the entries I made today?
Hi Prophet
danny,
If you say so, You're the expert.
star,
You said "Re:We cannot determine the age of the Earth because it was created in it mature form. What ages are determined are only apparent ages and not the actual age."
Very true. God made Adam and Eve as adults, not as an ova and sperm. So how old did God make them? Who knows? They could have been 30 years old, or 150 years old. The Bible only states that Adam had lived 130 years when Seth was born. And that he lived a total of 930 years. But he may have been "older"
So the same could very well be true with creation. God could have created the universe 600 billions years old. But that doesn't mean that's how long it's been in existence.
Prophet - I believe He did create everything on the Earth. God just did it exactly the way biologists, paleantologists, astronomers, geologists, biochemists, etc are finding it happened (whereas real scientists would say random, I would say guiding hand of God - but that is my faith speaking, not legitimate science).
s_vawter - Take the plank out of your eye. Have you noticed that we, Christians, haven't been very tolerent or eloquant either. Take a look at some of HAWK49's posts or a lot of them. It's not an us versus them scenario.
The thing with most most proponents of evolution is that they believe in the big-bang. The big-bang theory states that at one point, all the material for the entire universe was condensed into on big ball that eventually exploded. But where did all that material come from? It must of had a beginning. I didn't "just appear". Could it be that God created all that material? If you believe that, then believing in Creationism is merely a step sideways from that. If God created the material for the universe, I'd think He was capable of even creating the universe itself. Including the earth, and everything on it.
"Can you tell me anything you know about [macro] evolution, any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the Universtiy of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time. Eventually one person said, "I do know one thing: it ought not to be taught in high school."
Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History
Wolfgang Smith: As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century." The genre of scientistic myth, however, is not limited to the sphere of biology; it is to be found even in the physical domain. When it comes to psychology and the social sciences, moreover, it appears that myth actually predominates. I have explained and documented these contentions in my first book.
Re:We cannot determine the age of the Earth because it was created in it mature form. What ages are determined are only apparent ages and not the actual age.
We cannot determine the age of the Universe because when God stretched out the heaven/atmosphere that surrounded the Earth (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12) that distorted time. The age that scientists come up with for the Universe is only an apparent age and not the actual age.
If you want to know what the age of the universe is and the earth with all its life forms are, you have to go to the Word of God.
So, if I am to understand this correctly, truth is determined by popular opinion? WRT the article, not the discussion. Am I also to believe, IRT the discussion, that people either believe in God and literal creation, or they are atheists and believe in Darwinism? By the way, quoting Biblical verse to non-believers is a waste of time, as it either enrages them and/ or prompts their mockery- as you well can see. Yes, a tolerant and eloquent bunch, they. Shout down ID or creationism while ignoring the fatal flaw in their argument.
Lastly, steveh20, do not atheists trot out the miracle when their explanation of llife's origin is lacking? The whole something from nothing, plus life from lifelessness paradox they embrace sounds more miracle than science.
"I don't know anything much about science"
Star2, I think you are completely correct, I could not agree with you more.
Steve
Danny-
All communists are darwinists.
jesus4me
I am female and I flagged myself because I wanted to make some corrections. More need to be done but I am just going to leave it as it is.
agentorange20
I don't know anything much about science but I do know my God. When my God says He created the heavens and the earth in a certain way then I accept that by faith.
God indicated that He created everything in its mature state. We have evidence of that when He created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created as adults with the full capability to communicate, walk, reason, think creatively, and reproduce. They were not created as infants.
Also, from Genesis 1, we know that the earth was the center of creation. The atmosphere that surrounded the Earth God said that He stretched it out like a curtain and created the hosts (planets, stars, galaxies, dark matter and all that is in the universe) in it. (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12, 45:18)
I do not accept what scientists say about the age of the Earth nor the age of the Universe.
We cannot determine the age of the Earth because it was created in it mature form. What ages are determined are only apparent ages and not the actual age.
It is obvious that radiometric dataing methods used are unreliable. I gave you a number of sources in respected secular journals that showed the unreliability of various radiometric dataing methods. I believe the reason why is at least two-fold: 1) the Earth did not evolve over time but was instead created in its mature state, and 2) we do not know why C14 is so unstable.
We cannot determine the age of the Universe because when God stretched out the heaven/atmosphere that surrounded the Earth (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12) that distorted time. The age that scientists come up with for the Universe is only an apparent age and not the actual age.
Man, in his natural thinking, assumes that everything that exists began in its infant state. The methods for determining the age of the Universe, the creation of life and how it became as diverse as it is, and how old the Earth is all depends on that assumption.
The assumption is false and it leads to incorrect conclusions.
I know that you will not agree with me. I cannot convince you of what I believe nor can you ever convince me of what you believe. I'll just let my God judge what truth is.
may i ask why someone keeps flagging star 2? He was giving a response on something that many of you naysayers were wanting to hear, but apparently can't deal with. With God all things are possible. If you're not threatened by ID, then why do you so chastise those in the scientific community who have come to a true realization that Darwinism is a myth, and a theory at best?
correction:
Regarding dP/dt = r P
change r to r = 1/T where T is a unit of time
"This rapid growth gives us a glimpse of how rapidly God can enable people to reproduce."
This is beyond parody, bring out the miracle when all else fails
Steve
I flagged myself to make corrections.
agentorange20
Re: Population Growth Formula
Assuming ideal conditions, you cannot deny the fact that population growth is exponential. The differential equation that represent the population rate of change is dP/dt = r P. After integrating and determining what the integration constant is at time zero, we find that the population at time t can be expressed as P(t) = Po e^rt where r is the average annual population growth rate.
You said that you did not believe that 8 people (really six since Noah and his wife did not have children after the flood) could repopulate the earth to the number of people we see today in such a short time.
I decided to prove that it was possible. My assumption was that world population growth per year would not be so random as not to fit nearly perfectly into the the curve that represent it growth from year to year for 4344 years.
Assuming that population growth somewhat follows along with the average annual growth rate that I selected for the 4344 yrs duration, I was able to show that it was possible to have the 6.8 billion people we see today.
My approach never intended to show what the world's population would be at different intervals of time since the flood.
To Everybody
Re:Explanation for large world population about 1000 yrs after the flood
God has always played an active role in the affairs of man. After the flood God repopulated the Earth with Noah's three sons and their respecitive wives.
Scripture tells us that God opens and shuts the womb. Since God wanted to repopulate the Earth in a short amount of time He enabled them to be very fruitful. We see the evidence of that in the Hebrew Nation. When Jacob, his sons, wives, and children joined Joseph in Egypt the scripture tells us there were a total of 70 Hebrew souls. When the Hebrew Nation left Egypt some 430 years later those 70 people grew to nearly 2 millions people. This rapid growth gives us a glimpse of how rapidly God can enable people to reproduce.
Hawk: First of all, it isn't Darwinian Evolution. It's evolution. Darwin got a few things wrong. Further more, there is no controversy amongst scientists. Its only among fundamentalists that any kind of controvery exists. There are issues with evolution but not as to if it is so but only minute details within the theory. Evolution has been proven true.
BTW: Where did you get your information on evolution from to say that it isn't true?
Intelligent Design appears to be an appropriate subject in the field of science, afterall, regardless of the bluster from disgruntled evoltonists:
- teach the controversy. Instead of pretending there is no debate over Darwin's theory we should use it to further educate students about the scientific debate over evolutionary theory.
One book shows how that can be done. "Darwinism, Design and Public Education," the new peer-reviewed science book from Michigan State University Press, goes beyond these extremes and explores the controversy amongst scientists about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, and the emerging challenge from the scientific theory of intelligent design. The book presents a road map for how the debate can be used to advance science education, teach critical thinking, and help students better understand this complex issue
Intellectual honesty is seeking truth no matter where it leads. Is it any wonder many scientists are abandoning Darwinian Evolution?
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp...Moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regrettfully."
Wolfgang Smith, cited in Joe Whites, Darwin's Demise.
When we seek truth we eventually face an Almighty God.
Prophet said:
"First, Truth (as I speak it) is a spiritual truth.
Second, creation (or ID as you like to call it)is not a science, but faith."
I agree with you 100%
AgentOrange and Prophet: AO you are mostly on track with your assessment of what I meant by least amongst us - but I would also include prisoners, the sick, homeless (of course), gay people - anyone who either doesn't get a fair shake by society or is thought the lowest of the low in society by some group. Because of Jim Crow / institutional racism, 100 years ago (heck even 50 years ago in some parts of the country) black people would have been a part of this group. Basically the most maligned in society - not just necessarily the needy.
GMG,
I think that most people (including myself) are ignoring Danny. It seems to me that he would have better luck using maturity in his comments. As it is, his pubescent rantings merely come off as white noise.
orange,
You said "And this is why I am a non believer, as by your very own claim you show that the only way one believes in such absurb propositions in the first place is to ignore all logic and reason and merely accept any proposition merely on faith alone."
So be it. Some people will not believe without seeing. And many will not believe even though they have seen. It takes a strong man, does it not, to have faith without seeing. But my faith has brought my seeing. By faith, my family was healed. So my faith has come to life. And none will sway me.
Danny, so far the only mechanism that Neo-Darwinism has to account for life is magic; the magic of spontaneous generation right along with just so facts. Whether or not evolution can account for living things does not implicitly prove that it is unguided and purposeless, nor does it prove that random genetic mutations provide the means. If you want to believe in the Darwin-of-the-gaps, fine with me. Just don’t say that creationists and I.D. proponents adhere to magic. There is a difference between a personal Creator and Peter Pan’s magic dust. If you want to put your faith in Mother Earth, then so be it (as the Wiccans say).
danny -
Did you go under the name of Bob previously? Because you sure sound like him. And in the end everyone just totally ignored him.
Prophet,
And this is why I am a non believer, as by your very own claim you show that the only way one believes in such absurb propositions in the first place is to ignore all logic and reason and merely accept any proposition merely on faith alone. So accept any proposition, especially when it lacks credible evidence is basically lying to yourself, which is akin to the function of faith. You're basically self admitting that regardless of any contradictory facts it doesn't matter as in the end....you have utter, absolute faith. Such utter blind faith can't be overcome by any sich facts as you have this afinity built around faith and that regardless of how the universe actaully works and regardless of facts, you usurp them all by miracles. or as danny put it, magic.
Sorry, but if something was truly self evident and quite obvious we wouldn't call it or define it in terms of being 'faith' or requiring 'faith' to accept them in the first place. We don't need faith to understand and know that the earth does move and that the sun doesn't rotate around it, but Galileo was persicuted b/c the clergy and their utter faith blinded them to such facts, just as today people and their faith compells them to be blinded by other facts that contradict their literalist view of the bible.
First, Truth (as I speak it) is a spiritual truth.
Second, creation (or ID as you like to call it)is not a science, but faith.
Third, both of those are lost on you since you do not walk in the spirit, nor are you a man of faith.
Prophet,
well since you're hear to spread the truth, tell me about Intelligent Design and why it's a science and in face of that why evolutionary theory isn't.
No, lol. I didn't come to her rescue. She made a good point, though her stats may have been off. I merely gave my view of that.
I didn't get off track, until ifeelfine did. Then he and I started another short conversation.
And the point you're not getting is the comment I made in response to his. He said the same thing, to which I replied:
"I'll tell you a little about my ministry. I am concerned with the hungry, poor, needful people of this world. That is why I am involved with them. My wife and I head up the CARE ministry at our church. We help the poor in whatever way we can (within reason and common sense), we mow yards, shovel snow, rake leaves, do housing improvements, give food, give clothes, and other ways of trying to meet the needs of the less fortunate in our city.
So, yes, my conscience is clear. I am going about doing my Father's will. Which includes preaching the truth."
prophet, I was always talking about population figures with star. Ifeelfine asked why star hadn’t rebutted my points and you came to her defense and in doing so you went off on a totally unrelated tangent talking about where you’re from, what you do and other totally irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the population figures discussed.
Just try to stay on topic I guess.If you want to talk about where you’re from and so on great, but those issues can’t be used in a rebuttal to answering stats, they are non sequitur. That's all I was saying, but lets past this.
"I always figured that the poor were needy, yes. But I'm trying to figure what your point is"
Oh wow, even I can see this. Prophet, he's saying that all things considered, christians get all amped up over abortion, evolution, and gays and meanwhile we have the highest level of poverty in the develope world as the poor (which are a FAAAR larger group than those that are gay or have abortions) just get ignored. He's arguing that if christians put 1/2 as much energy into destroying poverty as they do with gays, abortion and evolution it would show, but we don't see that. Even on here on christianpost, the main issues are gays, aborition and evolution it seems, meanwhile those poor folk are just some afterthought. Did I get that about right Ifeelfine?
ifeelfine,
orange's post said
"You have no idea what I do with my life, do you? Of course not, you don't even know my name, much less where I live and what I do. ‘
How exactly does this matter in determining if stars calculations are correct or not prophet? Easy, they don’t. It doesn’t matter if we don’t know who you are or where you’re from, or what you do for a living in relation to stars stats. The two are totally unrelated, thus non sequitur."
Which shows that he had no idea what you and I were talking about. Instead, he tried to thread two entirely different conversations together. He and I were talking about world population, and you and I were talking about Christian views. For some reason, he thought my comment to you on Christian views had something to do with world populations.
ifeelfine
You said earlier "They can only deal with the gays, abortion and with evolution. After all we know how much the Bible speaks of those three things. It totally ignores things like what to do about the poor and the least amongst us . . "
I always figured that the poor were needy, yes. But I'm trying to figure what your point is.
danny,
Well ok. here are some vids that make fun of Intelligent Design, but o well.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YPMwDRsfCW8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kWdvuSUMipM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
danny,
Have some respect. calling their beliefs magic is not ethical nor is even in your own interest to convince others that you're right. I think in this regard, if people are to recongnize science, particularly evolution, for what it really is it requires them to see it on their own and not be riduculed for it.
Ifeelfine,
“when are you going to answer the ERV questions that AgentOrange has asked and you promised you would answer by this past Saturday”
Oh she sort of has commented on ERV's. She reasoned god just made it that way. No rhyme, not reason, no evidence, pure faith (no offense)
But I’ll leave it up to that to her and what they’d like to discuss. If they want to discuss the impossibility of 8 people reproducing to cover not only the 2 million Jews but the rest of the world in 1012 years so be it.
Or if they want to go in the genetics direction so be it. Star, I have explained the scientific method to you and how we use it in the lab and why we don’t just go around assuming anything. Mostly I was looking forward to a reply to this or Human Chromosome 2 fusion. You mentioned god was going to let you the answer on it one of these days, so I would hope by now something has come to mind. Peace.
Proph: Many would say that being against the death penalty is against scripture (you and I both agree that the death penalty is wrong).
Proph: Did I say "needy" or "least amongst us?" You better double check.
star - Yes, I will share my testimony at some point (possibly even tonight) but not on these posts about evolution and ID. It would imply an endorsement of ID that I don't intend . . . when are you going to answer the ERV questions that AgentOrange has asked and you promised you would answer by this past Saturday?
It shouldn’t come as any surprise that Stein’s film would win an ID award. I’m looking forward to seeing it. I think that more discussion can only help the progress of science and further understanding of the different positions; positive and negative.
ifeelfine72
Why don't you give us your testimony on how you became born again. I have asked this of you two times before. Will you answer tonight?
Also, why don't you share with us what God has done in your life since you became born again. How have you grown in the Lord? What kind of ministry does God have you involved in?
It really doesn't matter so much what others might think about us, unless it is possibly true. Many false things were thought and said about Jesus, but it doesn't make what was said or thought about Him true. Jesus knew who He was, so it really didn't matter what others thought or said about Him.......now did it? Besides, He knew the truth would eventually come out in the end, and He would be vindicated.
I am just basing that on all the non-scriptural opinions you've posted on here. What have I said to make you think that I do not care about the needs of the poor and needy?
14 Put these things before them, giving them orders in the name of the Lord to keep themselves from fighting about words, which is of no profit, only causing error in their hearers. 15 Let it be your care to get the approval of God, as a workman who has no cause for shame, giving the true word in the right way. 16 But take no part in wrong and foolish talk, for those who do so will go farther into evil, 17 And their words will be like poisoned wounds in the flesh: (2 Tim 2:14-17)
And Prophet - You know nothing about me or my life and yet you say I'm not a Christian . . . just as hypocritical.
agentorange
Re:How exactly does this matter in determining if stars calculations are correct or not prophet?
Prohphet wasn't addressing your concerns for the millions of people on the planet at the time of the Exodus. He was responding to the following comments that ifeelfine72's made:
ifeelfine72:: It's because many of the "Christians" on this site are sheep. They can only deal with the gays, abortion and with evolution. After all we know how much the Bible speaks of those three things. It totally ignores things like what to do about the poor and the least amongst us . . . okay, there was a little sarcasm there! :)
Prophet - AgentOrange made it clear he knew it was me you were talking to when he referred to me as "he." . . . a little hypocritical of you to suggest that AgentOrange shouldn't comment on those posts when just last week you did the same thing! :)
19 Because the knowledge of God may be seen in them, God having made it clear to them. 20 For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, he having given the knowledge of them through the things which he has made, so that men have no reason for wrongdoing: 21 Because, having the knowledge of God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. 22 Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish.....Romans 1:19-22. Of course, one is free to read all of Romans.....and much more of the Bible. Many people who seem to be so wise will eventually be known for being foolish. The Bible tells me so.
orange,
Also (not to embarass you) but the comment I made "“You have no idea what I do with my life, do you? Of course not, you don't even know my name, much less where I live and what I do." was made to ifeelfine. It had nothing whatsoever to do with you. You came into this post without reading the history of comments that ifeelfine and I have been having, and put your foot in your mouth. When you get time, investigate what it was that ifeelfine and I were discussing before making such a faux paux.
yes ifeelfine most of the Christians on this site are sheep and we follow the Great Shepard called Christ. and what's more these sheep who truly follow this Shepard follow His words as well trying to help the poor and the downtrodden but at the same time we defend what Scripture say from the like of those like your self who do nothing but try and twist it to your own human reasoning. God still love ya tho and we will be praying for ya.
Gods Blessing
In Christ
Tom
In case you didn't realize this, but star is star. And I am me. I hope that cleared up some confusion you've had on who said what in the other post. I know it's easy to get us two confused.
orange,
You accuse me of not thinking for myself. Then when I do (such as what I did on the other post) you accuse me of not letting star think for me. Which is it? Your double mindedness amazes me.
Prophet,
Anyone want to watch prophet defend star?
www.christianpost.com/article/20080213/31176_Apologists_Ask_Churches_to_Step_Up_Response_to_Militant_Atheism.htm.
“You have no idea what I do with my life, do you? Of course not, you don't even know my name, much less where I live and what I do. ‘
How exactly does this matter in determining if stars calculations are correct or not prophet? Easy, they don’t. It doesn’t matter if we don’t know who you are or where you’re from, or what you do for a living in relation to stars stats. The two are totally unrelated, thus non sequitur.
“So, your false accusations really make you look like a fool.“
He’s saying you’re a sheep as in you have no critical thinking ability of your own to realize BS when its in your face. Your non sequitur about where you live, your name and your job makes you look even more foolish as they have NOTHING at all to do with stars calculations. The argument here is pure numbers and calculations Prophet, and it has no bearing on what you do with your spare time or live or any other non-relevant stuff.
Stick with the figures she gave and try to explain why only 1000 years post flood with 750 people some 2 million Jews wondered out of Egypt.
ifeelfine,
Your last post shows how little you know about the people who leave messages on this board. You have no idea what I do with my life, do you? Of course not, you don't even know my name, much less where I live and what I do. So, your false accusations really make you look like a fool.
Just to make you look bad, I'll tell you a little about my ministry. I am concerned with the hungry, poor, needful people of this world. That is why I am involved with them. My wife and I head up the CARE ministry at our church. We help the poor in whatever way we can (within reason and common sense), we mow yards, shovel snow, rake leaves, do housing improvements, give food, give clothes, and other ways of trying to meet the needs of the less fortunate in our city.
So, yes, my conscience is clear. I am going about doing my Father's will. Which includes preaching the truth. So, try not to open your mouth with ignorant rhetoric unless you know what you're saying.
Steve: It's because many of the "Christians" on this site are sheep. They can only deal with the gays, abortion and with evolution. After all we know how much the Bible speaks of those three things. It totally ignores things like what to do about the poor and the least amongst us . . . okay, there was a little sarcasm there! :)
What I don't understand is why the people so opposed on this site to evolution do not show the same energies in taking on other scientific disciplines. Take for example particle physics which makes some startling claims about our universe and the nature of reality at the smallest level. Those who take a literal view of the bible should be bothered by these things as they challege such views and yet they are never mentioned, why is that? For example particle physics can explain where the matter in the universe comes from. during it's first three minutes.
Ifeelfine and Star,
Using Stars own figures, this is what I got, notice the time period around 1000 years with 750 people, according to her own bible 600,000 jewish men left Egypt in Exodus. I've arranged it in this format (date = population)
Years Since flood = Predicted Population
Flood Ends
0 = 8
500 = 77
1000 = 750
1500 = 7,268
2000 = 70,398
2500 = 681,835
3000 = 6,603,855
3500 = 63,961,024
4000 = 619,488,619
4500 (today)= 6,000,000,000
“Since you do not accept the Biblical account of the history of man, then why don't you calculate what the world population would be today assuming evolution is true.”
Star, I gave you the calculations I got using your own figures, which shows at a1000 years post flood there would have been 750 people world wide !!! While the bible claims 600,000 jewish men left Egypt !!!! So obviously either your calculations are wrong, or the biblical account is wrong, or both. Deal with it.
star: You still haven't explained how there could be 2 million people on Earth 1000 years after the flood, when according to your own numbers there should only be about 750. 750 isn't anywhere near 2,000,000. So how did that happen?
Another nail for the coffin of Darwinian Evolution.
Criticism of the dogmatic belief system of the Evolutionists in academics and sciences going main stream. This could prove very interesting. This has the potential of emboldening those who have felt the heavy hand of persecution, belittling and threat from the dogmatics to begin to speak out and open the close-mindedness of our institutions to real science and truth. Students may even be emboldened to seek the truth and challenge the lies presented to them in classes.
agentorange
Re:There are other problems starting at only 6-8 people,
The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has redeemed me from sin and has changed my life.
I have served Him as a missionary for about 20 yrs of my life. I have found Him to be who He says He is. If He is true to His Word in all the areas I know Him to be in then I can have confidence that He is true to His Word in everything He says.
I do accept by faith His Word. If His Word says there was a flood 1656 yrs after the fall of Adam then I accept that.
Call me a fool if you want but it is not me who is the fool, it is the nay sayers.
Biblical Archaeologist, Ron Wyatt (now deceased), has found Noah's Ark as well as many other Biblical artifacts and geographical areas of interest mentioned in the Word of God. Truth is truth. You can deny it all you want but it will not change what truth is.
Ron Wyatt's Official Web Page: www.wyattmuseum.com
Re: as it’s impossible to explain how the pyramids of Egypt,
You don't think the Egyptians were ingenious people?
agentorange
Since you do not accept the Biblical account of the history of man, then why don't you calculate what the world population would be today assuming evolution is true.
Your perdiction for what it would be if the Biblical account was true proved to be reasonably accurate. It was more accurate than what I determined. The current figure is approximately 6.8 billion. You came up with 6 billion and I came up with 14.8 billion.
agentorange
Re:4500 (today) = 6,000,000,000
The world population today is approxiamtely 6.8 billion people which is real close to the 6 billion you calculated.
So, it is possible to repopulate the earth with only 8, really 6, people from the time of the flood.
That was something you said was impossible.
Star,
I guess I better reply to it here as well.
Here's a regular site where one can find examples to calculate the annual population growth rate between the starting and ending period that is measured and it gives examples for calculating compounding increases over time periods.
www.uoregon.edu/~rgp/PPPM613/class8a.htm
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
There are other problems starting at only 6-8 people, as it’s impossible to explain how the pyramids of Egypt, Egyptian dynasties were built. Same thing with Stonehenge it’s nearly as old. We have records of many cultures that existed prior to and after the ‘flood’.
Greek - Minoan Civilization 2000 BC to 1400 BC
Dorian Period 1400-1100 BC
Chinese- Xia Dynasty 2000 BC to 1500 BC
Shang Dynasty 1500 BC to 1027 BC
Egypt- 1st thru 12th Dynasties 2920 BC to 1759 BC
13th thru 20 th Dynasty 1759 BC to 1069 BC
Japanese - Jomon Period 13,000 BC to 300 BC
www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/populate.html
Using Stars own figures, this is what I got, notice the time period around 1000 years with 750 people, according to her own bible 600,000 jewish men left Eygpt in Exodus. I've arranged it in this format (date = population)
Years Since flood = Predicted Population
Flood Ends
0 = 8
500 = 77
1000 = 750
1500 = 7,268
2000 = 70,398
2500 = 681,835
3000 = 6,603,855
3500 = 63,961,024
4000 = 619,488,619
4500 (today) = 6,000,000,000
According to the Word, our Lord, Jesus, created the heavens and the earth and everything on it. ENOUGH SAID.
agentorange
Re:star2, quit spamming it,
You spam your Human Chromosome 2 Fusion and 7 identical ERVs on every board that deals with evolution. Why can I not do the same with my stuff that proves evolution to be a farce?
What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Right?
gee star2,
it has been 3 hours since your post on population formulas and I see one has accused you of posting to much but nobody has responded with a opposing population explanation. They must still be digging through all those books or googling.
star2, quit spamming it, if you want link people to the appologetic board so they can read it and argue it there.
www.christianpost.com/article/20080213/31176_Apologists_Ask_Churches_to_Step_Up_Response_to_Militant_Atheism.htm
star:
Try to consolidate your points. Nobody is going to waste their time with your 1000-word-long rants. This is not the right venue for that sort of thing.
Evolutionists
Part 1
Re: The current population of the earth is approximately 6.8 billion people. Did the current population come about from Evolution or, as the Word of God says, from the Earth being repopulated by just 6 people (Noah's 3 sons and their respective wives) after the worldwide flood that occured 1656 years after the fall of Adam?
This is something that we can determine mathematically.
Data Sources:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The Population Growth Formula at for a length of time t is:
P(t) = Po e^rt
where
P(t) = Population at time t
Po = Initial population
r = Average rate of population growth per year
t = Time
According to my sources the current world population growth is 1.3%.
In 1963, it was 2.2%.
Obviously, the world population growth is not constant. It can vary greatly for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons would be famine, war, diseases, natural disasters, and etc..
Man has been keeping records of the world population since 1750. Here is the data:
1750 : 791,000,000
1800: 978,000,000
1850: 1,262,000,000
1900: 1,650,000,000
1950: 2,521,000,000
1999: 5,978,000,000
2008: 6,800,000,000
Let's compute the average annual growth rate, r, by solving for r in the Population Growth Formula, P(t) = Po e^rt.
P(t)/Po = e^rt
taking the natural log of each side and dividing by t,we have
r = ln[P(t)/Po]/t
I computed the average annual rate of growth, r, in terms of percentages for each of the following time periods:
1750 - 1800: 0.42%
1800 - 1850: 0.51%
1850 - 1900: 0.54%
1900 - 1950: 0.8%
1950 - 1999: 1.76%
1999 - 2008: 1.43% (quite close to the current 1.3%)
We can see that it is not constant and, of course, unpredictable. So, I calculated the average annual rate of growth from 1750 to 2008 and found it to be 0.83%.
1750 - 2008: 0.83%
Evolutionists
Part 2
Now, Agentorange has previously said to me ".... cosomology, astronomy, geology kill any notion of a 6000 year old universe/earth and biology and genetics kills the idea of 8 people repopulating the earth only 4000 years ago..."
Let's see if that is true.
Recall,
P(t) = Po e^rt
From the Biblical record, I have determined that the amount of time that transpired from the fall of Adam to the time of the flood was 1656 years.
Even though there were 8 people saved during the world wide flood only 6 were used in repopulating the Earth. The Biblical record does not mention that Noah and his wife had any children after the flood. Thus, we can conclude that the Earth was repopulated by Noah's three sons and their respective wives.
We really don't know exactly how much time has transpired since the fall of Adam. However, we, YEC, believe that it has been approximately 6000 years.
Most likely the average annual growth rate probably has changed since the flood until present time. So, to account for wars, diseases, famine, natural disasters, ethnic cleansing, etc let us assume that the the average rate is 60% of the 0.83% rate from 1750 to 2008.
From this information
P(t) - Population at 6000 yrs or 2008 AD
Po = 6
r = 60% of 0.83% = 0.6 x 0.0083 = .00498
t = 6000 - 1656 = 4344 yrs
let us now calculate what the world population would be in year 6000 from the time of the flood.
P(t) = Po e^rt
P(6000) = 6 e^(0.00498)(4344) = 6 e^21.63 = (6)(2476222375) = 14,857,334,250
We see that the population grew from 6 people to approximately 14.8 billion people.
Now, this number is almost twice as much than what we have today, 6.8 billion. The guess I made as to what the average annual growth rate was was a little too high.
So, mathematically, after the flood, it is possible to replenish the Earth with only 6 people after the world wide flood.
Evolutionists
Part 3
Let's see what the Earth's population would be today if Evolution was correct.
There is differences of opinion as to when the first humans appeared. I have heard millions of years, 200,000 years, 190,000, 180,000, and 160,000 years.
Let's just pick the 190,000 years.
Let us assume that through macro evolution only 2 humans appeared, one male and one female.
Because these two humans didn't have the technological advances that Noah's three sons had and they had to develop their language skills, technology skills, etc. from scratch, let us say that their average population growth from the time of their appearance until now was 0.05% instead of the 0.498% that was used for Noah's sons.
The value of the variables are as follows:
P(t) = Population after 190,000 yrs.
Po = 2
r = 0.05% = 0.0005
t = 190,000
Substituting these values into the equation, we have
P(2008 AD) = 2 e^(0.0005)(190000) = 2 e^95 = 2 (1.81 x 10^41) = 3.62 x 10^41.
According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.62 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9.
Conclusion: The Biblical account of the history of man is true. Evolution's account is false.
That should say, "HAVE no bearing..."
Karl:
1. The historical circumstances in which evolution was first proposed has no bearing whatsoever on its truth or falsity. Democritus was the first to argue that everything was made up of atoms, and even though his argument was completely unscientific, he turned out to be right.
2. You say that the entire universe has been devolving—and presumably you're invoking the second law of thermodynamics to back up this claim. The second law of thermodynamics only says that entropy does not decrease in an isolated system. The earth is NOT an isolated system. There is a huge amount of energy feeding biological evolution. It comes from that nuclear reactor we call the sun!
3. Don't be redundant.
Your link to the website of some kinesiologist (!) from the Creation Science Institute does not impress me.
"The entire universe, viable and nonviable alike, has always devolved, the exact opposite and excluder of evolved."
Worst comment ever.....what does the status of the Universe (which we know from Hubble and Spitzter telescopes has actually changed over time from a lowerd complexity to the higher level of complexity) have ANYTHING to do with evolution of organic biological systems on Earth? NOTHING.
1. Evolution was invented by Anaximander 2,500 years ago as an extension of the Gaea, Mother Earth, religion.
2. The entire universe, viable and nonviable alike, has always devolved, the exact opposite and excluder of evolved.
3. Every event in this universe is a devolutional event because some of the converted energy is lost to future events.
Biology eliminates evolution.
See: http://www.josephmastropaolo.com/
Yes I know left "off" on the movie title
Forget the award what about the line
"who is also known for his lead role in the film “Ferris Bueller’s Day,”
Okay I've seen the movie and no way des he have a lead role, as Stan lee used to say "nuff said"
Steve
PZ Myers gives a fit summary of this piece of "news."
"It's a fake award by a fake college named after an infamous creationist and now given to a second-rate character actor. It's the creationist version of the Nobel Prize!"
His movie isn't even out yet (some say not even finished yet), and already a "Bible college" is giving him an award named after the leading evolution denier? Does anybody else find this vaguely disturbing?
It has already been reported that the movie is so bad that the film makers are bribing church schools to organize mandatory field trips and force the children to watch the film. Others have compared "Expellled" to such breakthrough films as the Coral Ridge Ministries' "From Darwin to Hitler," "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will." But we will have to wait to see, won't we?
Ben Stein did not have a lead role in Ferris Bueller’s Day (Off). One has to wonder if the rest of this story is as inaccurate as this error.